It appears that both France and the Netherlands will reject the proposed EU Constitution before the end of the current week. That would, one would imagine, kill the much maligned document. After all, those two countries are founding membrs of the EU, and represent large chunk out of a united Europe. The political leaders of Europe, though, are seeking to impose the document over the objections of the people.

There remains a remote chance that the people of France and the Netherlands will confound the opinion polls and endorse the constitution. But it is far more likely that, by the end of this week, two of the unionÂ’s founding members will have rejected the 474-page tome that was cobbled together after years of wrangling and which, our leaders would have us believe, paves the way for a more democratic and more accountable European Union.

However, it does not take a Eurosceptic to notice that at the first sign that their constitution might get thrown out, EuropeÂ’s politicians and bureaucrats take flight from democracy and seek refuge in the more comfortable world of inter-governmental negotiations. The constitution that is trumpeted as a triumph in democracy will not be allowed to suffer defeat at the hands of the people.

That is, of course, emblematic of the problem of the political Left in most parts of the world. So certain are they that their prescriptions for a better society are right and righteous, they will go to great lengths to implement their schemes over the objections of those that the plans allegedly benefit. Anything that stands in their way -- including the people themselves -- is simply dismissed as an obstacle to democracy. But let's be clear about one thing. Any further movement towards implementing the EU Constitution if either of the two countries ratifies it is a blow to real democracy.

What is the problem with the document? Why haven't people embraced it? I think this is the problem.

Above all, though, it is a document that few Europeans will actually read, even if they are determined to. And therein lies its central problem: a constitution, whose supporters claim will bring the institutions of Europe closer to its people, will forever be distant, unloved and largely unread

A 447 page document, written in legalese by lawyers and bureaucrats, will not gain the support of the people. The average European will never understand it. In short, it will not be a social contract. It will be the antithesis of the US Constitution.

Consider our Constitution. It is short, written in language that the average American can understand, and delineates functions and limits that the people embrace. That is what makes the government legitimate in the eyes of most Americans. We may disagree with the policies and practices of the government, but it is the Constitution that renders those things legitimate in our eyes.

Americans accept court decisions that they dislike when they are rendered in accord with that document and are rooted in it. It is only when the roots of a decision are not clearly and firmly planted in Constitutional soil that large segments of the people stand in opposition. That was the problem with Dred Scott, with Roe v. Wade, and with Lawrence v. Texas. That was the reason for the outcry over the recent Simmons case and its use of foreign law. It is the problem with the current cases moving towards a judicially created "right" to homosexual marriage. We Americans are familiar enough with our Constitution that we will not accept when it is transgressed.

What do the Europeans need to do to make an acceptable Constitution? Go back and make it shorter, less complex, and more accessible. Keep it simple and clear. Make it a document that the people of Europe can know and love. Only then will the people of Europe embrace it.

UPDATE -- France rejects the EU Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

Columnist John Leo provides one of the most insightful explanations of what is at stake in the current battle for the courts. I've tried to say this many times, and wish that I had put it as well.

Democrats try to frame their case by saying that Republicans are attacking the independence of the judiciary. Not true. They are attacking the process by which the policy preferences of the left are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. The current moment may be the one historic opportunity that the Republicans will have to halt and reverse this severe damage to the courts. If they blow this chance out of timidity or bipartisan niceness, many of us will conclude that the GOP is not really a serious party entitled to our support.

The GOP is trying to save the judiciary -- really the entire American system. Will they have the intestinal fortitude to do it?

Posted by: Greg at 08:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

There is no need for any Republican to feel bound by the shameful bargain made last Monday to prevent use of the Constitutional Option to break the judicial filibuster. Harry Reid broke it Monday night

In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?

Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, declined.

Details of Reid's attempt to kill the two nominations within minutes of the agreement, as well as other events during this tumultuous time, were obtained by The Associated Press in interviews with senators and aides in both parties. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing confidentiality pledges.

The conversation in Reid's office was among the final acts of a drama that played out unpredictably over several weeks. It culminated in a deal that cleared the way for votes on some nominees long blocked by Democrats, left other nominees in limbo and averted a bruising fight over the Senate's filibuster rules.

Now let's look at this. Reid exacted commitments from some of the Democrats who signed on to filibuster certain judges. That goes against the "extraordinary circumstances" pledge, as well as the "own discretion and judgement" provision. That goes against the clear understanding that had been reached.

The deal is therefore dead -- and when Half-Truth Harry got several of the Democrat signatories to break it Monday night.

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | Comments (111) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

I wish that I didn't have to write an entry with such a title. After all, that the First Amendment protects religious citizens should be crystal clear to everyone. Unfortunately, it isn't clear to many public officials.

Take this case in Contra Costa County out in California, where any group of citizens can reserve a room for public meetings on any topic, free of charge -- except for religious groups, which were forbidden to use the library at all.

A federal judge has ordered Contra Costa County to let religious groups use its public rooms for meetings in a case involving the Antioch Library.

The county says use of its public spaces for religious purposes violates its policies and it will continue to fight a lawsuit demanding access.

Last year it banned a religious group from the community meeting room at the Antioch Library and the group went to court to assert its free speech rights.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled this week that when the county makes available a room in a library, it cannot enforce a policy that bans religious purposes. His preliminary order issued Tuesday remains in effect while the parties continue to litigate the case.

The ruling affects libraries with meeting rooms managed by county library staffers. Libraries with meeting rooms managed by cities, such as Danville, San Ramon, Moraga and Orinda, are not affected, said Kelly Flanagan, a Contra Costa deputy counsel.

So let's be real clear here -- the reason for exclusion from the rooms was the religious content of the speech that was going to take place. That is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment rights of the group that sought to reserve teh room, and of every other religious group that sought (or might have sought) to use the library. In effect, it establishes atheism as the official religion of the library system.

Even the God-haters agree with that position.

The government cannot exclude groups "simply because they have a religious viewpoint," said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that opposes religion in government.

"They had a policy from the get-go that discriminated against religious groups," he said. "We don't often agree with Alliance Defense Fund, but in this case, they have a point."

The fact that the library system plans on appealing this common sense ruling shows the depth of their bias. I wonder if the judge can be persuaded to order "sensitivity training" for library empoyees.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

It is about time that Priscilla Owen, that fine justice of the Texas Supreme Court, has finally been confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Senate on Wednesday approved Judge Priscilla Owen for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, more than four years after President Bush first nominated her.

The vote was 56-43.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist congratulated Owen and praised her as gracious, patient, bold and courageous.

"The fact that she is willing to put herself forward and has been beaten up mercilessly on the floor of the United States Senate but has stood tall ... says a lot for her," Frist said.

But Lincoln Chafee gave us one more reason to toss him from the GOP Caucus. He voted with the Democrats, in another cowardly betrayal of his party and his president.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

Now I understand that the two police chiefs in New Hampshire who have filed trespassing charges against illegal border jumpers have engaged in creative interpretation of the law that could be called “constabulary activism”.

And I’ll even concede that there is a question of whether state and local law enforcement officials have the jurisdiction to enforce federal laws (for example, a friend’s former roommate held her mail hostage after she moved out in a dispute over a phone bill, and the city cops rightly pointed out that they generally lacked jurisdiction over cases of tampering with or stealing mail).

But surely there is no dispute that those in this country in violation of our nation’s laws and borders are NOT citizens.

But then again, maybe there is.

LouAnn Fornataro had harsh words for the police.
“The people of New Hampshire ought to be outraged,” she said. “These chiefs of police have become vigilantes. The fact that they wear badges does not make them less than vigilantes. A law-enforcement officer has the responsibility to protect citizens from vigilantes. At the moment the vigilantes in New Ipswich and Hudson are wearing badges.”

Uh, Lou Ann – they aren’t citizens. That is precisely the problem. They are foreign criminals and invaders who are breaking American law, and the police departments in those two towns are trying to see to it that the laws of this country are enforced by the proper authorities. That isn’t being a vigilante – that is being a good cop and a good citizen.

And if you think being a border-jumping illegal invader is the same as being a US citizen, then you are clearly either nuts or stupid. Which is it?

And by the way, you will love this absurd quote, too.

Before stopping in Hudson with a petition signed by over 100 people, the task force went to New Ipswich, where they presented a similar petition to Chamberlain. Mark MacKenzie, a spokesman for the task force, said the citations sent the wrong message to the rest of the country.
“And the message is not receiving a lot of support. Immigration is a complicated issue. People are in different phases of the immigration process trying to become legal citizens of this country,” MacKenzie said.

Uh, immigration may be a complex issue, but let me clarify something for you. Those who are actually in the immigration process trying to become legal citizens are not what the issue is here. They are not being cited. The folks getting the citations, and objected to by most Americans, are those who are NOT in the process of trying to become legal citizens, who are NOT here legally, and are therefore VIOLATING THE LAW. Until you and your fellow advocates of open borders deal with that minor detail, you won’t get very far with most of us.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 480 words, total size 3 kb.

Now I understand that the two police chiefs in New Hampshire who have filed trespassing charges against illegal border jumpers have engaged in creative interpretation of the law that could be called “constabulary activism”.

And IÂ’ll even concede that there is a question of whether state and local law enforcement officials have the jurisdiction to enforce federal laws (for example, a friendÂ’s former roommate held her mail hostage after she moved out in a dispute over a phone bill, and the city cops rightly pointed out that they generally lacked jurisdiction over cases of tampering with or stealing mail).

But surely there is no dispute that those in this country in violation of our nationÂ’s laws and borders are NOT citizens.

But then again, maybe there is.

LouAnn Fornataro had harsh words for the police.
“The people of New Hampshire ought to be outraged,” she said. “These chiefs of police have become vigilantes. The fact that they wear badges does not make them less than vigilantes. A law-enforcement officer has the responsibility to protect citizens from vigilantes. At the moment the vigilantes in New Ipswich and Hudson are wearing badges.”

Uh, Lou Ann – they aren’t citizens. That is precisely the problem. They are foreign criminals and invaders who are breaking American law, and the police departments in those two towns are trying to see to it that the laws of this country are enforced by the proper authorities. That isn’t being a vigilante – that is being a good cop and a good citizen.

And if you think being a border-jumping illegal invader is the same as being a US citizen, then you are clearly either nuts or stupid. Which is it?

And by the way, you will love this absurd quote, too.

Before stopping in Hudson with a petition signed by over 100 people, the task force went to New Ipswich, where they presented a similar petition to Chamberlain. Mark MacKenzie, a spokesman for the task force, said the citations sent the wrong message to the rest of the country.
“And the message is not receiving a lot of support. Immigration is a complicated issue. People are in different phases of the immigration process trying to become legal citizens of this country,” MacKenzie said.

Uh, immigration may be a complex issue, but let me clarify something for you. Those who are actually in the immigration process trying to become legal citizens are not what the issue is here. They are not being cited. The folks getting the citations, and objected to by most Americans, are those who are NOT in the process of trying to become legal citizens, who are NOT here legally, and are therefore VIOLATING THE LAW. Until you and your fellow advocates of open borders deal with that minor detail, you wonÂ’t get very far with most of us.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

Would somebody tell me how these folks missed 9/11, al-Qaeda and the rest of the reasons behind the War on Terrorism?

Conservative bias in the American news media is "not simply a matter of taste, but of life and death," a panel of liberal radio talk show hosts and representatives of leftist organizations told a group of Democrats on Tuesday.

"There is no more urgent problem facing America today," stated Mark Lloyd, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), one of 10 panelists who spoke on "Media Bias and the Future of Freedom of the Press."

Gee, the fact that you folks donÂ’t control the media any longer is a greater threat than those who hijack planes and crash them into buildings, a greater threat than those whose avowed aim is the destruction of the United States and its liberties. Seems to me that you have a really confused set of priorities.

And what is even more disturbing is that this little shindig was sponsored by a senior Congressional Democrat, John Conyers. I love this minor detail.

No individual or group dedicated to the monitoring of liberal media bias was invited to the event, though Conyers said he might invite "an independent or a Republican" at a similar forum in six months.

So, you want to talk about media bias without inviting those who might dispute your preconceived biases. After all, allowing conservatives to dispute the assertions of folks like Randi Rhodes, an Air America host who has twice been responsible for threats against the life of the President on her show, would certainly have created a different picture than what you people wanted to set forth. What you have explicitly and intentionally done is set up a biased forum (which you claim is wrong when it is done by the media – how much worse is it when done by a government official?) and plan on doing so again in the future, with perhaps a token representative just to give a patina of fairness.

And it was Rhodes who set out the agenda of the Left – a regime of politically based censorship targeted at the conservative media, explicitly designed to prop up the Democrat Party.

She had three recommendations for addressing media bias. The first was for Congress to adopt standards for labeling a broadcast as news instead of opinion or commentary.

"Second, I think we need to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which served this country well from 1949 through 1987" by guaranteeing "competing viewpoints on issues of public importance."

Rhodes' final suggestion was "to protect our journalists," who "must be free to report and never be penalized with lost access to the people they cover or with retribution from partisan employers.

"If you fail to act," she told the liberal U.S. representatives in attendance, "I will be a member of a minority party for a very long time. That is, if the two-party system can survive this new propaganda machine called the news."

Let’s look at this scheme, which Rhodes tells us is designed to help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. She wants the government to decide what constitutes news and what constitutes opinion in the media – never mind that much of the “objective” news coming out of the mainstream media has an explicitly anti-conservative spin to it, despite the fact that Rhodes and her fellow Leftists view it as too conservative because it doesn’t tip far enough their direction. She wants the government to tell the broadcast media what they must broadcast by reimposing the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” – something that would be anathema if applied to the print media. Lastly, she wants the government to control hiring and firing decisions in the media, and to force people to talk with reporters against their will – thereby giving members of the media greater rights to access to public officials and document than an ordinary citizen.

But I do think we owe the participants in this little hate-fest a debt of gratitude. After all, they have shown us just how hostile the American Left is to American values. They have shown us how stupid they believe the American public to be – after all, we cannot be trusted to sift fact from opinion or falsehood, and so they want the government to do it on our behalf, just like in Cuba, China, and North Korea.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 5 kb.

Looks like the Left in this country are up to their old tricks again, trying to define “extraordinary circumstances” in such a way as to be understood as “any Republican nominee with ethics.”

Within minutes of the deal's announcement Monday night, NARAL Pro-Choice America announced that "extraordinary circumstances" should include any nominees who don't state their positions on Roe v. Wade, the court case that made abortion a constitutional right. Other liberals have defined "extraordinary circumstances" as any vacancy on the Supreme Court.

It seems clear, then, that the Left is insisting that the “deal” to end the filibusters was no deal, but instead a complete capitulation by the GOP. If the seven Democrats who signed on to this deal do, in fact, follow the lead of these outside the mainstream extreme left-wing groups, then it will be necessary for some of the GOP Senators who betrayed the GOP to admit that they were chumps who got rolled by their own dishonorable colleagues. Will they have the courage and integrity to do so? The fact that they made this bargain in the first place makes me doubt that they will have the courage to admit their mistake.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

After this dastardly sell-out of the Constitution and the President's judicial nominees, I join Patterico.

The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.

I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.

That is my solemn pledge to you.

I urge others to take the Patterico Pledge!

(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin & Martin America)

UPDATE: Patrick Carver over at Southern Appeal posts the following information about the "moderates" who conspired to deliver the unkindest cut of all in the Senate.

For those of you wondering when the Gang of Seven GOPers are up for re-election and think they deserve a primary battle with a true conservative, here's a list:

2006
Chafee (RI)
DeWine (OH)
Snowe (ME)
2008
Graham (SC)
Collins (ME)
Warner (VA)
2010
McCain (AZ)

Keep in mind Warner and McCain may not run for re-election, so replacing with consistant conservative should be easier but those elections are a long way off.

Have they smeared their hands and arms with the blood of their victims, clear up to the elbows? Do we now hear them cry "Peace, freedom and liberty!" as they go about proclaiming themselves the boldest and best hearts of Rome America?

These seven must be made to pay for their betrayal. Can the caucus strip them of their chairmanships? Will the President cut them out of any role in nominating judges in their own states? In short, does the GOP have the will to do something about those who would undercut their own party and president?

Text of the crooked, backroom bargain at GOPBloggers.

Live blogging at Blogs For Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 03:38 PM | Comments (87) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Time to dump McCain and the rest of his moderate crew. We get less than half of our nominees, the Democrats keep the filibuster, and the Constitution is raped again by those who have no fidelity to it.

Averting a showdown, centrists from both parties reached agreement Monday night on a compromise that clears the way for confirmation votes on many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, leaves others in limbo and preserves venerable Senate filibuster rules.

"In a Senate that is increasingly polarized, the bipartisan center held," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.

"The Senate is back in business," echoed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of 14 senators who signed the two-page memorandum of agreement, which cited "mutual trust and confidence."

Under the terms, Democrats would agree to oppose any attempt to filibuster - and thus block final votes - on the confirmation of Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservative nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers.

As for future nominees, the agreement said they should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules.

And no doubt "extraordinary circumstances" means any time half-Truth Harry, Ted the Drunk, Leaky Leahy and the rest of the lackies of the hard Left tell them to support a filibuster.

Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin, Scared Monkeys , Ace of Spades & Buzz Blog.

Text of the crooked, backroom bargain at GOPBloggers.

Live blogging at Blogs For Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

I continue to be appalled that our putative allies, the Israelis, keep attempting to liberate an American traitor.

First Lady Gila Katzav, wife of Israeli President Moshe Katzav, gave her American counterpart, Laura Bush, a letter signed by 13 Members of Knesset demanding the release of Jonathan Pollard from federal prison.

***

Just prior to her visit to the Temple Mount, the two First Ladies spent a few moments together at the Western Wall. Mrs. Bush placed a note in a crevice of the holy site, an undisclosed message which she reportedly wrote on the plane on her way to Israel.

As she approached the Wall, Bush encountered a group of young female demonstrators calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard. Pollard is a former intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy who risked his career and freedom to pass sensitive security information to Israel. Since his conviction in a plea bargain arrangement in 1986, Pollard has been serving a life sentence in federal prison.

As she entered the wall area, the girls chanted, “Free Pollard Now.” At the same time, a group of men held a similar demonstration in the plaza opposite the Wall.

The letter demanding Pollard’s release that Gila Katzav gave to Laura Bush was initiated by MK Gila Finkelstein (National Religious Party). “We’re happy that Katzav did not act in the manner of [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, and did not forget to hand over the letter,” said Finkelstein.

Israel needs to understand that further attempts to liberate the traitor Pollard will not be looked upon favorably by the American people. My forgiveness of Israel for its betrayal of the US is grudging at best, as I have explained in the past. Much of the material Pollard stole for money ended up in the hands of AmericaÂ’s enemies. Any deal that allows for PollardÂ’s release is, in my opinion, grounds for impeachment.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m confused. When Conservative politicians and Christians use churches to host political gatherings, the Left starts yammering about “theocracy.” What, then, is this political gathering in a church sanctuary to discuss political matters, sponsored by and featuring pastors and politicians?

After the Sunday service at Antioch Baptist Church, the pastors turned their pulpit over to opponents of President Bush's proposals to change Social Security.

Nearly 100 congregation and community members attended an afternoon meeting in the church's main sanctuary, where they heard from Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Cleveland Democrat; Cleveland AFL-CIO Executive Secretary John Ryan; and Cleveland NAACP Executive Director Stanley Miller, among others.

But wait – there’s more to it.

The Rev. Marvin McMickle, the church's pastor, later said that he was one of more than 100 clergy who met with Tubbs Jones in February, when she urged them to discuss Social Security with their congregations.

He said he agreed to do so because the issue affects the lives of his church's members.

So I have to ask the question – is the stand against “theocracy” taken by the Left based upon principle, or is it simply that they don’t want Christians who might vote Republican to participate in the political process?

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m confused. When Conservative politicians and Christians use churches to host political gatherings, the Left starts yammering about “theocracy.” What, then, is this political gathering in a church sanctuary to discuss political matters, sponsored by and featuring pastors and politicians?

After the Sunday service at Antioch Baptist Church, the pastors turned their pulpit over to opponents of President Bush's proposals to change Social Security.

Nearly 100 congregation and community members attended an afternoon meeting in the church's main sanctuary, where they heard from Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Cleveland Democrat; Cleveland AFL-CIO Executive Secretary John Ryan; and Cleveland NAACP Executive Director Stanley Miller, among others.

But wait – there’s more to it.

The Rev. Marvin McMickle, the church's pastor, later said that he was one of more than 100 clergy who met with Tubbs Jones in February, when she urged them to discuss Social Security with their congregations.

He said he agreed to do so because the issue affects the lives of his church's members.

So I have to ask the question – is the stand against “theocracy” taken by the Left based upon principle, or is it simply that they don’t want Christians who might vote Republican to participate in the political process?

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

My gag reflex got a good workout while reading this report on the completion of a hagiographic work on the life and career of Senator Robert Byrd -- The Soul of the Senate.

Four years in the making, the first documentary about the life of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., will premiere Saturday at the Clay Center in Charleston.

In its 58 minutes, “The Soul of the Senate” blends photographs and vignettes from Byrd’s early life as a boy and young state legislator to his role on the national and world stage today. It offers comments from many of his present and former colleagues.

Produced by MotionMasters and the West Virginia Humanities Council, the film is billed as “a story of strength and fortitude. A story of the orphan who became orator. The produce clerk turned statesman. A coal miner’s son who rose, with a bow and fiddle in hand, to be a giant in the United States government.”

Some historic shots were discovered in the massive television video archives WSAZ-TV has given to the Cultural Center in Charleston and Marshall University in Huntington.

“It was a treasure hunt,” said Diana Sole of MotionMasters.

“We had to pry some of those old [video] cans open. We found one film of Senator Byrd a week before he was sworn into the Senate.”

Sole also used footage taken by Bill Drennan and Mike Willard. In the mid-1980s, they worked on, but never finished, a documentary they planned to call “A Day in the Life of Senator Byrd.”

Photographs show Byrd playing his fiddle, leading Appropriations Committee hearings and walking with Erma, who married him nearly 68 years ago in 1937. A particularly colorful clip shows Erma watching her husband play fiddle on the television show “Hee-Haw.”

“Soul of the Senate” highlights moments in Byrd’s life from his graduation as valedictorian from Mark Twain High School in Stotesbury in 1934, to being congratulated by President John F. Kennedy as he received his law degree at American University in 1963, to chairing major committee hearings in the U.S. Senate.

Actor James Brolin adds an effective narration to the documentary, which also boasts an original musical score.

I've no doubt that this will leave out his time as an active Klansman, his filibuster of civil rights legislation, his record of voting against every black man ever nominated for the US Supreme Court., and his repeated public use of racial slurs. Sadly, a copy will be placed in every secondary school library in West Virginia, where future generations of West Virginians will be misinformed about this great blemish on the history of their state.

And may I be permitted to say that if Robert Byrd is truly the soul of the Senate, the institution is a shriveled, dessicated piece of excrement which deserves to be repudiated by every supporter of freedom, equality, and American patriotism.

Michelle Malkin and HundredPercenter News also comment.

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Maryland Republicans want Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to run for Senate. They are likely to get their wish.

Prominent national Republican leaders are pressuring Mr. Steele to run. He has gotten entreaties from President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and from Sen. Elizabeth Dole, North Carolina, on behalf of the party's senatorial campaign committee. The story is the same at the state level.

"I certainly am urging Lt. Gov. Steele to run," said John M. Kane, chairman of the Maryland Republican Party. "He would be a fresh choice, a fresh face for Maryland."

Mr. Kane believes Mr. Steele will run and if so does not expect other prominent Republicans will challenge.

Mr. Steele was mostly unknown outside Republican Party circles until Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. asked him to join the party ticket for the 2002 election. Since then, Mr. Steele has gotten a lot of press exposure, including national attention as the party's top elected black official.

Mr. Steele declined to be interviewed but said he is seriously considering the race. Pollsters and political analysts think he would be a strong candidate.

"The Republican Party at all levels would be well served to persuade Michael Steele that he ought to carry the Republican banner," said Keith Haller, president of Potomac Survey Research. A poll taken last month by the company showed Mr. Steele running about even with three Democrats -- U.S. Reps. Benjamin L. Cardin and Chris Van Hollen, and former Rep. Kweisi Mfume.

Mr. Cardin and Mr. Mfume, former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, have announced they're seeking the Democratic nomination, while Mr. Van Hollen is considering a bid.

Steele is a solid conservative on social issues, though he is not a supporter of the death penalty. While some analysts think his positions to the right of Gov. Erlich might hurt him, they also note that he will likely have a $15-18 million warchest with which to bolster his campaign.

Some on the Left are already attacking him, using two of the favorite strategies of Democrat bigots, the Catholic card and the Uncle Tom card. Here's hoping that a majority of Maryland voters are wiling to do what a majority of Maryland Republicans have long done -- set aside hate-based politics and give this well-qualified man their votes.

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Bill Clements was elected governor of Texas -- the first Republican since Reconctruction -- because of a split among Democrats which was exacerbated by an ugly primary challenge to a sitting governor. The result, over the next two decades, was the rise of the GOP juggernaut in this state that we know and love, one which provided the launch-pad for the career of the current president. What does that bit of history have to tell us about the threatened primary fight between Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison? Clements himself provides us with the answers.

Make no mistake, if Texas Republicans have a blood bath in a primary battle between Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry, we Republicans are providing the Democrats an opening for them to make a speedy comeback to political prominence. Further, we risk dividing our party for decades to come. This is serious business, and Republicans should take heed.

Some observers point out that Republicans have had contested gubernatorial primaries. It is true. I've been in several, including 1978. But those were tame. Every indication suggests a Perry-Hutchison primary would be something very different. Something no one but partisan Democrats would enjoy.

Discipline, focus and teamwork have been at the foundation of Republican success in recent years. Texas Republicans are the majority. We are elected to run the state government, and we win more and more local seats every year. In Harris County, important gains have been made locally. If we lose our focus, if we fight each other, we may end up with a result few experts believe is possible. Believe me, I have a unique perspective on this subject.

Clements then goes on to heartily endorse the reelection of both Perry and Hutchison to their current positions. I cannot help but agree with him. The seniority Hutchison has in the Senate is beneficial to both Texas and the United States as a whole. Perry has been, on balance, a good governor, providing fiscally conservative leadership for the state despite the back-stabbing betrayal of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and a host of anti-homeowner legislators such who have steadfastly opposed property tax relief.

Nearly three decades ago, the Democrats gave Texas Republicans the opening they needed to become the governing party in this state. We Republicans must not do the same for the Democrats today. It is important that we heed the words of a man who we put in the Governor's Mansion for eight of the 27 years since the Democrats imploded, lest we fall victim to the same sort of internal conflict.

Posted by: Greg at 04:27 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

Nevada, like all 50 states, has two senators. John Ensign is a Republican in his first term, while Harry Reid, a Democrat, is the Senate Minority Leader. Which one do you suppose the Las Vegas Review-Journal is praising for being reasonable, and which is accused of engaging in paranoid hysteria?

If Nevadans wanted an accurate, abridged version of the Senate's debate over filibusters and judicial nominations, they needed only to watch their two senators on Wednesday.

Admittedly, John Ensign, a Republican, and Harry Reid, a Democrat, have decidedly different roles in the showdown. Sen. Ensign, in his first term in the upper house, is a rank-and-file member of the majority, while Sen. Reid, the minority leader, is the obstructionist left's commander in chief. But their comments on the Senate floor provided a defining contrast amid the blustery arguments.

Majority Republicans want to change Senate rules to prevent Democrats from taking the unprecedented step of blocking President Bush's judicial nominations with the unlimited debate of a filibuster. The president and majority leaders believe that because these nominees have majority support in the Senate, each should be entitled to a confirmation vote.

At the root of this confrontation is Democrats' lingering bitterness over another election defeat. They simply can't get over the fact that a majority of Americans have given Republicans control of both the White House and Congress. So Sen. Reid and his dwindling number of followers, desperate to hand some kind of defeat to a president they despise, have characterized a handful of judicial nominees as right-wing extremists. Their rhetoric comes across as paranoid hysteria.

"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power," Sen. Reid said in his speech. "And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the president's nominees in general ... and legislation like Social Security privatization."

Unchecked power? That's how it's described when Republicans simply exercise the majority status bestowed upon them by the American people?

Sen. Ensign delivered measured, reasonable remarks. He lamented that qualified jurists are increasingly uninterested in federal appointments because of the nasty games played in Washington -- for example, when Sen. Reid said that one nominee's confidential FBI file contained troubling allegations. Sen. Ensign urged that both parties come together and devise a system in which every nominee -- whether put forth by a Republican or Democratic president -- gets the courtesy of a vote.

"It is important for the American people and for our justice system that the Senate be allowed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to give these nominees an up or down vote," Sen. Ensign said.

Sen. Ensign's arguments win this debate.

The issue here is clear -- a minority cannot be allowed to keep a majority from confirming judges because it is unwilling to accept the results of the last four American elections, in which the American people have placed the GOP in power. The time has come to slap-down the unAmerican element of the Left which refuses to allow the the President elected by the American people and the Senators elected by the American people to carry out their constitutionally prescribed duties.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

Out complaining that Bush Administration is the focus of evil in the world, no doubt. Certainly too busy to be concerned about this new report from Freedom House.

Women face a pervasive lack of freedom in the Arab world and no country in the region meets international standards for protecting their rights, human rights activists charged on Saturday.

Freedom House, a U.S.-based group, said a study of countries in the broader Middle East and North Africa had found that women were disadvantaged in nearly all areas of society, including justice, the economy, education, healthcare and media.

The study, which was distributed at a World Economic Forum regional meeting in Jordan, called for Arab governments to eliminate discriminatory laws and remove barriers to women participating in politics and business.

Sameena Nazir, editor of the report, said such moves were necessary both as a matter of principle and in order to make moves towards democracy in the region meaningful.

"Women are half the population of the Middle East," she told Reuters in an interview. "If they are not part of the democratisation process in a full capacity, the process will be incomplete.

The study ranked 16 Arab countries, the West Bank and Gaza on various areas such as access to justice, economic rights and social and cultural rights.

Only three countries -- Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria -- scored at or above a level described as reflecting "imperfect adherence" to universally accepted rights standards in more than one category.

Many countries, notably Saudi Arabia and some fellow Gulf states, had very low scores.

So while the supposed crusaders for women's rights are out here complaining that there are folks here who want a minor child to get parental consent before an abortion (just like she would need for any other surgical procedure), women in Saudi Arabia cannot even get medical treatment at a hospital for life-threatening emergencies without the consent of a male relative.

But I guess the NOW hags have their priorities -- consequence-free sex for children matters so much more than the lives and health of women.

Posted by: Greg at 04:42 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

I canÂ’t help but wonder what would have been said if Ken Starr had made speeches raising money for GOP-related groups during the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations. Even though he was scrupulously fair and honest in the investigation, the Left screamed bloody murder. So is it any wonder that I am highly suspicious of a speech by Tom DeLayÂ’s nemesis, Ronnie Earle, to a group with ties to Howard Dean at a time when Dean is declaring DeLay guilty of criminal offenses that should put him in jail?

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.

A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.

Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

In his remarks, Earle likened DeLay to a bully and spoke about political corruption and the investigation involving DeLay, the House majority leader from Sugar Land, according to a transcript supplied by Earle.

"This case is not just about Tom DeLay. If it isn't this Tom DeLay, it'll be another one, just like one bully replaces the one before," Earle said.

"This is a structural problem involving the combination of money and power," he added. "Money brings power and power corrupts."

The crowd of 80 to 100 Democratic activists responded by making donations that exceeded the event's fund-raising goal.

Governor Rick Perry needs to act NOW to remove Ronnie Earle, an outrageously partisan official conducting an outrageously partisan investigation, from this investigation. Even if one accepts EarleÂ’s claim that the investigation is not a partisan witch hunt, the appearance of impropriety, such as the misuse of investigative and prosecutorial powers, is every bit as serious as an actual abuse, as it undermines faith in the justice system.

Especcially since Earl admits that his speaking at this fundraiser demonstrates that he is a corrupt politician -- since, as he himself says, "Money brings power and power corrupts."

UPDATE 5/20/05 -- Looks like I'm not the only one who sees Earle's speech as unethical.

"Ronnie Earle's unabashed partisanship in speaking at a Texas Values in Action Coalition (TEXVAC) fund-raiser proves Earle's motivations have nothing to do with truth or justice, and everything to do with electing Democrats and attempting to bring down the most effective House majority leader in modern history," said Tina Benkiser, chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party. "He is tainted and he should resign," she said.

And by the way, guess who was in the crowd at the fundraiser, and wh i would presume was one of the donors.

Former House Speaker Jim Wright.

That should give you an idea about the sincerity of Ronnie Earle and these Howard Dean Democrats when it comes to fighting corruption.

And I love this comment from one of the attorneys involved in the current case -- well-known Houston defense attorney Rusty Hardin.

According to Hardin, he told Earle in a courtroom conversation that "you have a history of indicting people whose conduct you don't approve of and you want to stop. You leave it to your assistants to worry whether there's a criminal case involved."

More at GOPBloggers.

UPDATE 5/21/05 -- Another good article is found here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 582 words, total size 4 kb.

The Washington Times reminds us today that the Senate Democrats outlined their filibuster plans in a memo four years ago.

Remember this quote?

"They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous because he had a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

Dangerous because he is a Latino. If this had been a white nominee, he would have sailed through – but they blocked him because of his ethnicity.

And don’t forget – the decisions on who to filibuster were made based upon whether or not liberal advocacy groups would sign off on them – in particular homosexual rights groups and abortion advocates, who were concerned that certain nominees might hold religious beliefs that did not conform with the groups’ agenda.

So remember – this filibuster is based, in large part, on race, ethnicity, and religion – not on the Constitution, and not on legitimate matters of principle.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Some people just hate America and the fact that the American people elected George W. Bush as president TWICE.

A former Iowa woman who pleaded guilty to two counts of threatening President Bush was sentenced Monday to 21/2 years in prison, U.S. Attorney Charles Larson Sr. said.

Catherine M. Guertin, 25, formerly of Independence and more recently of Denver, was sentenced in U.S. District Court on two counts of threatening the life of the president.

Judge Linda Reade ordered Guertin to be on three years of supervised release after her prison time. In addition, Guertin will not be permitted to be within one mile of the president or his immediate family.

A grand jury indicted Guertin on Aug. 18. She was arrested Sept. 17 in Colorado.

The indictment alleged that Guertin made the threats against Bush on May 3 and May 16 while she was living in Independence.

One count charges that she threatened Bush by saying, ''If I ever have a gun, I will shoot him between the eyes.''

The second count claims that on May 16 Guertin wrote statements threatening the president.

Guertin repeated the threats in court when she pleaded guilty in December.

A pity that the sentence is so short. And even sadder is the fact that she has not been charged and convicted for the December threat.

No doubt Err America will be ready with a job offer when she is released – assuming they have any listeners left by then.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Police are searching for the pro-border jumping Leftist thug who injured a 66-year-old woman with a water bottel thrown at her head during a rally opposed to the so-called Danza Indigenas monument, which some claim is un-American, racist and seditious.

Baldwin Park police Sgt. David Reynoso said police have a videotape of the incident and are still reviewing it to see if the culprit can be found.

Investigators also are looking to the public for answers. Anyone who saw the person who threw the bottle could come forward and remain anonymous if they wish.

"We understand people have the First Amendment right to assemble and free speech. We don't discourage that,' Reynoso said. "What we do discourage is acts of violence, such as throwing water bottles. We ask people to keep calm, respect everybody and obey the laws.'

Police say the bottle came from the roughly 300 counter-protesters who showed up.

Save Our State had about 25 supporters at the site, police said.

Hey, it takes a lot of courage to assault an old lady when you outnumber her group six-to-one. I mean, you wouldn't want a conservative to think that they had the right under the Constitution to actually speak on public property -- especially if they might offend one of your precious "protected classes".

And then there is the response from this arrogant politician who has no respect for the rights of Americans.

Baldwin Park Mayor Manuel Lozano said he blames Turner for the woman's injuries because he took senior citizens to an event that could have become dangerous.

He contends Turner is preying on senior citizens to market "himself to make a big organization and spread his hatred throughout the region.'

"I was literally outraged,' Lozano said. "He should be held accountable for using senior citizens in that capacity.'

I bet this Leftist politician wouldn't be taking that line if it had been a bunch of border jumpers brought to an "open borders" rally. Too bad he has no res[ect for the First Amendment -- or any other part of the Constitution.

I know, love and respect many liberals who are good Americans -- but have to say that this sort of Leftism is a disease. Hopefully there are enough good Americans of all political stripes left to erradicate it.

For a description of the rally from the organizer -- The Wide Awakes

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Demagogue-Houston), has asked Governor Rick Perry to "disinvite" the Minuteman Project from the state of Texas.

"I urge the governor to disinvite the Minuteman Project. Ask them not to come here," Jackson Lee said Sunday.

The group has posted volunteers in Arizona to alert authorities to illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Organizers have expressed an interest in recruiting in Texas and beginning patrols along the Rio Grande in October.

Given that the governor did not invite the Minutemen, and given that any American citizen has the right to travel, visit, or reside anywhere in this country that they please, i don't particularly see where it is the governor's place to "disinvite" the group.

However, if "disinvitations" are to be issued, I'd like to suggest that Rick Perry extend one to Queen Sheila. She is an embarassment to the state of Texas, and the further away she stays from here the better.

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't mind that out of town papers are writing about my congressman, Tom Delay. I don't even care that they are writing pieces that reflect negatively on him, and which seem to paint those of us who are backing him as blind to ethics questions. What I do object to, though, is the hiding of the political affiliations of those who criticize him. Take this Philadelphia Inquirer piece as an example.

Maybe DeLay's diehards are needlessly worried, because plenty of local Democrats doubt that he can be beaten. Karl Silverman, a NASA weather forecaster for the space shuttle, stabbed at his salad the other night and said: "So many people here wear blinders. They see politics as just another negative, so they ignore it, because they already have enough negatives in their lives. And they're ideologues anyway, so they figure, 'He's a Republican, he must be OK.' "

"Yeah," said John Cobarruvias, another NASA man. "They keep coming back for more. At the office, I keep asking people, 'How much more are you going to take?'"

The funny thing is, I recognized those two names. The thing is, I didn't recognize them in the context of their work for NASA (I live about 5 miles from Johnson Space Center and know a number of NASA employees and contractors.). No, I recognized the name because they are two of the leading Democrat activists in the area!

Yeah, you read that right. They are are not a couple of NASA employees who happen to be registered Democrats -- they are high-profile local Democrat activists.

Karl Silverman is the founder of the League City Neighborhood Democrats and sits on the Texas Democrat State Executive Committee as the Committeman for Senatorial District 11.

And John Cobarruvias -- you might have a very different perception of him if you had been informed that he is a frequent contributor of articles to the Democratic Underground, as well as being head of the Bay Area New Democrats, the group that sponsored last year's protest in front of Swift Boat Vet John O'Neill's home. Among his classier recent stunts was calling Tom DeLay a "bastard" in one of the local papers.

Now you will never get me to believe that Dick Polman, the Inquirer's political analyst who has over a decade of experience covering national political news, didn't know who these guys were. He would, in fact, have had to pick them precisely because they are two of the top Democrat voices in the area. To fail to identify them as anything but Democrat activists -- especially as humble, hard-working employees with NASA -- is rather disingenuous. It would be like quoting Howard Dean and identifying him as a Vermont physician! This was clearly an attempt to deceive the reader.

UPDATE: After this information was posted at Oh, That Liberal Media, one commenter pointed out that one of the sources cited was a former elected official with GOP connections. I therefore went back and found the following information.

Brian Gaston was a city council member in Sugar Land -- which I believe has a non-partisan form of government.

And I've since discovered that Therese Raia (a name I didn't recognize, despite being a Harris County precinct chair) is the SD17 Committeewoman.

Pat Baig, on the other hand, is an ersatz Republican who gave money to DeLay's opponent in last year's congressional race, Richard Morrison. That might have been an important detail, along with the fact that she never votes in GOP primaries.

Beverly Carter is a precinct chair in Fort Bend County, but is better known for running a local paper that has been at odds with DeLay for over a decade. She was censured by the Fort Bend County GOP when she endorsed Morrison last year.

Dean Hrbacek is another former Sugar Land city official -- a former mayor, whose defeat was partially orchestrated by Ms. Carter's paper and a local radio host who also wrote for her paper (before the host/columnist was convicted of exposing himself to a neighbor girl).

But, if anything, this shows that Polman wants to have folks think he has the pulse of the common man -- but all he does is talk to the same old local officials and politicos that everyone else does.

And as for why I pointed out the two Democrats, that is easy -- they are both local to me, rather than 30 or so miles away in the Sugar Land area, on the other side of the 22nd District.

Posted by: Greg at 07:51 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 5 kb.

Once again, we get a reminder that former presidential candidate and current DNC chair Howard Dean is not just a loose cannon. He is the best gift that we on the Right could have ever asked for. After all, he and Harry Reid are guaranteed to shoot their mouths off at least once a week, giving the American public a reminder of why it is importan to keep the Democrats as the minority party -- and make them even a smaller minority next election cycle.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence," referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader.

Now just set aside the fact that DeLay has not been accused of anything actually criminal, merely technical violations of rules that he may have been unaware of (and which a dozen Democrats have copped to by updating their ethics paperwork to fix the exact same sort of problems). When you get this sort of response from one of your party's senior members, you have gone too far.

''That's just wrong," [Massachusetts Congressman Barney] Frank said in an interview on the convention floor. ''I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."

Well, Barney, you guys went and made him party chair, and you are going to have to live with this sort of comment up to and through the next presidential election.

Thank you, Democrats!

Posted by: Greg at 06:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Vincente Fox seems to think that blacks are fit only for the lowest forms of labor.

"There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States," he said in a speech broadcast in part on local radio and reported on newspaper web sites.

Given the skin-color hierarchy that is found in Mexico, with darker-skinned Mexicans on the lower rungs of thesocial scale and lighter-skinned at the top, i'm not surprosed by such comments. I even hear such comments from my students from Mexico, and even from some of the US natives whose parents are originally from Mexico. These are the kids who tell me that their parents would be thrilled for them to date a white bly/girl. but not one who was black.

Posted by: Greg at 04:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

The Pentagon has submitted its list for base closures and realignemnts. Already, the complaining begins. A host of articles and editorials have already appeared around our country, explaining why THIS base or That one should remain open -- often with very little basis in military necessity.

Take this piece, for example, about the impending demise of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The proposed closure was a blow to some of Walter Reed's workers and neighbors. "It's mind-boggling," said Navy veteran Harold Thompson, 25, who lives across the street from the hospital, where he visits his doctor. "It will be a real issue for me and other people in the neighborhood if Walter Reed shuts down."

Yes, Mr. Thompson, it would be an issue if you have to go all the way out to Bethesda to the hospital there. But it would be an issue of convenience, not one of national security or dire need. It would mean that you might have to spend a little more time, getting to and from your appointments. That is not, sir, a national security issue.

Ultimately, the whole concept of realignement is about budgets, military efficiency and national security, not jobs or the local economy. Let's remember that as the process moves forward.

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.

Krauthammer absolutely demolishes the argument that doing away with the filibuster of judicial nominees is at odds with tradition. His conclusion is masterful.

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration

The traditions of the Senate have been abused and broken by the Democrats in their campaign of obstruction. It is up to the majority to reclaim and redeem the practices and rules of the worlds greatest deliberative body.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

So, Half-Truth Harry, you are now going to make unsubstantiated charges based upon evidence no one is allowed to see – and against which your victim, a sitting state judge, cannot respond?

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prompted outrage from Republicans on Thursday, when he criticized one of those stalled judicial nominees on the Senate floor.

"Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway," Reid said. "He's one of those nominees. All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the F.B.I., and I think we would all agree there is a problem there."

DoesnÂ’t such an accusation of wrong-doing like that constitute a threat to the independence of the judiciary? Why donÂ’t you grow a pair and actually make the charge you hinting at? Could it be that doing so would be a violation of the ethics rules and a misuse of the FBI report? And doesnÂ’t making the charge in this manner constitute exactly the same sort of violation? Especially since, under Senate rules, the only Senators with access to that confidential FBI report are members of the Judiciary Committee and the nomineeÂ’s home state senators. Who gave you access to that confidential material?

Resign now – from the Senate, not just your leadership position.

And Senate Republicans, if he does not, you need to file ethics charges and drive him out of the Senate.

Harry Reid Delenda Est -- Half-Truth Harry must be destroyed!

UPDATE: Assitional commentary at Michelle Malkin, Blogs for Bush, Jackson's Junction, PoliPundit, Ace of Spades, Vote for Judges and Musing Minds.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

My congressman nailed one last night in talking about the Democrats.

"No ideas. No leadership. No agenda. And, just in the last week, we can now add to that list, no class," DeLay said, a reference to Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's remark to school children that President Bush was "a loser.

And we can include the comments of Howard Dean, Ken Salazar, Ted Kennedy and a number of other Democrats in that category as well.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Up in Rhodes Island, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey has been directed to give up his talk-radio show by state elections officials. Seems that they have decided that allowing the mayor to do the show constitutes an “in-kind” corporate contribution by WPRO, the station on which Laffey has appeared. Laffey is not paid for the show, which runs on Sunday morning, and it was seen as public affairs programming by the station.

Oh, did you wonder where the initial complaint originated?

The complaint to the elections board was made by Cranston City Council President Aram Garabedian, a Democrat defeated by Laffey in 2002. Outside the courthouse on May 11, Laffey said he was being singled out for taking a stand against corruption spawned by the state's Democratic political machine.

"When you speak out against special interests in Rhode Island, they'll try to shut you down," he said.

So it seems clear that this is political sour grapes by local (and state) Democrats against a candidate who helped disrupt their political control of a large suburb of Providence (isn’t the entire state a suburb of Providence?) that had been a traditional Democrat stronghold.

But I am also struck by a comment in the article from Boston University communications professor Tobe Berkovitz, who doesn’t recognize the absurdity of his statement.

"He looks like he's fighting the good fight over the First Amendment," he said, "and in fact he's fighting a bare-knuckle fight to keep his political platform."

Uh, I thought the purpose of the first Amendment WAS to prevent the government from preventing someone from engaging in political speech. Seems to me that the two things the professor is talking about are, in fact, one and the same.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Up in Rhodes Island, Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey has been directed to give up his talk-radio show by state elections officials. Seems that they have decided that allowing the mayor to do the show constitutes an “in-kind” corporate contribution by WPRO, the station on which Laffey has appeared. Laffey is not paid for the show, which runs on Sunday morning, and it was seen as public affairs programming by the station.

Oh, did you wonder where the initial complaint originated?

The complaint to the elections board was made by Cranston City Council President Aram Garabedian, a Democrat defeated by Laffey in 2002. Outside the courthouse on May 11, Laffey said he was being singled out for taking a stand against corruption spawned by the state's Democratic political machine.

"When you speak out against special interests in Rhode Island, they'll try to shut you down," he said.

So it seems clear that this is political sour grapes by local (and state) Democrats against a candidate who helped disrupt their political control of a large suburb of Providence (isnÂ’t the entire state a suburb of Providence?) that had been a traditional Democrat stronghold.

But I am also struck by a comment in the article from Boston University communications professor Tobe Berkovitz, who doesnÂ’t recognize the absurdity of his statement.

"He looks like he's fighting the good fight over the First Amendment," he said, "and in fact he's fighting a bare-knuckle fight to keep his political platform."

Uh, I thought the purpose of the first Amendment WAS to prevent the government from preventing someone from engaging in political speech. Seems to me that the two things the professor is talking about are, in fact, one and the same.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

I've been looking for these numbers, desiring to shove them back in the face of anyone who claimed that Bush's 95% judicial confirmation rate made him remarkably successful in getting judges confirmed and that any complaints about the unprecedented unconstitutional filibuster of circuit court appointees was nothing but sour grapes. Fortunately, the Washington Times supplied the figures today.

During the first complete two-year Congress of their presidencies, postwar presidents achieved the following confirmation rates for their circuit-court nominees: Truman (80th Congress; 3/3: 100 percent); Eisenhower (83rd; 12/13: 92.3 percent); Kennedy (87th; 17/22: 77.3 percent); Johnson (89th; 25/26: 96.2 percent); Nixon (91st; 20/23: 87 percent); Ford (94th; 9/11: 81.8 percent); Carter (95th: 12/12: 100 percent); Reagan (97th: 19/20; 95 percent); G.H.W. Bush (101st; 22/23: 95.7 percent); Clinton (103rd: 19/22: 86.4 percent); G.W. Bush (107th; 17/32: 53.1 percent).

Thus, for the first complete two-year Congresses of the 10 postwar presidencies preceding George W. Bush's, the circuit-court confirmation rate averaged 91.2 percent. For Mr. Bush, it was 53.1 percent. Moreover, before George W. Bush, no president's confirmation rate during his first complete Congress fell below 77 percent, which is nearly 50 percent (and 24 percentage points) higher than Mr. Bush's confirmation rate. It is also worth noting that the three nominees returned by Mr. Clinton's first Congress were confirmed during his second, effectively raising his first-Congress rate to 100 percent. And if we exclude Mr. Bush's two circuit-court nominees who were appointed to the federal judiciary by Mr. Clinton and nominated for the circuit-court bench by Mr. Bush as an unrequited, magnanimous gesture to the Democrats, then Mr. Bush's first-Congress confirmation rate falls to 50 percent (15/30), which is half Mr. Clinton's first-Congress effective rate.

Let's now aggregate the data for a president's first four-year term, while making minor, necessary adjustments (e.g., folding the 79th Congress into the first term of Truman, who succeeded Roosevelt in April 1945; using 1965-1968 as Johnson's first term; and ignoring Ford, who served less than 2.5 years). Then, the first-term confirmation rates are the following: Truman (10/11: 90.9 percent); Eisenhower (23/26: 88.5 percent); Kennedy/Johnson, 1961-1964 (24/29: 82.8 percent); Johnson, 1965-1968 (37/39: 94.9 percent); Nixon (38/41; 92.7 percent); Carter (56/61: 91.8 percent); Reagan (33/42: 78.6 percent); G.H.W. Bush (42/54: 77.8 percent); Clinton (30/42: 71.4 percent); G.W. Bush (35/66: 53 percent).

Thus, since World War II, for the nine four-year, first-term presidencies that preceded George W. Bush's, the circuit-court confirmation rate averaged 85.5 percent. For Mr. Bush's first term, the rate was a relatively dismal 53 percent.

Finally, throughout the same nine postwar, first-term, four-year presidencies that preceded George W. Bush's, Congress returned a total of 46 circuit-court nominations to the president upon adjournment. Those 46 averaged five per four-year term over 36 years. During Mr. Bush's first four-year term, 30 circuit-court nominations were returned by Congress.

So, Democrats and other liberals -- stop the lying.

(Hat Tip -- Blogs For Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 4 kb.

I donÂ’t see a single good reason for bringing charges to begin with in this case.

Lloyd Jamal Whitaker Jr.'s departure on Sept. 29 from the home he had shared with Carolyn Taylor did not go smoothly.

He had made several trips to his car with boxes of belongings from the house in the 1300 block of Enfield Avenue.

But Taylor, 33, told police that he had choked her during one of his trips back to the dwelling, and she had locked the door behind him and put a .22-caliber pistol in her pocket.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said. The bullet lodged in Whitaker's pelvis, and he bled to death from what appeared at first to be a superficial wound.

Taylor pleaded guilty in January to involuntary manslaughter, and Richmond Circuit Judge Richard D. Taylor sentenced her yesterday to serve three years and four months in prison.

LetÂ’s go back over that one more time.

When Whitaker, 28, kicked in the door and choked her again, she fired a shot downward to get him away from her, she said.

In other words, she engaged in her HUMAN RIGHT to defend herself from a violent attacker. In a civilized society, what she did is called justice.

I love the comment from this idiotic prosecutor.

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Diane Abato told the judge that Taylor could have left the apartment or called police to keep the confrontation from escalating.
"But as so often happens in this city, people arm themselves and think that solves the problem," she said.

Yeah, she could have. Doing so would have relegated her to the status of victim, if not corpse. Instead she stood up on her own two feet and decided to be a human being, possessed of the right to be secure in her home. For that she is going to jail.

Ms. Abato, Carolyn Taylor did solve the problem. She put down a violent animal before it could harm her again. She deserves the thanks of society, not its condemnation. You should be ashamed of yourself for contributing to her victimization. And if you are ever attacked, I hope you have made yourself as defenseless as believe Ms. Taylor should have been -- and that you are lucky enough to survive unharmed until help arrives.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Go Condi!

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

One more reason IÂ’m ready to back you in 2008, Dr. Rice!

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

But I thought the Democrats were the party of the common people, and that the GOP was the party of the rich.

The financial chieftains of the far-left of the Democratic Party met recently to discuss ways to win back the majority of American voters.

The elite group, comprised of several dozen millionaires, dubbed itself the "Phoenix Group," and is led by billionaire George Soros. Details of the group's deliberations were closely guarded, but reports indicate that the liberal financiers plan to fund multiple left-of-center groups in order to formulate a "new" party message.

This from the folks that think money corrupts the political process.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin notes that Teddy Kennedy is complaining about the “rush to judgment” on the nomination of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She then supplies the following timeline regarding Pryor’s consideration by the Senate.

3/12/2003 Pryor nominated to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit by President Bush

7/23/2003 Passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee with favorable recommendation

7/31/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 53-44)

11/14/2003 Democrats refused to allow vote on nomination (cloture denied 51-43)

2/20/2004 Given recess appointment to 11th Circuit (expires end of 109th Cong; 1st Session)

Two years. It has been over two years since the nomination was made, and nearly two since the nomination was sent to the Senate floor. How much more consideration does it need?

But maybe this desire for deliberate speed explains his decision not to engage in undue haste in attempting to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne or reporting the accident in which she was killed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

We keep being told by the Democrats (who are carrying water for a host of liberal special interests) that Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court is an extremist. IÂ’ve written about that before, but would like to share a little more based on another column IÂ’ve encountered. It seems that one of the problems with Brown is that she is capable of making common sense judgments.

The author, David Reinhard, offers three of the cases cited against her as evidence of the specious nature of the attacks on the justice. They are Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car, People ex. rel. Gallo v. Acuna, and Kasky v. Nike.

In the Avis case, Justice Brown rejected the notion of a court imposing prior restraint on the use of words by all employees in every context. As a rule, that is not permitted under the First Amendment, and so, consistent with a civil libertarian view of the First Amendment, she dissented from a decision upholding such prior restraint. But she did not do this out of love for the individuals who had engaged in racist speech in the workplace.

"Today, this court holds that an idea that happens to offend someone in the workplace is 'not constitutionally protected' . . ." she wrote. "Why? Because it creates a "hostile . . . work environment" . . . in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) . . . he court has recognized the FEHA exception to the First Amendment."
Now, it's possible to reject her view, but to say she's blind to discrimination or indifferent to its remediation ignores all she wrote. She called the speech "offensive and abhorrent" and favored a "middle ground" that "preserves both the freedom of the speaker and the equal dignity of the audience." Workers can sue for damages from bosses who tolerate such speech.

Think about it. Can a mere statute create an exception to free speech rights? The answer is obvious. On the other hand, it can impose a duty on the employer to stop racially abusive speech. Justice Brown offered an approach that did the least damage to the Constitution – and for that she is excoriated as an enemy of the Constitution.

On the other hand, in the Gallo case Justice Brown was unwilling to allow the First Amendment to be used as a shield for actual criminal activity. A violent street gang had made a neighborhood in Rocksprings, California unlivable. Residents were subjected to street crime, drug dealing and gunfire, among other ills. The city sought to do something about the problem, getting an injunction banning the offending gang members from the neighborhood – an injunction that was upheld by the California Supreme Court. Writing FOR THE MAJORITY, Justice Brown dismissed the First Amendment claims of the gang-bangers to continue their illegal activities in the neighborhood. She noted that their actions were antithetical to the notion of peaceable assembly.

"To hold that the liberty of the peaceful, industrious residents of Rocksprings must be forfeited to preserve the illusion of freedom for those whose ill conduct is deleterious to the community as a whole is to ignore half the political promise of the Constitution and the whole of its sense."

The Nike case is particularly interesting. Justice Brown sided with Nike in a case involving whether errors in a press release could be grounds for a lawsuit against the company by an activist group. The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on a technicality. But while some argue that Justice BrownÂ’s opinion was out of step with Supreme Court jurisprudence on commercial speech, it is interesting to note that the justices themselves did not think so.

The high court dismissed the case on a technicality and an out-of-court settlement has since been reached, but Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter argued that the case raised important constitutional questions. And Stephen Breyer, joining Sandra Day O'Connor in dissent, wrote that if the case was decided on its merits, Brown's view would likely prevail.

Which two justices definitively agreed with her? That would be liberal Justice Stephen Breyer and swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor – hardly folks the Left wants to label as out of the mainstream. And notice which other justices were at least open to her position – Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, who constitute with (with Breyer) the remainder of the Court’s liberal wing! If she is outside the mainstream on this case, I hope that Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer will have the integrity to introduce articles of impeachment against those five justices so that we can get some mainstream folks to take their places.

I guess the best way to put it is to say that the arguments against Janice Rogers Brown are hogwash – no insult to hogs intended.

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If liberals believe that questioning judges and their rulings is an attack that threatens the independence of the judiciary, why are their attacks on Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Judge William Pryor, and other sitting judges who have been nominated to the Circuit Courts of Appeals and their rulings acceptable? After all, donÂ’t such attacks threaten the independence of the judiciary?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.