To nobody's surprise, RINO Comptroller Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn announced her bid to unseat Governor Rick Perry in the 2006 GOP primary.

"You know that Texans cannot afford another four years of a governor who promises tax relief and delivers nothing," she said.

"Now is time to replace this do-nothing drugstore cowboy with one tough grandma," Strayhorn told a cheering crowd.

Strayhorn specifically criticized Perry for his decision today to veto the state's $35 billion education budget and call a new special session without having a plan on how to overhaul public school finance.

"A leader does not call a fifth special session — costing taxpayers another $1.5 million dollars — when he does not have a plan," she said. "A leader does not hold our children's education hostage and certainly would never even allow a discussion about schools not opening on time."

Strayhorn offered two specific suggestions on what she would do as governor. One is to pass her proposed program to pay for two years of college for every high school graduate. And the other is to legalize video lottery terminals with the revenue going to pay for a teacher pay raise.

Strayhorn has been able to brag in her statewide electi

While Strayhorn has done well in general elections in recent years, she does not have as strong support among GOP primary voters. She trailed Perry by 80,000 votes in the 2002 primary in number of primary votes received.

CAMPAIGN NOTE: I'm backing Perry -- please contact me if you are interested in supporting Governor Perry.

Posted by: Greg at 04:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

Like everyone else, I complain about the medical insurance my employer offers -- it seems like premiums go up but benefits go down every year, and the plan that district administrators can afford is way out of the price range of those of us who actually perform the primary task of the school district -- educate students.

But I've never really been attracted to the notion of a socialized medical program, no matter how much the advocates of such plans waxed eloquent about the medical care in Canada, the UK, or the Soviet Union (hey -- I still remembr the discussions from my college days).

Articles like this one help me remember that such schemes are inherrantly flawed and riddled with inefficiency.

A HOSPITAL told a road accident victim that she would have to wait a year and a half for an NHS brain scan, but could have the procedure done privately at the same unit in two weeks, The Times has learnt.

In a case that highlights the crisis in diagnostic tests, King’s College Hospital, London, warned Rachel King that, because of “heavy demand”, the MRI scan that her consultant had sought could be delayed for 80 weeks.

But a handwritten note at the end of the letter gave a telephone number for the hospital’s “self-pay” private clinic, where she could have the procedure in two weeks for £983.

Ms KingÂ’s case is the starkest example yet of widespread delays in diagnostic tests across the health service. One in five trusts has waiting times of more than a year for MRI scans, and two in five have waits of more than six months.

A quarter of trusts said that 25 per cent or more of their scanning capacity was not used but lack of staff and resources prevent increased usage.

Posted by: Greg at 03:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 713 words, total size 4 kb.

We Texans have been eagerly awaiting a decision by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on whether she will run for reelection to the Senate or challenge Rick Perry for Governor. Today we got half the answer. UPDATE -- This updated story contains more information and clarifies her Senate plans.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison announced today that she will run for a third Senate term, ending months of speculation that she would challenge Texas Gov. Rick Perry for the Republican nomination in 2006.

An e-mail distributed by Hutchison's campaign said she would make the formal announcement on June 27, when she would provide details on her decision and "why she believes it is in the best interest of Texas."

Hutchison had long been considered a likely challenger to Perry, who is seeking his second full term. He became governor in 2000, after George W. Bush resigned to become president. He was elected to a full four-year term in 2002.

Posted by: Greg at 05:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

I find it strange that this Reuters article fails to mention the subject's most famous and influential client. Neither do the AP or LA Times articles on the case.

Imprisoned celebrity sleuth Anthony Pellicano was charged on Friday with threatening a Los Angeles Times reporter three years ago to keep her from pursuing a story about action movie star Steven Seagal.

The criminal complaint charging Pellicano and an associate was brought a week after a U.S. appeals court ruled prosecutors were free to use evidence seized by authorities during a search of his West Hollywood office in 2002.

A private eye for more than two decades, Pellicano, 61, is serving a 30-month federal prison term for his conviction on charges of keeping unregistered firearms, grenades and plastic explosives in his office safe.

Pellicano, a self-described "sin eater" for celebrities he was hired to keep out of the press, worked for such stars as Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and some of the biggest lawyers in the entertainment industry.

The investigation of Pellicano was triggered by reports in 2002 that he had tried to intimidate reporter Anita Busch, then working for the Los Angeles Times, to keep her from working on stories about a suspected Mafia extortion plot against Seagal.

Quick -- who is the client that is left out of the article?

more...

Posted by: Greg at 05:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Bret Stephens, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board, recently had a disturbing encounter with a senior member of the staff at the German consulate in New York.

But the diplomat had no patience for my small talk. Apropos of nothing, he said he had recently made a study of U.S. tax laws and concluded that practices here were inferior to those in Germany. Given recent rates of German economic growth, I found this comment odd. But I offered no rejoinder. I was, after all, a guest in his home.

The diplomat, however, was just getting started. Bad as U.S. economic policy was, it was as nothing next to our human-rights record. Had I read the recent Amnesty International report on Guantanamo? "You mean the one that compared it to the Soviet gulag?" Yes, that one. My host disagreed with it: The gulag was better than Gitmo, since at least the Stalinist system offered its victims a trial of sorts.

Nor was that all. Civil rights in the U.S., he said, were on a par with those of North Korea and rather behind what they had been in Europe in the Middle Ages. When I offered that, as a journalist, I had encountered no restrictions on press freedom, he cut me off. "That's because The Wall Street Journal takes its orders from the government."

By then we had sat down at the formal dining table, with our backs to Ground Zero a half-mile away and our eyes on the boats on the river below us. My wife and I made abortive attempts at ordinary conversation. We were met with non sequiturs: "The only people who appreciate American foreign policy are poodles." After further bizarre pronouncements, including a lecture on the illegality of the Holocaust under Nazi law, my wife said that she felt unwell. We gathered our things and left.

Stephens, unfortunately, does not identify the cretin in question. Having remained mute and failed to adequately defend his own country in the course of the conversation -- lest he appear impolite, one would presume -- he now feels that to identify him would be a breach of ethics.

I disagree.

Mr. Stephens, your host crossed the bounds of decency, as well as of diplomacy. He is clearly a public figure, and a representative of his government. What expectation of privacy, of confidentiality, does he really have? You've disclosed the substance of the conversation, which did not occur in a professional capacity. How is disclosing the identity of the speaker a greater violation?

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems clear that Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is looking to be on the 2008 Democrat ticket, and is making sure that there are as many Democrats on the voting rolls in Iowa as possible. Never mind that he is overriding the clear intent of iowa law to do it.

Gov. Tom Vilsack said Friday he soon will sign an executive order restoring voting rights to convicted felons who have served their sentence.

"This action we take is not going to be a pardon," Vilsack said.

The governor said only five other states prohibit felons from voting after completing their sentences.

"We're here today to talk about justice," Vilsack aid. "When you've paid your debt to society, you need to be reconnected to society.

Vilsack said about 600 felons last year had voting rights restored, but he said it's a painstaking and time-consuming process that distracts the state's parole board and investigators.

Vilsack said he will sign the measure on July 4 with the symbolism of Independence Day.

Vilsack notes that his action will not restore other civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms. I guess he believes that these folks are responsible enough to direct the fate of the country, but not to carry the means of self-defense like a free man.

Stroke of the pen -- law of the land. Kinda disgusting.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me begin by saying that if I were a member of the US Senate, I would have abstained from voting on the resolution apologizing for the failure of the Senate to pas a law making lynching a federal crime. I wasn't born at the time the laws were considered, and as a Republican I have nothing to apologize for -- it was a series of filibusters and other parliamentary tricks used by a Democrat minority to prevent the majority of senators (including all Republicans) from voting to make lynching a federal crime as asked by Republican a number of Republican presidents. That is why I'm not too disturbed that a number of senators failed to co-sponsor the apology resolution.

Texas' U.S. senators decided against co-sponsoring a resolution apologizing to lynching victims and their families because of procedural reasons rather than any second thoughts about the measure, aides said Wednesday.

The decisions by Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn put them among the 17 senators who refrained from co-sponsoring the apology. It was co-sponsored by the 83 others.

The resolution, which apologized for the Senate's failure to enact anti-lynching legislation through two centuries, passed by unanimous consent.

Only about six senators were on the floor for the vote, which is not unusual when measures are approved in such a manner. Hutchison and Cornyn were absent.
The resolution was introduced by Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, and Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia.

I'm sorry, the resolution passed was nothing short of a steaming pile of crap dumped on the graves of lynching victims. The passage of this resolution STILL fails to make lynching a federal crime, and so it is meaningless beyond a hollow symbolism. Any actual apology should have come in the form of legislation accomplishing the aim of the original bills that failed to gain passage -- all 200 of them.

Partisan Democrats are, of course, making hay over the fact that these senators did not co-sponsor the resolution. The irony is that one of them has paid advertising on his site raising money for Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd (KKK-Dogpatch), whose previous career includes a stint as a paid recruiter for the Klan – and who has never publicly answered questions about his participation in lynchings, cross-burnings, and other acts of KKK terrorism during his days in that anti-American organization.

UPDATE: Two recent developments:

1) Senator Byrd has published his memoirs -- and still fails to come clean about the full extent of his involvement in the terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. Seems he is still in denial about its nature and the level of evil of his membership/organizing activities.

2) It only took a week, but John Aravosis FINALLY acknowledges that lynching is still not a Federal crime.

hadn't realized they NEVER passed the law. This puts the importance of the anti-lynching resolution in a whole new light. They NEVER passed the law, while lynchings continued up until the late 1960s (though, I'd argue, what happened to James Byrd in Texas a few years back was clearly a lynching).

When I made an issue of it in his comment section, noting that I'd been pointing that out on his site for a week, John did what any honest liberal would do -- banned me and deleted all my comments so that no one could go back and check. I guess he doesn't like having folks note that he is a John-ny-Come-Lately to the issue of passing an actual law banning lynching.

OOPS! My bad! He still hasn't called for the passage of anti-lynching legislation, but instead wants to score cheap political points over a do-nothing resolution that takes no action to actually rectify the Senate's failure to pass legislation against lynching. I wonder if it has anything to do with his taking advertising dollars from Bobby the Klansman's campaign?

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 6 kb.

It is not unprecedented for a member of the legislative branch to be nominated to a federal court – including the Supreme Court of the United States. One name being mentioned among possible nominees to fill a potential vacancy is Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Senator Cornyn is currently a Deputy Whip in the U.S. Senate, where he also serves on five Senate legislative committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Budget, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and the Joint Economic Committee. He chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship and the Armed Services Committee's subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Sen. Cornyn served as Attorney General of Texas (1998-2002), a Texas Supreme Court Justice (1990-1997), and a State District Court Judge for the District of San Antonio (1984-1990)

As you can see, he has a wealth of experience as a judge, as well as experience as a legislator and the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Texas. As such, he has an excellent understanding of the roles of all three branches of government.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Just a reminder for all of you that Senator Carl Levin is not acting on principle when he opposes the nominations of judges to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. His motivation sits a little closer to home.

Senator Levin is very upset that a particular Clinton-nominee never got her bench. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated by President Clinton to fill one of the open Sixth Circuit seats but was never confirmed by the Senate. So, like every nomination of a retiring president, her nomination was returned without approval at the end of President Clinton's second term. This is neither a surprising nor an uncommon result. Indeed, John Roberts, who served as the first Bush administration's number-two lawyer before the Supreme Court, waited more than eleven years between his original nomination by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and his eventual confirmation by the Senate two years after being re-nominated by President George W. Bush. No Democrat — be they Levin or Leahy — fought for his re-nomination by the Clinton administration as a matter of "tradition" or "comity." It is just part of the reality of electoral politics: with the victor go the spoils.

But John Roberts was no Helene White. He didn't have the singular qualification that could bring the entire democratic and judicial process to a standstill — he wasn't Carl Levin's cousin-in-law. You see, Judge White happens to be married to Senator Levin's cousin, a fact that Senator Levin fails to emphasize whenever he rails on the Senate floor about President Bush's unacceptable tactics. The real "fundamental issue" with President Bush's judicial nominees to the Sixth Circuit, then, has nothing to do with the prerogatives of home-state senators and the grand traditions of that lofty institution. It is that none of them can make a scene at a Levin family picnic.

But the filibuster, we are told, is the cornerstone of the Republic – preserving for lynching, racial discrimination, and nepotism on behalf of the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a reminder for all of you that Senator Carl Levin is not acting on principle when he opposes the nominations of judges to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. His motivation sits a little closer to home.

Senator Levin is very upset that a particular Clinton-nominee never got her bench. Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated by President Clinton to fill one of the open Sixth Circuit seats but was never confirmed by the Senate. So, like every nomination of a retiring president, her nomination was returned without approval at the end of President Clinton's second term. This is neither a surprising nor an uncommon result. Indeed, John Roberts, who served as the first Bush administration's number-two lawyer before the Supreme Court, waited more than eleven years between his original nomination by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and his eventual confirmation by the Senate two years after being re-nominated by President George W. Bush. No Democrat — be they Levin or Leahy — fought for his re-nomination by the Clinton administration as a matter of "tradition" or "comity." It is just part of the reality of electoral politics: with the victor go the spoils.

But John Roberts was no Helene White. He didn't have the singular qualification that could bring the entire democratic and judicial process to a standstill — he wasn't Carl Levin's cousin-in-law. You see, Judge White happens to be married to Senator Levin's cousin, a fact that Senator Levin fails to emphasize whenever he rails on the Senate floor about President Bush's unacceptable tactics. The real "fundamental issue" with President Bush's judicial nominees to the Sixth Circuit, then, has nothing to do with the prerogatives of home-state senators and the grand traditions of that lofty institution. It is that none of them can make a scene at a Levin family picnic.

But the filibuster, we are told, is the cornerstone of the Republic – preserving for lynching, racial discrimination, and nepotism on behalf of the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Do you think a single-tier medical system like Canada's is just what we need in the US? Think again. It isn't really a single-tier system at all.

The supporters of our supposed single-tier health-care system are aghast that Thursday's Supreme Court ruling could threaten Canadians' equal access to treatment.

It is a long-held myth, of course, that there is no queue-jumping in this country. Most Canadians have no special privileges when it comes to receiving care, but some do. Military personnel, the RCMP, prisoners and workers' compensation claimants don't fall under the medicare umbrella.

So while the typical Canadian waits and waits for a diagnostic test or surgery, the members of these groups are entitled to speedy access. All of them are exempt from the Canada Health Act.

Posted by: Greg at 05:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Just look over at AmericaBLOG, run by gay liberal activist John Aravosis. There are a couple of good examples, from both John and his commenters.

I mean after all, what would be the reaction of the liberals if we started telling a well-respected GOP African-American female to shut up because she wasn't toeing the party line? Well, that is John's take on Donna Brazile, who gave a qualified endorsement of Howard Dean in an interview. But I'll concede, he has said similar things about Joe Biden and other top Democrats who recognize that Dean's comments are not going to help the Democrats win elections, so maybe it is simply that he likes Dean and is willing to help him pass the Kool-Aid around to the rest of the party.

But then there is the troubling aspect of certain comments that he allows to remain on the board. It isn't just that he allows criticism of people, but he implicitly welcomes racial slurs by refusing to delete them. Consider this comment from a thread about another post.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:50 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 544 words, total size 3 kb.

Having faced criticism from elected officials in his own party for his inflamatory rhetoric against Republicans, Howard Dean has now gotten some positive feedback from the grassroots.

After a meeting of the DNC's 40-member executive committee at a downtown hotel, members said Dean was doing exactly what they elected him to do -- build the party in all states and aggressively challenge Republicans.

``I hope Governor Dean will remember that he didn't get elected to be a wimp,'' said DNC member Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a South Carolina state representative. ``We have been waiting a long time for someone to stand up for Democrats.''

more...

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

No "democracy", either. And forget about using other phrases that might upset the Red Chinese dictators.

Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal has banned the words "democracy" and "freedom" from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.

Users of the joint-venture portal, formally launched last month, have been blocked from using a range of potentially sensitive words to label personal websites they create using its free online blog service, MSN Spaces.

Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration", "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence".

It was possible to enter such words within blogs created using MSN Spaces, but the move to block them from the more visible section of the site highlights the willingness of some foreign internet companies to tailor their services to avoid upseting China's Communist government.

Beijing has long sought to limit political debate on the internet and is in the throes of a campaign to force anybody who operates a website to register with the central government.

So we see which side the world's largest software giant is on. When it has to choose between profits and principle, it chooses profits. Never mind if doing so helps to perpetuate slavery for a fifth of the world's population.

I'm curious, Bill -- would you have collaborated in blocking any mention of "Jew", "concentration camp", "Final Solution" and "Auschwitz" from your sites in Germany for fear of disrupting your business ties with the Nazis?

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, Dick Durbin knows who is at fault for the controversy over Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Deans recent extremist comments attacking and insulting Republicans. The news media!

The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate yesterday blamed "the right wing" and elements of the press "in service to it" for repeating Howard Dean's remarks about Republicans and inflating them out of proportion.

"I think we all understand what's happening with you all," said Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, in remarks echoing Hillary Rodham Clinton's blaming a "vast right-wing conspiracy" for her husband's legal-ethical woes.

"The right wing has got the agenda moving. Fox [News Channel] and everybody's got the agenda. It's all about Howard Dean. You've bought into it," Mr. Durbin said.

"You can't let up on it. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves."

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

At last, one of the best judges in the country has been confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. What's more, there are other judicial nominees who will be confirmed soon.

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed California judge Janice Rogers Brown for the federal appeals court, ending a two-year battle filled with accusations of racism and sexism and shadowed by a dispute over Democratic blocking tactics.

Senators quickly followed by ending another long-term filibuster, clearing the way for a vote Thursday on former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as outlined in an agreement last month that averted a showdown that could have brought Senate action to a halt.

After giving Pryor a final vote and confirming two Michigan nominees to other appeals court posts, senators plan to leave President Bush's other controversial nominees dangling, moving on to other matters after devoting a month to historic but exhausting debate over judges.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Not a legitimate case?

So Pryor ruling repeatedly against gay citizens every chance he got, even publishing anti-gay tirades over cases that never entered his court doesn't mark him as an extremist.

I surely hope you're not being a hypocrite and would equally agree that there was no extremism present in a nominee that did exactly the same thing to Christians.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:13:52 2005 (fgsGh)

2 Dolphin: The fact that it bothers him doesn't make him an extremist. It just means it bothers him.

Following your logic, every single politician and judge that is a significant advocate for gun control is an extremist.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:41:30 2005 (lkCzp)

3 Dangit - that was Subjugator.

I use a different ID on another blog and accidentally signed off as that here.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 05:42:07 2005 (lkCzp)

4 I disagree. When a judge goes out of his way and out of his job to attack an entire population of US citizens it makes him an extremist.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:28:34 2005 (fgsGh)

5 Define 'attack'.

Democrat judges and politicians consistently attack HUGE populations.

If you like guns, you're a redneck, a caveman, or a 'gun nut'.

If you oppose "reasonable" gun control, you're a "gun nut". Funny that the slippery slope argument has proven to be true with gun control. Every year it's just a little bit more "reasonable" control. "All we're asking for is x", but then next year, they want x AND y. The year after that, it's even more.

So yes, following your logic, most Democrat politicians and judges are extremists.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 06:35:19 2005 (lkCzp)

6 Democratic politicians and judges are not denying the humanity of gun-owners however. Therein lies the difference.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 08:40:49 2005 (fgsGh)

7 Got any quotes where he called homosexuals inhuman?

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:47:06 2005 (lkCzp)

8 Oops...

One more thing...I'll tend to agree with you if you can.

Sub (NOT BARTLEBY! GAH!)

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 08:48:53 2005 (lkCzp)

9 Marriage is a human right, he argues that gay people don't deserve marriage. An entity that does not deserve a human right is not a human by definition.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 09:38:36 2005 (fgsGh)

10 OK - we disagree here. I do not believe that marriage is a human right. I don't believe it is something that governments should even acknowledge.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 09:46:25 2005 (lkCzp)

11 To help make it a little clearer. Pryor (as AG) put links to anti-gay sites on the STATE WEBSITE for Alambama. I think that's completely inappropriate, regardless of your views.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 11:24:43 2005 (4CZkM)

12 Marriage is a human right -- but marriage is also something that, by definition, is between a man and a woman.

That is where your whole argument falls apart, as you fail to take the mandatory first step -- proving that your revision of the definition of marriage that has been applied for the last couple millenia is correct and that the traditional one is wrong. You start with that as a given, rather than your initial assertion to be proved, and therefore convince no one of the rest of your argument.

And from there, the argument about Pryor (and the rest of us opposed to government recognition of homosexual marriage) falls apart. Disagreeing with a point of your argument does not mean that we don't believe you are a human being -- it merely means that we believe you to be a human being who is wrong in his position on the issue at hand.

And then to start with

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:30:53 2005 (JMjzp)

13 Oh, and by the way -- your definition of "anti-gay websites" tends to be pretty extremist in and of itself. You have labeled this site as such, due to the fact that I have the audacity to disagree with you on the issue of homosexual marriage. Therefore I am inclined to argue that such links are not only not inappropriate, but are probably mainstream sites that would be acceptable to the majority of Americans -- and certainly the majority of Alabamans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 11:34:01 2005 (JMjzp)

14 I'd like to see what you label as an anti-gay site Dolphin. I don't think RWR is anti-gay...and if you think his site is anti-gay, then we may disagree on others as well.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Thu Jun 9 12:06:35 2005 (F02fZ)

15 Subjugator, I'm Deaf first of all. Pryor is pretty much anti-disabled.

It's a setback -- certainly a huge setback.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:35:26 2005 (ODDFf)

16 Actually RWR, we've been through this a million and one times. You know that your "traditional marriage" have been constantly changing and evolving throughout history and cultures and at various points throughout history and cultures has even contained the very same definition you now feel so threatened by.

Sub:

To answer your question, one of the sites that Pryor linked to was the Family Research Council (www.frc.org). While RWR may consider this group to be "mainstream" and "acceptable to the majority of Americans" I do not and I believe a look at the site speaks for itself. Aside from being a blantantly religous site, and being blantantly anti-gay (in fact a major stated purpose of the FRC is to stop marriage equality), the president of FRC has confirmed KKK links.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 13:51:29 2005 (MIt/1)

17 Interestingly enough, your assertion doesn't make it fact, dolphin. And while there may have been relatively small modifications, one thing has been a constant -- that marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same.

Also, I think your assertion that the FRC is a hate group is proof that your defingition of "anti-gay hate group" is "anyone who disagrees with dolphin on gay issues." And the documented Klan links" consist of renting David Duke's mailing list and speaking to a conservative citizen's group that has its roots in groups opposing integration. Unfortunately, though, that would also require you to state that many Democrats, including the homosexual friendly Dick Gephardt, also have documented links to the KKK.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:43:50 2005 (wfdL5)

18 The links go beyond that and you know it.

Like I said, I'll let the FRC site speak for itself. They are a well known anti-gay organization and I am by far not the first person to assign that designation to the organization. The fact that you honestly think they are an appropriate "resource" for the government to link to scares me about the fate of this country should people like you get hold of it and quite frankly knocks down much of the respect I once held you in.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:08:46 2005 (MIt/1)

19 Actually, I know no such thing. Care to document them.

And you are right -- others have made the same statement about them -- and they are wrong.

Or does the fact that some have made statements about the ACLU and NAACP which call them extremist and anti-American make such charges true? And are such labels a legitimate basis for banning them from governemnt websites?

What you and yoiur ilk engage in is nothing more than a left-wing form of McCarthyism.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:48:19 2005 (WrPVI)

20 First of all, I don't call anybody Anti-American, that's the tatic of the right. mcconnel is a good example since we're on this site.

Like I said, the site speaks for itself. I don't have to defend my views of it, it's all there.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:57:13 2005 (fgsGh)

21 Here's another that speaks for itself:

www.afa.net

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:00 2005 (fgsGh)

22 Which of course is essentially a carbon copy of FRC anyways.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 03:58:32 2005 (fgsGh)

23 dolphin, give an example of my "anti-American" posts. I'm curious.

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 04:20:56 2005 (LmcbS)

24 First, dolphin, are you not familiar with the concept of analogy? I was seeking to copare the different charges made by extremists against mainstream organizations -- the NAACP, ACLU, FRC, and AFA.

But as I've thought about it, it seems clear to me that your statements above (linking folks to the Klan, labeling groups as hate groups, and as found on another thread, saying that right-wingers have made this country stand for something other than freedom) really are accusations that conservatives and their organizations are anti-American. You just lack the integrity and testicular fortitude to come out and say it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:48:36 2005 (LGV5B)

25 Oh, and here's that thread, down near the bottom.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/086019.php

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 04:56:15 2005 (LGV5B)

26 Hi Dolphin,

I checked out the FRC website and cannot say that I find it to be inherently bigoted. Instead I would say that I find it to be religion oriented and that part of their beliefs is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

While I don't care who marries whom, I don't find it to be bigoted to say that marriage is a religious bond that was formed by Christianity and that such omits same-sex pairings.

What I *am* curious to find out is if RWR et al would mind some other form of legislated domestic pairing for homosexuals.

...well?

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 06:41:45 2005 (lkCzp)

27 Hate = Anything Dolphin Doesn't Agree With.

Posted by: Hube at Fri Jun 10 08:41:38 2005 (SlnGf)

28 Hube - that is starting to sound like a theme. RWR doesn't sound like a person driven by hate, but of logic and a consistent belief system.

While my Christian beliefs don't match his 100%, that makes neither he nor I less Christian. It just means that we see His word in different ways.

RWR isn't a hater - any true Christian is a lover of all.

Bartleby

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:04:16 2005 (lkCzp)

29 I'm open to some form of partnership that would be recognized by government, carrying with it some of the advantages (inheritance & medical decision-making, as examples) and disadvantages associated with being married. At the same time, I would hope that recognition, while binding on government and certain other entities, would not necessarily impart a general obligation for private parties to recognize them against their beliefs or morality.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 10 10:24:27 2005 (GRVNH)

30 Sounds fair to me. I hope Dolphin got to see that before he left. He and I disagreed a lot, but I kinda liked him anyway.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 14:09:43 2005 (F02fZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We remember the controversy over the Bush twins having the audacity to try – gasp! – to drink underage in a college-town bar. You would have thought they were guilty of mass murder. Their behavior was supposed to prove the bankruptcy of Bush (and GOP) family values.

I wonder why the media isnÂ’t nearly so judgmental about this case involving the daughters of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch (who recently announced as a candidate for the Democrat nomination for governor), in a case that has wound its way through the Illinois judicial system. more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

Just listen to Howard Dean -- they are the party of hate and division.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."

Let's see here. George W. Bush has a Cabinet that is more diverse than any in history -- the Democrats tried to stop those nominees. The President has tried to appoint more minorities to the federal bench -- Democrats have filibustered them. According to recent research, the GOP is the party favored by every income level except the ultra-rich and the extremely poor. The GOP welcomes people of every faith, while the Democrats are hostile to people of faith.

So Howard, it seems that you folks are the party that is exclusive -- exclusive of real Americans. Yours is a party of hate, which cannot accept that the American people have weighed it in a balance and found it wanting.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

I really felt an incredible desire to be ill upon reading this article, for a whole bunch of different reasons.

Elva Hernández never imagined she'd give birth to a son in a medical helicopter flying over the Arizona desert.

The 29-year-old woman, who was seven months' pregnant, felt contractions and went into labor after walking in the heat, rain and in the cold of night for nearly 20 hours as she and her family tried to illegally enter the United States.

Hernández, her children and her husband were abandoned by a smuggler soon after she went into labor.

Last Sunday, she gave birth in the helicopter minutes after being rescued by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

She and the premature baby, Christian, a new U.S. citizen, were taken to Tucson's University Medical Center. The infant is stable, but remains in intensive care. Hernández left the hospital Tuesday.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 3 kb.

I keep hearing the Left claim that Bush lied about Iraq having the material to make WMDs. I keep hearing that no such material was ever found. Now it appears that the material that didn't exist has disappeared from its storage areas on Iraq.

U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council (search), acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he's reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.

He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair."

He said imagery analysts have identified 109 sites that have been emptied of equipment to varying degrees, up from 90 reported in March.

The report also provided much more detail about the percentage of items no longer at the places where U.N. inspectors monitored them.

So please let me understand -- things that folks claim never existed are now missing.

So which is it ?

Was Bush right about this material, or did it never exist in the first place?

I think we all know the answer -- as inconvenient as it may be for the Left to admit.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

1 FOX NEWS is not reliable.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Jun 4 15:44:24 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Hear ye, hear ye. "R"'s word is gold. Let's turn over the reign to Newsweek, cBS, BBC, and the lovely Diva Ms. Couric.

Key words that the great "R" missed:

"U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday."

And surprise of surprises what France said!

France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said Thursday the commission's expertise "should not be lost for the international community."


Kill the messenger, eh "R".

A typical facist liberalista response.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 4 17:03:53 2005 (qzj0i)

3 They're saying that materials which could feasibly be used as WMD, but were not meant as such, disappeared and that they find it odd. They aren't themselves weapons however, nor are they any sort of proof that Iraq was pursuing WMD.

The whole of the U.N.'s point was that they were monitoring these materials, which they did not believe were being used illegally. Now that they've disappeared, the situation may have changed and the materials could be used to make weapons.

Posted by: N.J. at Sat Jun 4 18:17:04 2005 (FJAxe)

4 Fox News isn't reliable, but that's besides the point here.

Materials to make WMDs are not the same as ACTUAL WMDs. I'm no chemist but I bet I could make a bomb with ordinary materials that I have in my home, but that doesn't mean that I have a bomb!

Bush's claim wasn't that Iraq had the materials to make WMDs, Bush claim as that Iraq not only had WMDs but was an imminent threat to the USA, a claim his own hand-picked weapons inspector has declared false.

Posted by: dolphin at Sat Jun 4 19:37:20 2005 (MIt/1)

5 Bush claimed they had WMDs...and they actually did have *some*...though apparently not nearly as much as he'd originally thought.

Yaknow what though, France, Italy, Germany, and Russia thought Saddam had WMDs as well. Everyone who says Bush 'lied' is full of caca. Bush was 'wrong', and even then Saddam still had to be taken out.

The person we REALLY need to dust is Kim Jung Il.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 02:37:49 2005 (r/FBF)

6 A breaking story here...

Huge underground hideout uncovered in Iraq

Search in Anbar province yields large weapons cache
Sunday, June 5, 2005 Posted: 8:14 AM EDT (1214 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. Marines and Iraqi soldiers have uncovered a 503,000 square-foot underground insurgent hideout in central Iraq containing large stores of weapons, ammunition and supplies.

The bunker -- the size of nine American football fields or six soccer pitches -- is the largest found in the past year, the U.S. military said Sunday.

No insurgents were in the bunker, but Marines found fully charged cell phones and fresh food in the kitchen, said 1st Lt. Kate VandenBossche, a spokeswoman for the 2nd Marine Division.

The bunker, which measured 902 feet (275 meters) by 558 feet (170 meters), also included furnished living spaces, two showers and an air conditioner, she said.

Other rooms contained machine guns, mortars, rockets, artillery rounds, black uniforms, ski masks, compasses, log books and night vision goggles, she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/iraq.main/index.html

Of course, maybe Commie News Network is unreliable as well.

But, an underground lair about the size of 9 football fields?!! Kind gives you a new perspective of how many types of weapons could be hidden or even manufactured or the storing of WMD.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jun 5 05:22:49 2005 (jXhtw)

7 Everyone who says Bush 'lied' is full of caca. Bush was 'wrong'

Well what would you call it?

We now know that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." I'd call knowingly altering intelligence report to make them back your plans when they didn't in reality lying.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun Jun 5 11:04:49 2005 (SVh3K)

8 I'd not heard that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"; what is the context in which that was presented? Also, did Bush - directly or indirectly - get people to change the intelligence? He could have told them he wants evidence that Saddam had WMDs. That's different than lying.

Also, did Bush somehow manage to convince all of the other world leaders to lie as well?

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 11:11:20 2005 (r/FBF)

9 I don't have much faith in the Downin Street memo -- and even if the thing is authentic, and that sentences is not a later addition, one does not need to read that as "altering intelligence". It is just as easy to read it as "selecting and using the evidence that best supported the case for war".

Think about it -- you have two bits of information -- one that supports your beliefs and one that doesn't. Which do you believe and use?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jun 5 12:15:31 2005 (lUWVO)

10 I stated it poorly. Thankfully RWR stated it better than I.

Posted by: Subjugator at Sun Jun 5 14:37:04 2005 (r/FBF)

11 Let's say your right and the memo actually only indicates that he was SELECTING evidence rather than ALTERING it. Isn't intentionally leaving out information that contradicts your claim and only offering what back it also lying? Didn't I just recently get attacked when it was percieved that I had done just what you're talking about?

Posted by: dolphin at Sun Jun 5 18:02:41 2005 (MIt/1)

12 *cough* Global warming, Dolphin?

You do have a good point though, in that if that's what he was doing, unless the evidence against was minimal or weak, it was intellectually dishonest and he should have given the whole story.

Not knowing what he did or said, I'd say there's at least evidence for suspicion. That said; my personal reasons for supporting our venture in Iraq are good - though I am being logically inconsistent in said support (I have serious difficulty reconciling it with my opposition to taxation) - and all I rely upon for actions I support are my reasons, not his.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Mon Jun 6 00:07:37 2005 (r/FBF)

13 Sub,

Your pet topic (global warming) has already been addressed in another post. Why don't you address it there instead of trying to make it the topic of EVERY post.

Posted by: dolphin at Mon Jun 6 05:03:02 2005 (fgsGh)

14 Indeed, every intel agency thought Saddam had WMD. Many prominent Democrats said this very thing, too (see here). So, how did Bush "lie?"

The Downing St. Memo, from I've seen, is as RWR says most likely -- that Bush and co. utilized [certain] evidence to make their case, not that they made up evidence. If Kerry and co. want to bring impeachment charges about this, good luck with the Repub. Congress!

Posted by: Hube at Mon Jun 6 10:41:40 2005 (WfW9j)

15 Most of those who believed that Iraq had WMDs believed so based on the evidence that Bush presented to them. Yet you still ask how Bush lied?

You got it spot on with that last line Hube. Bush cannot be impeached. He could single-handly kill every first born child in the US and as long as the GOP controls Congress he would happily sit there in office.

Posted by: dolphin at Mon Jun 6 12:04:12 2005 (hkQ+k)

16 I wasn't addressing the topic of global warming, I was addressing the topic of selective use of evidence. Global warming happens to be a very convenient example thereof.

As for the rest - they had their OWN intelligence agencies and believed that WMDs were possessed based on their own data. You can't possibly believe that Russia, England, et al do not have their own competent intelligence agencies.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:09:19 2005 (r/FBF)

17 And you can't possibly believe that the US wasn't offering them information to try to get them on board.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:19:37 2005 (fgsGh)

18 Competent Russian intelligence? Have you forgotten that Putin accused Bush for firing Dan Rather??


=========
'We didn't criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS.'

Bush's aides have long feared that former KGB officers in Putin's inner circle are painting a twisted picture of U.S. policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60098-2005Feb28.html
===========

Tell me again about how competent Russian intelligences are.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 06:46:36 2005 (LmcbS)

19 I can believe that we shared information with them. Can you believe that they also shared information with us?

I believe that it is entirely possible that Bush was intellectually dishonest. I just also believe it was possible that he wasn't intentionally so.

The reason I tend toward the second is because Bush has shown himself to be a fairly honest man, and I've not found proof of him ever having lied. In fact, when presented with the subject of past drug use, rather than lie, he refused to answer when he could have lied. Pretty tough thing to not lie about when he'd lie about something like this...ESPECIALLY since his request to congress for a use of force did NOT include mention of WMDs...it only included notation of Saddam's refusal to follow the basis of the cease fire.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 06:47:32 2005 (lkCzp)

20 Bush has shown himself to be a fairly honest man

I shouldn't have read that while eating. I almost choked. Funny stuff though, keep up the comedy!!

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 07:43:18 2005 (fgsGh)

21 Most of those who believed that Iraq had WMDs believed so based on the evidence that Bush presented to them. Yet you still ask how Bush lied?

URRRNT!!
Completely incorrect. Wow, I know libs are paranoid about American power projection, but to say that Bush hoodwinked every Western (and some non-Western) intel agencies as well as the UN is, well, ultra paranoid!

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:54:20 2005 (hLmHh)

22 BTW dolphin, you guys still can't decide whether Bush is a dunce or insidiously smart! It's a riot! Hey, but based on today's news, we now know that "intellectual/nuanced" Kerry had the same GPA at Yale as the pres.! How 'bout that?

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:58:35 2005 (hLmHh)

23 Sub,

You're incorrect about "his request to congress for a use of force did NOT include mention of WMDs...it only included notation of Saddam's refusal to follow the basis of the cease fire."

Look at the text of Joint Resolution on Iraq passed by the U.S. Congress on October 11, 2002.

It mentions "weapons of mass destruction" 7 times. Not to mention the word "weapons" 17 times.
Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as >>required

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:02:03 2005 (LmcbS)

24 forgot to add the link of the Joint Resolution on Iraq:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

Posted by: at Tue Jun 7 08:02:58 2005 (LmcbS)

25 that was me who added the link.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:03:34 2005 (LmcbS)

26 Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as >>required

Posted by: at Tue Jun 7 08:06:21 2005 (LmcbS)

27 Ok, one more time. It's picky about a certain symbol used here.

Congress voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as REQUIRED by the UN resolutions.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


It was an enforcement policy where the UN refused to address it after 12 years.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:48:50 2005 (LmcbS)

28 BTW dolphin, you guys still can't decide whether Bush is a dunce or insidiously smart! It's a riot! Hey, but based on today's news, we now know that "intellectual/nuanced" Kerry had the same GPA at Yale as the pres.! How 'bout that?

Bush is a moron. I've never said otherwise. If grades are so important to you, I personally scored higher than Bush on the SATs, and I didn't come from enough money to buy whatever grades I wanted. He's a moron, but a moron with an agenda, and a number of advisors.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 09:14:45 2005 (fgsGh)

29 Every U.S. President comes in with an agenda. Clinton's first agenda after eyeing Lewinsky was probably to try and bag her. He succeeded.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 09:44:35 2005 (LmcbS)

30 I think the PBS article has the most relevant text. Looks like I was incorrect.

Mea culpa. Sorry.

Now that I've read the request, if you read the whole declaration and request for the use of force, you'll note that it's only a small part of it and that there are other things as well beyond the WMDs. That may have weighted the decision of the legislative branch, so it could be worse to be wrong about that than other things, but it's still got a strong potential for being wrong.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 09:58:09 2005 (lkCzp)

31 Bush has an agendum I am sure. So does everyone else on this planet...it's whether or not said agenda are harmful that is of concern.

What I believe about Bush is that he is sincere and wants to do the right thing. I kinda see him as being fairly similar to Carter as far as personality goes...I have vast respect for both, but disagree with many policies enacted by them.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 10:00:58 2005 (lkCzp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Howard Dean, the son of wealth and privilege that heads the party of the wealthiest office-holders and political donors in America, now claims that Republicans are dishonest and don't work.

Asserting that some Florida voters stood in line for eight hours in November, Dean said that was a hardship for people who ''work all day and then pick up their kids at child care.''

But, he said, Republicans could stand in eight-hour lines ''because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.''

I'v got a suggestion for you, Dr. Howard F*ing Dean. Come down here to Houston some day. Spend an afternoon with me in my classroom, and then follow me to my night job after dinner with my disabled wife. Come with me to a Harris County GOP meeting, and see how many of my fellow precinct chairs are hard-working Americans who are out there working their tails off to support their families.

And then you can hop on your chartered jet and go back to Washignton, where you can have dinner with John Kerry, the gigolo who is the richest member of the US Senate, Jon Corzine (the Goldman-Sach profiteer), Herb Kohl (heir to a retailing fortune), Jay Rockerfeller (we know where he got his cash), Ted Kennedy (still living off of Daddy's bootlegging bucks), Marc Dayton (another guy who inherited his money), and Dianne Feinstein (she earned her money the old-fashioned way -- she married a rich guy). Heck, maybe you can call up Warren Buffett (speculator) and Bill Gates (stole IBM's operating system and Apple's interface, and uses monopoly power to control the software industry) to join you.

So are you suure you want to talk about folks who have never done an honest day's work, Howard?

Posted by: Greg at 04:00 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Bill Clinton has violated the deal made to avoid prosecution at the end of his term as president. As such, the agreement not to prosecute him for his crimes is no longer in effect, and federal authorities should pursue all appropriate charges against the former president. After all, there is no longer any basis for arguing that investigations or a trial interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties. I mean, he no longer has any.

Let's recall what the agreement required. Clinton had to admit that he did, in fact, lie in the Paula Jones case. Furthermore, he had to accept being disbarred. Now he has come back and made the claim that all charges against him were, in fact, false. These claims, in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, seem to be a deal breaker to me.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 05:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the Texas Left has again demanded that Governor Rick Perry suspend the First Amendment to the US Constitution, insofar as it applies to those who object to the invasion of the United States by undocumented border-jumping criminals. This is the second such demand in the last month.

State Senator Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa and a group of Texas lawmakers attempted to pass a resolution insisting thet the governor prevent the Minutemen from monitoring the Texas-Mexico border for invading border-jumpers, as they did in Arizona this spring. The basis for the demand that the Constitutional right of Americans to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances be abridged was that allowing the exercise of those rights could "impede the traffic and negatively affect both tourism and trade along the border."

Governor Perry responded appropriately, though he failed to give support to the Minutemen as I had hoped he would.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

I am generally warm in my attitude towards Jews. I have similar warm feelings for Israel. That is why I share some concerns with Rachel Neuwirth regarding the recent indictment of Larry Franklin on charges related to mishandling of classified documents, and the likely indictment of certain officials of AIPAC, the principle pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. I don't want to see our relationship with Israel upset, and I would hate to see the stereotype that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the US reinforced.

But I think Neuwirth goes too far with this concern.
more...

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 688 words, total size 4 kb.