I've had it with Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. I'm serious -- I'm washing my hands of the man. This Republican precinct chair will not be passing out any of his material, will notbe making phone calls, and certainly won't distrubute yard signs to the party faithful. And I know that a lot of other Republicans have lost their enthusiasm for him.

What is my beef? It isn't his failure to get appraisal caps on property taxes passed. It isn't the fact that he can't control the state Senate, despite holding the most powerful job in Texas government (the Governor is a distant third). No, it is his utterly inane comment about a proposal to strip all the controversial elements from the education bill being debated in the second special session of the year.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he was worried that there was support for what he called a "poison pill" amendment that would have removed nearly all of the reform measures in the bill, leaving only provisions for a teacher pay raise and textbook funding.

Yeah, you read that right. Paying for textbooks and raising teacher salaries (Texas teachers make about $6000 a year below the national average) constitutes a "poison pill". Good Lord -- they are the two things that most Texans agree on, according to polling data! If this man thinks that they are "poison", I'm willing to do all I can to make sure he is defeated, even if that means biting the bullet and voting for his eventual Democrat opponent. The stuff that would have been stripped from the bill were provisions raisng the age for teacher retirement while cutting the benefit level; and, if a school or district meets state standards to be classified as exemplary, gutting due process and workplace rights for teachers (guaranteeing that no school or district will ever meet those standards again).

No, Dewhurst has got to go -- and I put that above any party loyalty that I might feel. If he is going to label textbooks and teacher raises as "poison" after presiding over a vote to give legislators an $6500 annual increase in their pensions for their $7200-a-year part-time job, he clearly is the wrong man to hold this or any other public office.

Oh, and by the way, I find it interesting that the Houston Chronicle didn't find that "poison pill" quote to be sufficiently important to report on it. in its article on the new education bill -- nor did most of the rest of the news media in the state. I guess they don't consider textbooks and teachers to be important, either.

Posted by: Greg at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

You don't get much bluer than Massachusetts, and in particular the city of Boston. That is why I believe this story is important -- it shows what the allegedly "pro-minority" Democrats do when they have power.

In a lawsuit filed yesterday, the Justice Department alleges that the city and its poll workers interfered with voters' rights by ''improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot choices of limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian-American voters" and of generally ''abridging" their voting rights by treating Hispanic and Asian voters disrespectfully at the polls and by failing to provide adequate translation services for them.

The lawsuit says the Justice Department has been urging the city to comply with the Voting Rights Act since 1992, spanning a period when the city's Hispanic and Asian populations have swelled, making the groups a potentially formidable political force. Justice Department lawyers contend that the city has failed to respond to repeated requests to improve the city's treatment of Hispanic and Asian voters with limited English skills. It does not provide specific instances of violations of voters' rights.

''The violations of the Voting Rights Act that we discovered in Boston are deeply disturbing, and there is no place for such misconduct in 2005," Bradley J. Schlozman, acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a prepared statement released yesterday. ''Furthermore, despite having had an unequivocal obligation -- for 13 years -- to provide Spanish language information to voters who need it . . . the City of Boston has consistently fallen well short of the mark."

Under the Voting Rights Act, if more than 10,000 of a city's voting-age citizens are members of a single-language minority with limited English skills, all elections materials must be available in their first language. The city is required to offer all ballots and instructions in Spanish for the 34,000 Hispanic citizens of voting age in Boston. The federal law also forbids officials from imposing any requirement or procedure that denies or abridges the rights of minority citizens to vote.

It's Florida and Ohio all over again -- except with actual evidence of actual violations of the voting rights of minorities.

Posted by: Greg at 03:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien offered a reward for evidence tying Chicago Mayr Richard Daley to the latest corruption scandal in his administration on Tuesday.

On Thursday, Skoien was fired from his job as executive vice president and chief operations officer at The Prime Company, a real estate development company. The reason?

Prime GroupÂ’s chief executive officer, Mike Reschke, delivered the news to Skoien that he was out as executive vice president and chief operations officer.

Reschke says SkoienÂ’s actions went too far.

“I’m not very happy with what Gary did,” Reschke said. “I think it was inappropriate and irresponsible. I don’t think he should continue in his role with the company.”

Reschke praised Daley as the greatest mayor in America -- but somehow overlooked the latest scandals to his his administration. A federal investigation of a $38 million program that allows the city to outsource its hauling work, which has already resulted in 21 guilty pleas, and another in which federal prosecutors have charged two city hall officials with rigging the cityÂ’s hiring system. It seems that good-will from city officials is more important to Reschke than honest government. Folks might want to consider that before doing business with Prime.

Not, of course, that Skoien is unemployed. His primary source of income comes from his work as chief executive officer of Horizon Group Properties Inc., which owns factory outlets around the country.

Posted by: Greg at 03:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm still backing Condi in 2008, but would like to see Vice President Cheney declare for the nomination.

“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” [Hearst columnist Helen Thomas] told The Hill.

And this is supposed to keep him from running?

Although this does actually put me in agreement with Ann Coulter, a most unusual event.

What is it with these Arabs and suicide?

And screw Media Matters if they don't like the satire.

Posted by: Greg at 05:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

That is, of course, why liberals oppose allowing recruiters in public schools and deride military service. In New York City, Councilman Charles Barron (whose racist statements and antics in favor of dictators and cop-killers are legend) is seeking to ban military recruiters from city shools in violation of federal law, claiming that they "prey" on minority students, "taling advantage" of them.

What says one of those students, after graduating from one of those schools and performing exemplary service in the armed forces?

If Mr. Barron doesn't believe that serving one's country is an honor and not a trick, let him have a chat with Corporal Charles Grant - one of the black youngsters Mr. Barron thinks is being taken advantage of by the military. Corporal Grant, aged 22, told The New York Sun he joined the military when recruiters came to his high school in the Bronx, Adlai E. Stevenson, four years ago. He's part of the 82nd Airborne Division, served both in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and received Army commendation medals in both wars.

In response to Mr. Barron's view that he had been taken "advantage of," Corporal Grant described his military career to The New York Sun as "actually an advantage for me," providing him with "mental, physical, and financial stability" while many of his high school peers fell on hard times. More importantly, he was proud to be of "service to the country" and "part of something great," "providing a blanket of comfort for the next generation." Corporal Grant, in his wisdom, values his military career so highly that he persuaded his older brother, Gary, to join the military a few months ago, and his brother is set to graduate from his Army training program today.

So whose word do we take -- a former member of a terrorist organization whose words and actions betray a contempt for the values of this nation, or one of the soldiers who has put his life on the line so that such a disgusting individual has the freedom to make contemptible comments? I think the answer is obvious.

God bless you, Corporal Grant. And when you finish with your service, come back home and run against Barron. There are lots of real Americans out here who would gladly support your campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 05:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 2 kb.

Some folks complain that the Minutemen and other similar groups are vigilantes. I think they are wrong, especially since those doing the criticizing are opposed to any effort to control immigration and secure our borders.

Well, Congressman John Culbertson has a solution to that problem -- he wants to permit states to establish Border Militias to help enforce the nation's immigration laws.

Adding an unusual proposal to the searing debate over illegal immigration, U.S. Rep. John Culberson of Houston introduced a bill late Thursday to let Texas and other border states establish armed militias to catch people trying to illegally cross from Mexico and Canada.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill, which he called a "thunderclap," is more than a solitary, symbolic gesture by the Republican lawmaker: It has 46 Republican co-sponsors.

It comes as the White House, Congress and local officials are becoming increasingly immersed in efforts to find the best way to secure the borders and perhaps also establish a "guest worker" program to let immigrants stay in the United States as temporary legal residents.

Gov. Rick Perry indicated he is open to Culberson's idea.

"Illegal immigration has become a pervasive problem in this country, and it is a drain on our economy," Perry said. "Regardless of the mechanism, the federal government must provide a stronger presence along the border and must provide substantially more funding for border protection."

Among Culberson's co-sponsors are 10 Texans, including freshmen Reps. Ted Poe of Humble and Michael McCaul of Austin.

The measure's stated goal is to let governors create a Border Protection Corps of citizens to shield the country from "uniquely devious, criminal, cowardly and fanatically determined" terrorist organizations.

Culberson said the militia provisions in the Constitution must be invoked because the U.S. Border Patrol lacks the resources to deal with any surge in illegal crossings by people who may have ties to terrorist groups.

"The tools are all there in the Constitution," Culberson said. "America's best defense against terrorists trying to sneak into our country is to trust the good hearts and the good sense of American citizens."

This sounds like an excellent way of meeting the criticisms offered against the Minutemen. They will be trained, regulated, and officially deputized for the task for which they organized. They will be able to do more than merely take pictures and make phone calls -- they will be authorized to take action and actually stop the immigration criminals. And they will provide needed relief for the under-staffed Border Patrol.

Good for John Culbertson, and his 46 co-sponsors. Call your congressman and encourage him to join as a co-sponsor.

Posted by: Greg at 04:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
ARTICLE VI; Cl. 3
The Senators and Representatives..., and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. [Emphasis and bold added.]

Do inquiries by Senators about the intersection of religious beliefs and the performance of official duties constitute a religious test under the terms of the Constitution? Does the refusal of a Senator to vote to confirm a candidate because of that candidates "deeply held personal/religious beliefs" constitute a violation of the Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution? Those are questions we have dealt repeatedly over the last several years. They arise again with the nomination of Judge john Roberts, a faithful practicing Catholic, to the US Supreme Court..

Let me answer the question forthrightly in the negative -- neither situation constitutes a violation of the constitutional ban on religious tests.

Let me explain, in the context of discussing an editorial in the New York Sun.

Senator Durbin of Illinois, fresh from slandering American GIs by comparing them to Nazis, introduced a new slander into the public debate after meeting on Friday with President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts. Mr. Durbin, according to several press reports, asked the nominee to the high court whether he had considered potential conflicts between the moral imperatives of his Roman Catholic faith and his responsibilities as a judge.

Mr. Durbin's press secretary, Joseph Shoemaker, promptly denied that his boss asked such a question. But law professor Jonathan Turley, who reported on the meeting between Mr. Durbin and Judge Roberts in a Los Angeles Times column that appears on the adjacent page, said he heard about the conversation directly from Mr. Durbin - and confirmed the senator's account with Mr. Shoemaker as well. Mr. Durbin has since clammed up.

Based on the senator's performance so far, it's no doubt a wise policy, one that would serve him well all the way through the confirmation hearings, in which Mr. Durbin will participate as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Interrogating a nominee in respect of his religious beliefs is not only grossly inappropriate. It's unconstitutional. In Article 6, the Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No, ever, any. It's the most emphatic single sentence in the entire Constitution.

Now let me say that I find the position taken by Senator Durbin to be repugnant. However Durbin, an anti-Catholic Catholic if there ever was one, has raised an important question. How would this nominee respond if the law required one outcome to a case but his faith compelled a different one? On its face, this is not an improper question. In light of the current War on Jihadi Terrorism, it would be prudent to raise a similar question with a Muslim nominee to a high office which dealt with defense, national security, intelligence, or homeland security. Would it constitute a "religious test" for office? No -- it would go to the heart of the issue of the nominee's ability to properly carry out the duties of the office. The issue is not one of religious beliefs per se. Rather, it is focused on the ability of the nominee to do the job for which he or she is nominated. In the current situation, it is designed to determine whetehr or not Judge Roberts has an appropriate sense of the role of a judge and the temperment/character to carry perform in that role.

Now please note tahtDurbin seems to reserve his religious scrutiny for his fellow Catholics who are more faithful to Catholic teachings than he is, and for Protestants with a more fundamentalist/evangelical bent. There is no record of his making such inquiries of jews or non-Christians, nor of those Christians whose religious views are less respectful with the historical tenets of Christianity. As such, I find his questions tinged with a religious bigotry which is fundamentally unAmerican -- but the questions themselves are reasonable and proper.

Now we all know that these religious questions are primarily a proxy for questions about abortion and the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Again, these are proper areas for scrutiny. If a hypothetical nominee were, for example, a member of the Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy dressed up with a facade of theology), would it not be proper to inquire about the nominee's ability to uphold the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Acts enacted pursuant to them? Of course it would -- and the failure of the nominee to give "the right answers" would be a more than sufficient basis for rejection without running afoul of Article VI.

But how does that square with the many weighty and serious quotes from the Founders regarding religious tests for office?

How could the Founders of America have made it any more plain? From Tench Coxe, in his examination of the Constitution ("No religious test is ever to be required of any officer or servant of the United States. The people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of the various duties of the government") to William Lancaster of North Carolina ("... we form a government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of divination. In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it" ) to Luther Martin ("there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism") to Edmund Randolph ("A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States"), the Founders debated the religious test from every angle and then, by an overwhelming margin, excluded it.

The answer, of course, is to understand what constituted a religious test in the mind of an educated American in the latter part of the eighteenth century -- to strictly construe the original intent of the text at the time of its writing and adoption. These were men whose context was fundamentally British, and whose historical points of reference were usually those which came from that heritage. It is no accident, for example, that the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are a reaction to the abuses of the British monarchs over the previous two centuries. Viewed in that context, the prohibition on religious tests is designed to prevent the imposition of "test oaths" which excluded members of certain sects from holding public office or exercising certain rights. The most famous of these were the anti-Catholic oaths which forced individuals to repudiate certain tenets of the Catholic faith and the authority of the pope. Those who refused to take such an oath were barred from public offices and faced certain restrictions on their liberties. Such is not the case with Durbin's questions, which could NEVER rise to the level of a "religious test" in the sense intended by the Founder. Durbin's refusal to vote for a candidate because of those views also does not violate the religious test provision, any more than my refusal to vote for a Satanist does.

Mr. Durbin insisted to reporters last week that he wasn't interested in applying a "litmus test" to judicial nominees. The senator told Judge Roberts, "If you will be honest and forthcoming, you're going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue." But two days later, Mr. Durbin went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to say that if Judge Roberts did not find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, on which the right to abortion is based, "It would disqualify him in my mind."

Now notice, please, that Durbin's basis for giving or denying his vote is NOT religious, but is instead based upon constitutional interpretation. That is a legitimate basis for a Senator to use in making a decision. After all, a nominee who stated that he believed that Plessy is right and Brown is wrong would merit rejection. While I disagree with Durbin's litmus test (and it is a litmus test, despite his protestation to the contrary), I don't have a problem with rejecting a nominee on the basis of jurisprudential principles, regardless of the source of the "deeply held personal beliefs" which lead to such a conclusion. I wish we on the conservative side had made a practice of doing so over the last few decades.

Yet the Democrats persist. "You wouldn't run for the United States Senate or for governor or for anything else without answering people's questions about what you believe," Senator Bayh of Indiana said this week. "And I think the Supreme Court is no different." This attitude is the side effect of using the courts to make laws rather than interpret them. But it will be an even greater debasement of the Constitution to see the judicial nomination process tarred by religious bigotry. Forty-five years after America finally elevated a Catholic to the presidency we will see whether Senators Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, and Kennedy recognize that Judge Roberts can't be tested on his "deeply held personal beliefs" in respect of religion.

Now I will agree with one statement here -- it is a debasement of the Constitution for religious bigotry to enter into the confirmation process. That said, it is not a violation of the Constitution for religious bigots like Senators Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, and Kennedy to reject a nominee based upon such bigotry, any more than racist Senator Robert Byrd's votes against the only two African-Americans ever nominated to the Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution despite violating fundamental principles of human decency. For all their appeals to that which is worst in human nature, their questions and their votes do not violate the Constitution. To claim otherwise is to violate the very originalist principles that we conservatives ask our judges to apply.

Posted by: Greg at 05:17 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1792 words, total size 11 kb.

Yeah, I know that sounds like a bit of a stretch, but this decision by PA Gov. Ed Rendell seems to make that outcome the likely conclusion.

Even though Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll makes occasional malaprops and mistakes in judgment, Gov. Ed Rendell says he'll stick with her when he runs for re-election next year.

Asked yesterday if she'll be his running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2006, Rendell said, "I have no reason to expect differently."

Rendell told a state Capitol news conference that as lieutenant governor, Knoll takes her job seriously and "has conducted herself in office with dignity. A lot of people have been touched by the fact she is a caring and sensitive individual."

There is continuing speculation among some Democratic officials that Rendell might want a different running mate next year. Knoll's age, 74, and her occasional bouts of confusion in running the Senate during late-night sessions have raised some doubts about her performance.

But Rendell said, "Name me one thing the lieutenant governor has done wrong, substantively. Sure, she occasionally makes some malaprops, such as referring to me as Edward G. Robinson

So Rendell plans on keeping the confused, mind-fogged, Marine-hating, America-betraying witch on the ticket. Plenty of us will remember what she has done wrong.

Looks Like We've Made A Difference!">End This Arrogant Pol's Career
Looks Like We've Made A Difference!
Knoll Responds
Goodrich Family Accepts Apology

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

The family of SSGT Joseph Goodrich has accepted the apology of Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll.

"We asked for an apology and that's what we got," said Rhonda Goodrich, Joseph Goodrich's sister-in-law, who has been speaking on behalf of the family. She said the apology was accepted, although the family had also wanted Knoll to apologize to the Marine Corps.

"Probably, in all honesty, she didn't even know she was acting inappropriately, she's so out there," said Goodrich, of Indiana. "The business card, I will always believe, was handed out as campaign fodder."

Knoll said in her letter that she arrived too late to offer her personal condolences. That rankled Rhonda Goodrich, who said she believed Knoll came to get publicity.

"She didn't have time to be with Amy or Joe's parents, but she made time for the TV cameras," she said. "That's where I'm still a little bitter."

Goodrich said Knoll remarked to Joseph Goodrich's aunt that "our government" was opposed to the war.

And just to back up Rhonda's comment about Knoll not having time for the family, but being quite available to the press on the day of the funeral, Annie O'Neill of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides us with the photographic evidence.

One development I've noted -- and which is also noted by the Post-Gazette -- is that Rhonda Goodrich has now come under attack by the Left. It seems that she was involved in a protest against a taxpayer-funded pre-election program featuring Michael Moore at the local university. That appraently makes her a "Right Wing activist" with an axe to grind whose complaints should be dismissed as "exploiting her brother-inlaw's death for political reasons." I guess that those making such statments believe that only Left Wing activists may avail themselves of the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Such statements, I believe, tell us more about them and their moral depravity than it does about Rhonda.

(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin)

Previously:
End This Arrogant Pol's Career
Looks Like We've Made A Difference!
Knoll Responds

Posted by: Greg at 03:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

Reading that headline, you may think I am nuts. After all, who could be against justice for slain police officers (or any murder victim)? Certainly not me, which is why I oppose the bill. It does nothing to get justice for murdered cops -- and has the effect of lowering the maximum sentence for cop-killers who manage to skip across the border into Mexico. Speaking as the brother of a cop, I don't find that acceptable at all.

Bob Baker, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, does a good job of explaing the problem with this well-intentioned bill sponsored by Congressman David Dreir.

Mexico has become a fugitive paradise, willingly harboring and giving sanctuary to hundreds of murderers who have fled the United States after their crimes. A 2001 Mexican Supreme Court decision in essence halted all extraditions of Mexican citizens, or those Americans of Mexican descent. That decision forbade Mexico from extraditing any person, whether or not a Mexican citizen, if that person faced a sentence that carried the possibility of life imprisonment, saying it would violate the Mexican constitution and was "cruel and unusual punishment." In addition, Mexico has consistently refused to extradite murderers if they faced the death penalty.

Dreier's legislation only worsens the situation.

The legislation, ostensibly designed to get cop killers returned to the United States, gives exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to the federal government. Washington then gets to decide, in negotiation with the foreign government harboring the cop killer, the sentence the killer will face. Only after the sentence is agreed upon would there be an extradition. The terms of the extradition treaty would preclude any state prosecution.

Yeah, that's right -- if someone managed to slip out of the US, they would be subject to a lesser penalty than if they were caught within the borders of the United States. Prosecution would be handled by the Federal Courts, with state charges forbidden (a violation of federalism). That's not acceptable to me, and shouldn't be to any American.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley succinctly pointed out these shortcomings in a blistering letter to Dreier. Cooley noted that while nicely titled, Dreier's legislation is nothing more than a sleight of hand that would, in the end, cheapen the sentence for the murder of police officers, acquiesce to the demands of Mexico, and provide an incentive for the murderers of law enforcement officers to flee to Mexico.

Let me be clear. If -- God forbid! -- something ever happens to my brother, I want to see the creep involved get the maximum possible penalty. (If it isn't the death penalty, I want 5 minutes with the cameras off so that I can administer 9mm of justice on behalf of my sister-in-law and my niece and my nephew.) What I do not want is for some Joe Wilson-type mint-tea-and-cookies diplomat to sit down with his corrupt Mexican government amigo and work out a sentence in advance of the trial and without regard to the penalties set forth by law.

The district attorney also pointed out that the Peace Officer Justice Act ignores the plight of all the other violent crimes committed by those who flee the country. It also discounts the considerable experience and expertise of local prosecutors who routinely prosecute murder cases.

I also object to the fact that this does nothing for the victims of crimes against ordinary citizens. This December will be the tenth anniversary of the "thrill-kill" murder of a former colleague's daughter by a couple of Mexican gangbangers who jumped back across the border. One was eventually arrested in Mexico, but the same ruling that prevents the extradition of cop killers also prevents the extradition of Kristie's murderer. Where is the justice in ignoring the deaths of ordinary Americans?

In the end, all I can say is that the status quo is better than the Dreier bill.

Posted by: Greg at 03:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 6 kb.

Michelle Malkin has been chasing down Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knall's response to the outrage at her conduct at the funeral of SSGT Joseph Goodrich.

Knoll won't speak publicly about her conduct. She won't hold a press conference to take questions about her conduct. She won't take press phone calls on the matter. She is even refusing calls from constituents and veterans groups on the matter.

And here is her "letter of apology".

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 25, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Office of the Lieutenant Governor Commonwealth News Bureau Room 200, Main Capitol Harrisburg, PA 17120 LT. GOVERNOR CATHERINE BAKER KNOLL LETTER OF APOLOGY HARRISBURG: July 25, 2005

Dear Mrs. Goodrich,

I am writing to further apologize and clarify what happened at the funeral of your beloved husband, Joseph. As a wife and mother, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to lose your spouse so suddenly. As an adored member of your family and one of PennsylvaniaÂ’s sons serving with soldiers from across the commonwealth, SSGT Joseph Goodrich, is one of this nationÂ’s heroes.

As I said in my phone message to Rhonda, after I learned through press reports that your family was offended by my attendance, I was incredibly upset. I wanted to assure you once again that my intention was not to add to what must be a tremendously, heartbreaking, difficult period.

The war on terror is an immensely personal conflict for the thousands of people whose families continue to serve with honor, and I have attended dozens of funerals to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

My heart and prayers are with your family, and to the families of all the men and women serving the cause of freedom in the fight against terror. I unfortunately, did not arrive at the church services for SSGT GoodrichÂ’s funeral in time to offer my personal condolences to you. As I also mentioned on RhondaÂ’s phone message, as I do with many Pennsylvanians I meet, I offered my business card so she could contact me, and as a sign of my willingness to help the family through this difficult time in any way I can. To do anything that was deemed insensitive was completely counter to my intent.

Sergeant GoodrichÂ’s service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his familyÂ’s grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.

I will continue to support our troops in my role as Lt. Governor and support our President as an American. That I somehow conveyed an impression that was interpreted as other than that will forever be saddening and upsetting to me.

Again, please accept my heartfelt apology and deepest sympathy.

Sincerely,
Catherine Baker Knoll
Lieutenant Governor

Let's assume that the explanation of the business card issue is accurate. It sounds sort of reasonable, and is at least plausible. I'd be willing to let that go -- EXCEPT for what she conspicuously leaves out of the "apology".

Yeah, that's right. There is something that is not addressed.

You know. The comment.

"I want you to know our government is against this war."

The letter completely fails to address what she said to this hero's family in the church during the funeral. She glossed over the most egregious offense by saying she 'supports the troops' -- and offered a Durbinesque apology for impressions, feelings and interpretations by the family. SHE NEVER APOLOGIZES FOR WHAT SHE SAID!

More commentary from The Anchoress, Bill Hennessey, Rambling's Journal, Brian J. Noggle and Blackfive.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

Yesterday, I helped make a fuss over the disgusting actions of Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll, along with many other folks around the blogosphere, including Blackfive and Michelle Malkin. Well, we seem to have had some effect.

Written apologies will be sent to a fallen Marine's relatives angered by Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll's uninvited appearance at the soldier's funeral and her criticism of the war in Iraq, Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday.

Rendell said he will send a personal letter to the family of the late Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, of Westwood, and will ask Knoll to do the same. Goodrich, 32, a police officer and infantry unit leader, died July 10 in a mortar attack in Hit, Iraq.

Rendell said he hadn't spoken with Knoll about the incident, but was disturbed by the family's charge that she made a political statement against the war.

"It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war," Rendell said during an appearance in Mt. Washington.

Lt. Governor Knoll, on the other hand, is trying to backpedal through her spokesperson -- but has failed to speak herself, or to contact the offended family.

Knoll spokesman Sean Pendrak would not comment specifically on the Goodrich family's allegations.

"Obviously, the lieutenant governor extends her most sincere condolences to all families who have lost loved ones in the fighting," Pendrak said. "She also wants to convey her support of all of our fine young men and women in uniform."

That support means little to Rhonda Goodrich, who believes Knoll was more interested in jump-starting next year's re-election bid than offering genuine sympathy to mourners.

"She never said to anyone, 'If there's anything I can do to help, just call my office,' " Goodrich said. "It seems like she's going to funerals and using business cards as campaign fliers."

Rhonda Goodrich remains angry, but she is grateful for one thing.

"I'm glad she didn't sit down next to me and say those things," Goodrich said. "I would have smacked her on the spot."

You know, part of me wishes that Knoll HAD sat down next to Rhonda -- she might have gotten a small measure of what she deserves.

Now if we can just get this woman out of office -- she is still a disgrace.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, Narcissistic views on News/Politics, Blackfive, and Irish Pennants)

And look -- Chris Muir has taken notice!

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Greg, thanks for posting the toon, even when I had to make corrections!

Posted by: chris Muir at Mon Jul 25 05:11:27 2005 (g/gbg)

2 Hey, what an honor. Chris Muir graced your website, Greg.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon Jul 25 06:41:41 2005 (yJZQw)

3 Chris --

What can i say -- I've been a fan forever. The mistakes just prove you are human, not a god.

Or maybe that you are merely a demi-god.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jul 25 09:01:09 2005 (ajHgW)

4 If gods are fat, well then...

Posted by: chris Muir at Mon Jul 25 09:57:46 2005 (g/gbg)

5 I am not convinced even these 'apologies' rise to the minimal standard of an apology. Both Rendell's and Knolls' comments (which last I looked were only hinted at by Michelle Malkin) were more caveat ridden excuses instead of meaningful apologies.

If you are interested here is my latest post with a link to the Rendell post

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/425

Mark me down as unsatisfied and unimpressed.

Posted by: AJStrata at Mon Jul 25 10:11:33 2005 (67DAA)

6 There is nothing for Scholl to apologize for. Rhonda Goodrich is a Right Wing activist exploiting her brother-in-law's death for poltiical reasons. Shame on her. Hopefully, as more people in the media figute out who Goodrich is, the chickens will come home to roost. She successfully manipulated people, but it won't last.

Posted by: June Gordon at Mon Jul 25 19:36:57 2005 (+vcVQ)

7 And you base your assessment on what, exactly, June? I mean seriously -- if you are ging to make that accusation, what is the evidence for it?

Clearly you don't really have any evidence or understanding of the details -- after all, you can't even bother to get Lt. Gov. Knoll's name correct.

But since you raised the issue -- Who is Rhonda Goodrich, and what should we "figure out" about her? And what constitutes her "Right Wing activis[m]".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jul 26 00:17:20 2005 (pCcWs)

8 Fact: It was a memorial service for a fallen service member. A time for FAMILY and FRIENDS to come together and remember the departed and to grace his memory. This official, as far as I have been able to discern, was neither. Since when is it good manners to intrude upon a family's grief.

Posted by: Jan Perry at Tue Jul 26 06:53:45 2005 (uNVZy)

9 June Gordon,
Nothing "will come out about me"....To accuse someone of exploiting a loved ones ( A heros ) funeral is obscene...The event we ,NOT taxpayers sponsered against Michael Moore came about because the university would not let Ann Coulter counter Moore.Professors gave extreme amounts of extra credit to those students who would see Moore. None given to the other side
You know nothing of me or my beliefs, you know nothing of the Marine Corp either. I have received hundres of letters from Marines and Marine family who are disgraced at Knolls words and actions.
My family ( not just myself have been talked to by the press to verify the dispicable behavior of Knoll.
So write these Marines and ask who they are minipulating!
Republican or demorcrat is not the issue. The issue is a women holding as a high ranking officials gave her unwanted opinion to a grieving family memebr of a fallen Hero.
Get a grip June
Rhonda Goodrich

Posted by: Rhonda Goodrich at Tue Jul 26 12:15:21 2005 (P93XD)

10 Rhonda, you are a hypocrite. (Assuming of course that the person who posted is the Right Wing activist.) Your motivation for attacking Knoll is that she does not share your politics, not her attending the funeral. She has attended many such funerals, and despite the presence of many Republicans no one else sunk so low as to attack Knoll for political reasons. Your antics at rallies against anything you consider 'liberal,' including the puerile displays at Michael Moore events, pale in comparison. Yes, some people have figured out that you are the person in the wrong. It was graceful of Knoll to apologize, but she had no real reason to do.

(Rhymes, your question is answered as well.)

This foolishness about 'private' funerals needs to stop. People attend funerals they are not expressly invited to often. Nor is Knoll alone in attending the funerals of soldiers in her area to pay respects. The governor of Oregon has tried to attend the funerals of all soldiers killed in Iraq. There is nothing wrong with that. We need to focus on things that unite us, such as regret for people who die young, instead of succumbing to the incitements of trouble makers like Rhonda Goodrich.

Posted by: June Gordon at Tue Jul 26 14:31:17 2005 (+vcVQ)

11 Actually, you have provided exactly ZERO in the way of evidence. And would you clarify which "people have figured out that [Rhonda is] the person in the wrong"

After all, I could use your letter about Guide Dogs in Ragged Edge to claim that you are an activist against the disabled.

Ultimately, Knoll arrived late for the funeral and didn't meet with the widow or parents of the deceased soldier -- but was more than willing to talk to the press outside the Church. That doesn't sound like paying respects to me. Neither does making anti-war statements to other family membrs in the Church during the funeral.

Knoll is a disgrace.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jul 26 15:01:03 2005 (AOU2g)

12 "and despite the presence of many Republicans no one else sunk so low as to attack Knoll for political reasons. "

Please tell that to the the hundreds of people who wrote Tribune -Review, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Called numerous radio stations , flooded the Lt Gov office with emails and phone calls....Marines from all over the country
You madam seem to be the be activist here.

"Your antics at rallies against anything you consider 'liberal,' including the puerile displays at Michael Moore events, "

Only one Rally in 38 years, not Rallies,
The university would not balance the debate and denied students request for balance.
Me an activist? You do sound like a lefty activist.You make no sense and ramble on about things you know nothing about.
This is the last post to you Ms.Gordon. Clearly you are the minority in your feelings on this issue . Do some research before you spew off. It really makes you look ignorant....It's people like you who should Thank and be so utterly gratefull to hero's like SSGT.Goodrich...Without them you'd be obsolete.

(to Greg)
Your email did not come through ,please resend

Posted by: Rhonda Goodrich at Tue Jul 26 16:29:42 2005 (P93XD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Once again, the Israelis are making noise about the "unjust" sentence of traitor Jonathan Pollard, who betrayed the United States by spying for Israel.

Knesset Law Committee chairman Michael Eitan, a former chairman of the Knesset Pollard caucus, expressed disappointment with the US legal system. Israel has proven to be more humane than the US, Eitan said, noting that nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu served only 18 years.

"Pollard is serving a sentence disproportionate to his crime," Eitan said.

He said he believed that the Pollard case could now only be resolved between the US president and the Israeli prime minister.

Now I'll agree that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime -- but unfortuantely, Pollard did not qualify for the death penalty which he richly deserved. And it is an injustice that he is serving this sentence alone -- but the Isaelis refused to turn over those officials who recruited and coordinated his betrayal of the United States, as well as those who approved his spying.

Let me offer Israel this easy-to-understand message from one American citizen -- shut up about Pollard, and quit trying to get him released. Remember that you are the JUNIOR partner in this strategic relationship, and that you need the US much more than we need you, given that you suck at the US foreign aid teat to the tune of at least $4 billion annually. Any American president who lets Pollard go will be rejected by the American people, if not impeached. So Pollard will stay in a US prison, where he belongs, until he rots -- and that is how it should be. Deal with it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich of Indiana, PA died on July 10, 2005, fighting for his country in Iraq. He is a hero, and as such he and his family deserve to be treated with the utmost respect. That is why the actions of Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll are particularly egregious.

Now put yourself in the place of the Goodrich family. You have lost a family member. You are at the funeral in a church full of mourners. And then someone you don't even know shows up at the church and plunks down among the family. I'll let Rhonda Goodrich, Staff Sgt. Goodrich's sister-in-law, pick up the narrative.

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.

Yeah, you read that right -- during the funeral for one of our honored war dead, this arrogant BITCH of a politician had the audacity to look a member of the family in the eye say "I want you to know our government is against this war."

I'm sorry -- I've never been a big believer in having politicians at funerals unless they are friends of thedeceased, the family or are otherwise invited guests. They certainly should not be showing up in any sort of "official capacity" without clearing it in advance with the family. And no one at a funeral should do or say anything to add to the distress or the grief of the surviving family. There are other times and places for that.

But that is what Lt. Governor Knoll did. She showed up uninvited. She dishonored the deceased hero. She deeply hurt and offended the family.This woman needs to be driven from office by the people of Pennsylvania and loyal Americans everywhere -- whether they be supporters or opponents of the war in Iraq. Some things are simply beyond the pale. Dishonoring a dead Marine and distressing his family falls into that category, and must be reason to end her career.

Further commentary on this issue from Blackfive, Large Bill Pontificates, Pennywit, Media Lies, The Indepundit, and Michelle Malkin (who even quoted me!)

Posted by: Greg at 03:33 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Greg I agree,rude witch can't behave herself no better than that she deserves to run out of office actually the old fashioned way via a mob of angry tax payers.this modern way of doing politics doesn't work!it is a proven failure!one way would be to get her out of office but my personal favorite is for her to be run out with a stick or a pipe.

Posted by: Lisa Gilliam at Sat Jul 23 17:45:14 2005 (ynXtq)

2 Couldn't agree more. How dare she. How DARE she?

Dishonring someone from my hometown (Indiana, PA) while she was at it, too. Let's run Jabba the Hutt (Gov. Rendell, who looks like aforementioned Star Wars character) and his minion out of Harrisburg.

Posted by: B. Minich, PI at Sat Jul 23 19:52:44 2005 (XX1SF)

3 Sounds like she's been taking lessons in etiquette from DailyKos.

Posted by: marcus at Sat Jul 23 21:18:49 2005 (mq+EB)

4 I'm out here in Iraq with the 3d Battalion, 25th Marines, SSgt Goodrich's unit. I can't articulate the disgust and the revulsion I feel upon reading this news.

As a Marine Corps officer, it is unethical for me to express political opinions, but my opinion of this sorry excuse for a human being has nothing to do with politics. After seeing dozens of my fellow Marines in my battalion get killed these past few months, I always felt that at the very least that these men were being honorably brought back to their families and laid to rest with as much dignity as our nation could afford to provide.

This woman has misrepresented our government, and poorly represents the state of Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvanians have any self-respect at all, they will take whatever legal methods are available and toss her out of office immediately.

Posted by: Mike Rentner at Sat Jul 23 22:48:49 2005 (ru0sP)

5 More proof, as if any were needed, that the Dems are becoming completely unhinged. And as they continue to slander Rove, Tancredo and Roberts, they will remain silent about her, as they did about Durbin, Dean and Reid.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at Sun Jul 24 01:19:00 2005 (ywZa8)

6 This is exactly what happens when desperation rears its ugly head in trying to hold onto Democratic powers by doing the most ridiculous, most abusive, and the most asinine actions. She gets the Howard Dean Award.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jul 24 03:38:51 2005 (2J8V4)

7 Don't count on Dem moonbats being run out of Pennsylvania.

The Democrats own the labor unions and the bloated urban/state public employees. Resistance is futile.

I lived in Pittsburgh for a few years where the Dems drove the city to near bankrupcy and still overwhelmingly got re-elected. PA is one of the most corrupt states in the nation - just look at the Turnpike Commission for starters.

I wish the story had ended with someone at the funeral decking this hag.

Posted by: onecent at Sun Jul 24 06:48:46 2005 (i5+jM)

8 onecent - have to concur about Pittsburgh - why they kept electing Murphy until he wanted to leave himself is beyond me.

Philly is even worse, and they outvote the rest of the state.

However, Rendell isn't invincible - I think he can be defeated with the right candidate. Just not sure who that will be (though Lynn Swann would be interesting - being a former Steeler could be enough to get him the Pittsburgh vote, though that would turn off most Philly fans. )

Posted by: B. Minich, PI at Sun Jul 24 16:52:47 2005 (ChDjf)

9 I thought politicians go to military funerals all the time? You guys make it sound like she got on the podium and insulted the family. Could it be that she actually took the time to attend a funeral of a Marine and to pay her respects? Do you need an invitation to go to a funeral? If so, why the hell do you need obituaries? I don't get it.

Posted by: ChenZhen at Sun Jul 24 21:29:32 2005 (tRstH)

10 Politicians go to funerals when they're invited.

And they don't campaign and hand out cards.

And for Pete's sake, they don't tell family members that their loved one died doing something that they don't support! And claim that the entire "government" doesn't support the reason why he died.

Get a clue, Chen Zhen

Posted by: Mike Rentner at Sun Jul 24 22:54:47 2005 (ru0sP)

11 Chen -- i think I address that point in my post. Let me repeat what I said.

I'm sorry -- I've never been a big believer in having politicians at funerals unless they are friends of the deceased, the family or are otherwise invited guests. They certainly should not be showing up in any sort of "official capacity" without clearing it in advance with the family. And no one at a funeral should do or say anything to add to the distress or the grief of the surviving family. There are other times and places for that.

Politicians/celebrities at a funeral take the focus off the deceased, and so making an appearance is inappropriate unless there is a relationship o prior clearance. Clearly thiswas not the case here -- and there was clearly no intent to honor the deceased. What's more, this woman's conduct was not acceptable -- it would be like going to the funeral of a slain narcotics officer and saying "I oppose the war on drugs"; or the funeral of this poor girl missing in Aruba and telling relatives "she would still be alive if she hadn't been out acting like a slut".

In short, it is conduct that was the problem.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jul 25 02:15:21 2005 (xtWQW)

12 I agree with Onecent, someone should have knocked this insensitive bitch on her ass. Her showing up at the funeral shows a total lack of class, handing out her card and telling the family "our government disagrees with the war" is a slap in the FACE. If I lived in PA. I would make it my mission to have her but ousted from office and run out of town on a rail.

Posted by: rick in texas at Mon Jul 25 07:16:07 2005 (QR3qh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Congratualtions to Houston City Councilman Mark Ellish for his move to undo the city's sanctuary policy and have HPD officer's trained to enforce immigration law.

Since 1992, Houston police officers have been officially forbidden from enforcing immigration law in most cases. Other city departments generally take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach toward immigrants, officials acknowledge.

Now those policies are under attack. Locally, City Councilman Mark Ellis called this week for training HPD officers to enforce immigration laws. And in Washington, D.C., congressional conservatives have proposed legislation to require local police to help patrol for illegal immigrants.

Ellis, a Republican, said city officials should have heeded a 2002 proposal from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to increase federal and local cooperation on immigration law.

"If we had done what Ashcroft and the Bush administration had asked us to do, we wouldn't have the Minutemen coming to Houston," Ellis said of the Arizona-based organization opposed to illegal immigration that has announced it will begin patrols in Houston in October.

Ellis said he does not advocate using HPD officers for raids or roundups, but critics say they fear that would be the result of such a policy change.

"It's so unjust to stop someone and ask them for their papers because they look Hispanic," said Harris County District 6 Constable Victor Treviño.

Now the only problem with Treviño's comment is that nobody is talking about random stops to check papers. What is being talked about is allowing police to inquire about immigration status and to cooperate with immigration officials who want to check the status of those being held in the city lock-up. Treviño is simply being dishonest when he talks about anything else.

ICE spokeswoman Luisa Deason said her agency would still appreciate closer cooperation from Houston police in searching for illegal immigrants who are also criminals. She noted that HPD will not let immigration officials in the city jail to check the immigration status of those detained.

An investigation last year by the Congressional Research Service cited 31 cities across the country with policies that prevent local authorities from enforcing immigration laws. That includes Houston, Katy and Austin, as well as cities such as Fairbanks, Alaska.

Some conservatives in Congress, including U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, support legislation that would cut off federal funding to such "sanctuary cities."

Not only will this extend to law enforcement, but other city departments may undo the unofficial ban on checking immigration status.

But the policy has never been formally approved by the City Council and does not officially govern other departments. Before he became a city councilman, immigration attorney Gordon Quan lobbied for a law that would make Houston a "Safety Zone" for illegal immigrants. The proposal died in 1997 after garnering no council support.

But even without the official policy, city officials outside the Police Department are not encouraged to cooperate with immigration officials, Quan notes. He does not see any point in revisiting the issue.

"I just think it would be very divisive to talk about this immigration policy," he said.

Yeah, Mr. Quan -- it might well divide you from some of your voters, namely the ones who support the enforcement of American immigration laws and those who believe in American sovereignty.

But most frightening of all is this comment by Constable Treviño.

But Treviño said that if citizens and even police started entering Hispanic neighborhoods and asking locals for their documents, it would create a major backlash.

"It'll be worse than the Civil War," he said.

So what you are saying, sir, is that there is a lawless minority among us -- folks who have broken the law to come to this country -- which will engage in acts of violence in the event we begin to enforce the laws of this country. Do you not see that it is therefore incumbent upon law enforcement to root them out, and to get them out of this country for the safety of American citizens and those aliens legally in the country? Do you not see that you are advocating surrender to the immigration criminals, jin the same manner as those who advocate appeasement of the jihadi terrorists? Frankly, sir, if you cannot bring yourself to support the enforcement of the law, you are unfit to hold your job and should resign.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

After all the discussion last Tuesday about Judge Edith Brown Clement, President bush nominated Judge John Roberts tot he Supreme Court. What happened?

Mentioning the little-known Judge Edith Brown Clement as front-runner for the Supreme Court vacancy was not a ploy to obscure the eventual selection of Judge John Roberts. She was the real runner-up, after evoking mixed reviews from conservatives.

President Bush was very much impressed with Clement during his interview with her, and sources say he gave her a White House tour. However, anti-abortion activists were not happy, contending that she has no record on their issue. Clement's supporters say she is very well thought of by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and that she would follow his lead on the court. Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a social conservative and prominent Catholic layman, is a strong Clement backer who vouched for her.

Given Bush's early inclination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with another woman, the reason why he passed over Clement is not clear. Sources close to the selection process speculate that the president may have suspected that Clement's supporters were too vocal in publicly promoting her.

Sounds reasonable to me -- although I suspect that the president simply decided to nominate the superior candidate.

And I say that as one who was on the Clement bandwagon.

Posted by: Greg at 02:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

It seemed that someone with the federal government had finally started thinking about how to use the desire of American patriots to help secure the border. Unfortunately, it appears that it was one man talking out of school -- and Homeland Security has squashed the idea.

Homeland Security officials backed off an idea to form a civilian border patrol, with spokespeople quickly batting down an uproar Thursday caused by the department's border commissioner the day before.

By Thursday morning, the agency produced a statement distancing itself from comments the day before by one of its top border officials that he wanted to look into forming a civilian border auxiliary.

"We are aware of Customs and Border Protection Commissioner (Robert) Bonner's comments yesterday; however, the Department of Homeland Security has not received any specific details of the idea that the Commissioner raised," the agency said in a statement.

"There are currently no plans by the Department of Homeland Security to use civilian volunteers to patrol the border - that job should continue to be done by the highly-trained, professional law enforcement officials of the Border Patrol and its partner agencies."

I guess this means that the Minutemen and fellow loyal American citizens are back to being the enemy, and the border-jumping immigration criminals, their disloyal advocates, and the Mexican government still rank higher in the eyes of the folks responsible for securing the borders and keeping out those who violate our laws.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

I am stunned beyond words that this is displayed in the offices of the California Department of Justice -- and is supported and funded by Democrat Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Absolutely unbelievable!

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News)

Posted by: Greg at 04:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 2 kb.

Just a quick reminder of why it is so important that this arrogant woman be ejected from the Supreme Court and rplaced with an originalist/textualist/strict constructionist judge as soon as possible.

"In all my years of my life I don't think I've ever seen relations (between Congress and the high court) as strained as they are now," O'Connor told a conference of judges and lawyers at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference in Spokane, Washington.

O'Connor is the Supreme Court justice who handles certain matters from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

She said an integral part of the democracy that the United States is promoting around the world is an independent court system.

"And yet, in our country today, we're seeing efforts to prevent that -- a desire not to have an independent judiciary. That worries me," she said.

As an example of the congressional tendency to pick apart court rulings, she cited a March decision that declared the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional. The ruling noted the weight of international opinion and the fact that only one other country -- Somalia -- executes young offenders.

"Some citations were found very offensive by some members of Congress. I don't personally think it's a good idea to restrict freedom of speech or thought for anybody, even if they are federal judges," O'Connor said.

The reason, Sandy, for the bad relations is that you and your colleagues have strayed further and further from the Constitution in your decisions. You have wandered further and further away from the document that is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. As a result, the American people and their representatives are PISSED-OFF at you people. Yet you, having exceeded your authroity and wandered into a minefield of impeachable offenses, expect everyone to shut up and obey your commands like some sort of incarnate deity.

Let's look at Lawrence, for example. Now I agree with you that the Texas statute was a bad idea and I supported its repeal -- but did it go beyond what is permitted by the Constitution? No, it did not. The court's own decision in hardwick v. Bowers affirmed such statutes less than 20 years before. What changed? What was the basis for this decision in the Constitution? Frankly, there isn't one -- for not one of the Framers would have supported your decision. But you knew better than the Framers, and so amended the Constitution.

And Roper v. Simmons, the case you cite -- it isn't that many years since you upheld the execution of older teens. What changed? one or two state laws -- but hardly enough to make the argument that such executions are seen as cruel and unusual under the Amendment VIII. As for the laws of other nations -- THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! The laws of the EU, Peru, and Outer Mongolia are not binding upon the United States -- and neither are unratified treaties. In Roper v. Simmons, though, you treated them as having precedent value that exceets that of the US Constitution, the laws of several states, and the court decisions of those states. Yeah -- we Americans, citizens of a nation that strived to be out from under the laws of other nations -- are going to be upset that foreign law will be used to interpret the meaning of our founding document.

Now you claim that you don't think the speech or thoughts of anyone should be restricted -- but that is exactly what you seek when you make this complaint. You want to pressure your opponents into silence. All your talk about an independent judiciary ignores the fact that the judiciary is but one of three branches of the federal government, and that its role is seen as co-equal to those of the executive and legislative branches. Yes, you folks serve as a check on the other two branches, but they also are to check you. They have failed to do so in recent decades, and now that there is a move on to do so you want to stop it. Sorry, Sandy, the time has come to put the Supreme Court back in its proper place.

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 731 words, total size 4 kb.

See what happens when Condi gets angry.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded an apology from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir after U.S. officials and journalists were manhandled at a meeting on Thursday.

"It makes me very angry to be sitting with their president and have this happen," Rice told reporters on her plane before leaving Khartoum for Darfur. Earlier, she told reporters she wanted an apology.

Sudanese officials shoved U.S. journalists away from the Bashir meeting and slammed the wooden doors to his palace in their faces. Some U.S. officials were also blocked for several minutes before the Sudanese agreed to allow Rice and aides in. The media was later allowed to witness briefly

Such a blatant disregard of protocol is an insult to the US, and for her entourage to be locked out is completely unacceptabel. But then again, what should we expect from a tin-pot dictator like the "president" of Sudan.

But she got results.

Sudan's foreign minister on Thursday apologized to visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the manhandling of U.S. officials and journalists in Khartoum, a U.S. official said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail had phoned Rice while she was on a plane to Darfur in western Sudan to say sorry. Rice had earlier demanded an apology.

"He apologized for the treatment of our delegation and the press corps," McCormack told journalists traveling with Rice.

Sudanese security staff manhandled U.S. officials and journalists outside a meeting between Rice and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

She says what she means and gets what she wants.

Rice '08!

Posted by: Greg at 04:47 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator James Inhofe, in the name of protecting a major local employer, is trying to stomp out its smaller, cheaper, more convenient competition.

A popular air travel route between Tulsa and Dallas would be shut down, if legislation being proposed by Senator Jim Inhofe goes through.

The True Competition Act would close Love Field to commercial air traffic and force Southwest Airlines to fly out of Dallas-Fort Worth. Inhofe says it's necessary to protect American Airlines, Tulsa's biggest employer.

But as News on 6 business reporter Steve Berg tells us, travelers don't exactly "love" the idea.

Tulsan Emily Warren is on her way to Dallas on Southwest Airlines to visit her boyfriend. It's a trip she makes frequently. And she likes Love, Love Field that is. "I would much rather go through Love. I know Dallas-Fort Worth just gets packed.

Restrictions on flights too and from Love field were implemented when DFW was opened, at the insistance of corrupt House Speaker Jim Wright. Southwest has been operating within the limits and doing so so successfully that they have been trying to get the restrictions lifted to meet public demand. As a result, Inhofe is seeking to close Love Field completely, because the competition has cut in to American's bottom line.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

Americans have been organizing to monitor and report border-jumping immigration criminals for some time now. Now the head of the Border Patrol is considering creating an organized civilian auxilliary.

The top U.S. border enforcement official said Wednesday that his agency is exploring ways to involve citizen volunteers in creating "something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary" - a significant shift in rhetoric that comes after a high-profile civilian campaign this spring along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner told The Associated Press that his agency has focused on involving citizens after noting the willingness of volunteers to help federal agents catch illegal immigrants.

"It is actually as a result of seeing that there is the possibility in local border communities, and maybe even beyond, of having citizens that would be willing to volunteer to help the Border Patrol," Bonner said.

Volunteers would need training and be organized "in a way that would be something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary," he said. "We value having eyes and ears of citizens and I think that would be one of the things we are looking at is how you better organize, let's say, a citizen effort."

Bonner characterized the idea as "an area we're looking at." Questions such as what kind of authority volunteers would be given - would they be deputized to make arrests or carry guns - haven't been answered.

"This is what we need to study," said Bonner, who was in Los Angeles to discuss port security.

You mean you've taken this long to figure out that there are folks ready, willing, and able to give you aid and assistance in doing a job for which you are under-funded and under-manned? That was the whole point of the formation of the Minutemen.

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

I noted last night that many folks regard John Roberts as the top Supreme Court litigator of his generation.

I've since discovered that a couple of experts share that assessment.

Consider this comment from Justice Antonin Scalia, as related by Stuart Buck of "The Buck Stops Here", crossposted at "Southern Appeal" and "Confirm Them".

For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: "No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place."

And then there is the opinion of the longest serving member of the current Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist himself, as related by former clerk Ted Cruz in the National Review.

In 1995, while clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation.

High praise from folks who know the court and the lawyers who practice before it. They think highly of the nominee. I'll accept their judgement as to his competence.

Posted by: Greg at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Judge John Glover Roberts of the DC Circuit has been appointed to the US Supreme Court by President George W. Bush.

NAME - John Glover Roberts Jr.

AGE-BIRTH DATE - Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y.

EDUCATION - BA, Harvard University, 1976; JD, Harvard Law School, 1979.

CAREER - Nominated by President Bush on Jan. 7, 2003, to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; confirmed by Senate on May 8, 2003; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989-93; private practice, Washington, D.C., 1986-89, 1993-2003; associate counsel to President Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-86; special assistant to attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981-82; law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist when he was an associate justice, 1980-81; law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1979-80.

FAMILY - Wife, Jane; son, John, and daughter, Josephine.

QUOTE - "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Two things I would like to point to in this brief profile.

First, the quote from the confirmation hearing is not what it appears to be. As a lower court judge, Roberts lacked the capacity to overrule Roe. As a member of the Supreme Court, it would be within the scope of his authority to engage in a fundamental reexamination of a case which even its supporters admit is a train wreck (7-2 as to the result, but no decision garnering majority support as to the source of the right -- in other words, "we say it is a right, but we can't begin to authoritatively say why.") Whether Roe is eventually affirmed or overturned, there needs to be a significant rethinking of abortion jurisprudence.

Second, some might note that Judge Roberts has only two years of judicial experience on the DC Circuit. This is not a problem. A number of justices have never served as a judge prior to their nomination to the high court. Others have had only minimal judicial service -- including Justice Thurgood Marshall, the greatest Supreme Court litigator of his generation (I've heard similar statements made about Roberts tonight), whose time as a judge on the Second Circuit consisted of only about three-and-a-half years judicial service before he resigned to become Solicitor General.

Not a bad pick, all things considered. While I might have preferred a different candidate, I am inclined to give Jufge Roberts my full support, barring some truly troubling disclosure during the confirmation process.

A great listing of blogs about the Roberts nomination can be found at Blogs For Bush.

Posted by: Greg at 04:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

How do the Democrats view the American people? As bumbling idiots who don't need to be told ther truth if it gets in the way of accomplishing the aims of the Democrat party.

Check out this bit frm the New York Times Magazine.

The facts of the filibuster fight hadn't necessarily favored them; in reality, the constitutional principle of ''checks and balances'' on which the Democrats' case was based refers to the three branches of government, not to some parliamentary procedure, and it was actually the Democrats who had broken with Senate tradition by using the filibuster to block an entire slate of judges. (''An irrelevancy beyond the pay grade of the American voter,'' Garin retorted when I pointed this out.) And yet it was their theory of the case, and not the Republicans', that had won the argument.

Isn't it good to know that the Democrats hold you in such high esteem, America?

Posted by: Greg at 04:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't often blog on "Letters To The Editor", but this one from today's Houston Chronicle hit it right on the head.

Looking in the wrong direction

On the same day that immigrant rights activists warned the Minutemen that they will be watched for illegal activity, a Honduran MS-13 gang member was accused of murdering 28 men and women.

Perhaps these so-called activists should be looking elsewhere for illegal activity.

SALOMON FUENTES
Houston

Exactly right, Mr. Fuentes -- though i won't happen. There is no political capital to be gained by the Democrat politicians who support immigration crime in going after MS-13. After all, that would mean arresting members of the gang, many of whom are here illegally, and admitting that the Minutemen are right in saying that such border-jumpers are a threat to the United States.

Posted by: Greg at 03:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

According to Bill Gertz, Plame's cover was blown twice -- by the CIA itself.

Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.

The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.

Posted by: Greg at 03:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

Why does the AP keep repeating this lie?

At least 40 anti-immigration groups have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

Sorry, folks, these groups are not "anti-immigration", any more than folks who oppose prostitutes working their neighborhood street corners are "anti-sex". These groups are anti-crime, pro-law, pro-border, and pro-sovereignty groups. Most members are all for LEGAL immigration on terms set by the United States. They simply oppose those who are jumping the border without following the requirements of American law.

And then there is stuff like this.

In Morristown, a Southern industrial town of 25,000 with a small but burgeoning population of Latinos, some see the Volunteer Minutemen's spiel as race baiting.

"The same sort of dogmatism that racists used against blacks in lower Alabama and across the South, I am seeing the same patterns here," said Thom Robinson, who heads the area's Chamber of Commerce. "They are using it as a racially divisive thing."

Santos Aguilar, executive director with Alianza del Pueblo, a regional Hispanic support group in Knoxville, said he fears the volunteers are "spreading a lot of misinformation and are terrorizing the ethnic community in the area."

What sort of dogmatism? A dogmatism that says that law-breaking is a bad thing? A dogmatism that shows a connection between illegal immigration and increased crime, increased taxes, and other social problems, based on government statistics? And would Mr. Agilar care to give some examples of the "terrorizing" that he is talking about? Are there aremed assaults and lychings, or is it just a generalized fear that some of the immigration criminals may be caught and sent back to their countries of origin? Frankly, I WANT these people to have to live with the latter sort of terror -- just as I want every other criminal to live with the teror that htey will be arrested and punished for their crimes. Of course, the only dogamtism that is really seen here is found in the accusations of racism put forth by Aguilar and Robinson, who are spewing open-border dogma.

And then there is this sort of dogma as well.

Guatemala native Noel Montepeque, who owns a company that provides a variety of blue-collar jobs to Hispanics, said the tone has changed since the first migrant farm workers passed through the area in the 1990s.

"Now they are getting afraid of the many Hispanic folks coming in," Montepeque said. "And we are coming to stay."

No, we are not afraid that you are coming to stay. We welcome you, and we have no objection to you becoming a part of our community. But we do want you to come here legally, and to follow our laws once you get here. And we would appreciate it if you would assimilate into our society like the generations of immigrants before you, contributing to the mosaic of culture that is American culture, rather than demanding that we cater to your culture.

Like I said -- we don't oppose immigration. But we do want it to happen the right way.

Posted by: Greg at 02:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

Sometimes a piece of writing stands on its own. This New Hampshire Union-Leader editorial is one such piece.

Joe Wilson, unraveled:
Did he say anything that was true?

THE MORE that is revealed about the leaking of CIA employee Valerie Plame's name, the more her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, is discredited.

For the past two years Wilson has suggested that the White House exposed his wife as a CIA agent in retribution for his having "debunked" President Bush's statement, made in his 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Left-wing activists have trumpeted this charge until it has echoed from every mountain and hilltop in the land. Last week's revelations in the case show the charge to be entirely unfounded.

Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper's now famous e-mail exchange with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist, shows that Cooper initiated the contact with Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove did not reveal Plame's name. The New York Times reported on Friday that, contrary to Wilson's spin, Rove did not contact columnist Bob Novak to divulge Plame's name. Novak called Rove, and it was Novak who told Rove that Plame recommended her husband for the Niger trip. Rove simply responded that he'd heard the same thing.

This is important because Wilson claimed to have been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney, and that his wife had nothing to do with his selection. Both claims were later proven untrue.

The icing on the cake was Wilson's own admission, made Thursday, that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

So not only was Karl Rove not calling reporters to disclose the identity of Plame, whose name he did not then know, she was not even a covert agent at the time, as has been incessantly claimed.

That the sources for these revelations were Time magazine, The New York Times and Joe Wilson himself will, of course, have no effect on the wingnuts who peddle Karl Rove conspiracy theories. But then, those who believe in a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy were never heavily influenced by the facts anyway.

I wonder what the next attempt by the Democrats to overturn the results of the last two elections will be?

Posted by: Greg at 09:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems to me that this city council in South Carolinan has too much power and too much time on its hands. They are clearly so drunk with power that they don't remember that their power derives from the governed, and that they are not nobles dictating to serfs.

A new ordinance is being considered in Anderson to keep certain types of furniture off porches.

The Anderson City Council is working on a new ordinance that would ban traditional indoor furniture from being kept outside on a porch.

Mayor pro tem Bea Thompson said the old unsightly furniture on the porch would fall in the same category as other nuisances like having a broken down car in the yard or an old run-down home.

Thompson said this is a part of the city's overall plan to make the community beautiful.

Council members said that before the ordinance can pass, it must be fine-tuned.

The council is working on a detailed list as to what inappropriate furniture would be.

The city plans to enforce the ordinance on a complaint basis only. Violators could face fines of more than $1,000.

"Your house could look a little bit better your whole neighborhood could look a little bit better if you didn't have that couch, or if you had the appropriate porch furniture. Don't store refrigerators or stoves on your front porch," Thompson said.

Thompson said the council hopes to pass the ordinance next month.

And while they are at it, they will also impose a 24 hour curfew on ugly folks and fat chicks wearing midriff-baring tops. After all, that would certainly make the neighborhood look better, too.

Personally, I think that a recall election would improve the area even more. Put in some folks who understand the proper role of government.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Who says that Tom DeLay is a damaged, unpopular incumbent? In the last three months, he has raised over $800,000The fund raising by DeLay, R-Sugar Land, is the best three-month tally in his 22-year congressional tenure.

He and Lampson won't square off until November 2006.

"He has an incredible level of support in the district and a large, active grass-roots organization, but we're going to need to keep this fund-raising pace to defend the district from the labor bosses, trial lawyers, and liberals who are backing Nick Lampson," DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said.

I'll agree with Flaherty on this one. I've never seen the grassroots more supportive of DeLay in my time in this district.

Opponent Nick Lampson raised around $500,000 in two months -- $100,000 from political action committees. Lampson, a former congressman from another district whose major connection to the 22nd district is the fact that his grandparents lived here some time ago, is unchallenged for the Democrat nomination after the state and national power brokers ran off his only opponent. Gordon Quan, a popular Asian-American Houston city councilman who actually lives in the district was running even with Lampson in the polls, but was not favored by the power elite that control the Left's campaign cash.

Posted by: Greg at 06:24 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

This statement, coming out of a Leftist doesn't even raise an eyebrow. After all, it is so typical of what we hear from that edge of the spectrum.

"They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said.

Next time his brother Chris is on KSEV, someone will have to ask how long Paul has been stark raving mad.

Posted by: Greg at 03:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

This observation from a man who never had any.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday that President Bush is "losing credibility with the American people" because of his policies regarding the war in Iraq and the controversy involving Karl Rove.

Howard, given the way in which you flopped in the primaries after raising all that money, I think you are the last man who should be commenting on anybody's "credibility with the American people".

Posted by: Greg at 03:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

China has already planned to nuke the United States in the event we seek to help preserve the freedom of Taiwan in the face of a Red Chinese war of aggression against that island nation.

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

While some analysts have downplayed the statement, I cannot believe that such a rigidly controlled organization would include someone making these comments as a "loose cannon." We need to stop the Unocal deal, be prepared to take aggressive action to prevent this scenario from being carried out.

Posted by: Greg at 03:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

Straight from the horses mouth. I find this to be almost beyond belief, in light of some the speculation that has surrounded his plans since last fall.

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, denying rumors of his retirement, said Thursday he will continue heading the court as long his health permits. "I'm not about to announce my retirement," he told The Associated Press.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist, 80, and ailing with thyroid cancer, said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

Rehnquist released the statement hours after being released from an Arlington, Va., hospital after being treated for two days with a fever.

What does this mean? Is the thyroid cancer responding well to the chemotherapy? Does the Chief Justice simply want to "gut it out" for as long as he can? Will we have a sad spectable like the final year of Justice William O. Douglas, with a justice too ill to remain on the court trying to hang on just a little bit longer (not that Rehnquist apears to be in anything approaching the condition of Douglas, whose stroke had left him severely impaired) and vacilating from day to day about retiring?

Chief Justice Rehnquist has long been a hero of mine. I wish him well. I wish him a long life. May God grant him the wisdom to know when he needs to leave the Court.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Bruce Sanford, a Washington DC based First Amendment lawyer, helped draft the law that Joe Wilson and the rest of the truth-impaired Left keep claiming that Karl Rove broke. What does he think about the current situation? CNN reporter Kyra Phillips asked him.

PHILLIPS: Well, aside from maybe partisan politics, looking strictly at the law that you drafted, do you see any evidence, according to this law, any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing?

SANFORD: No, I think it's pretty clear that what Karl Rove said to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper doesn't even come close to the kind of knowing violation that is required by the act. Really, the act really requires an intent to harm national security, and that certainly can't be said in these circumstances, I think.

PHILLIPS: All right. Now, we've heard a lot about the act, but let's look at it, actually read this portion of Section 421 of the act:

"... knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent, and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States ..."

So in other words, what you're saying, the reason there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing is because Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong because he didn't know that Plame was covert.

SANFORD: That's pretty clear from the notes, the e-mails that Time magazine released to the grand jury that [White House political adviser] Karl Rove said that [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife -- he didn't even use her name -- but Wilson's wife "apparently works" at the CIA.

It seems to me there's a substantial question whether she qualifies as the kind of covert agent that was envisioned by the act. There are very tight requirements for that.

And there is a substantial doubt whether the agency was taking the kind of affirmative measures to conceal her identity that the act talks about.

As Sanford notes later on, the CIA made no effort to stop the Novak column. So there was obviously no affirmative attempt to keep her identity concealed. That means the law was not broken, because she was not covered.

But then again, what does Sanford know? He just wrote the law

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

I would love an originalist or a textualist nominated to the Supreme Court. I'll even take a garden variety strict constructionist if necessary. But I find this notion to be totally unacceptable.

A coalition of conservative activists armed with petitions Wednesday encouraged President Bush to nominate former Alabama chief justice Roy Moore to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Putting Moore on the bench "could bring about a turning point in our jurisprudence and in our culture, back to biblical morality and forward to a restoration of the constitutional design and system of liberty set forth by America's founding fathers," said Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus.

Phillips, a three-time nominee for president by the Constitution Party, said Moore best represents the type of judge Bush has said he prefers, one who would strictly interpret the law according to the U.S. Constitution.

Roy Moore disgraced the bench. His conduct led to his impeachment and removal from one court, and his slanderous lies since his removal show him to be a man of no character at all. He is, dare I say it, no-account white trash. I oppose this absurd proposal from the fringe, and I oppose his proposed run for governor of Alabama.

Those of us in the mainstream of the conservative movement -- the real mainstream, not the moderate/liberal RINO regions defined as mainstream by the Left -- would never abide by such an appointment, and would support the rejection of Roy Moore as unfit. Not that I have any reason to worry that such an appointment is forthcoming.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich committed $10 million in tax dollars to stem cell research via executive oder following the defeat bills establishing such a program during the legislative session. I won't get into the stem cell debate here, but I will raise the issue of Blagojevich's response to critics.

"It's the right thing to do, and however you get there is immaterial."

I hope that scares the hell out of you.

In a constitutional system, the means are as important as the ends.

Your goal may be noble, sir -- though I disagree with it -- but your method for achieving that goal is wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

The KKK is a terrorist group.

So were/are the Black Panthers.

The Minutemen are the equivalent of a Neighborhood Watch, reporting suspicious activity to the proper law enforcement officials for action.

There have been no reports of criminal activity -- much less violent criminal activity -- by the Minutemen.

So why does Houston City Councilman Adrian Garcia make this utterly absurd and slanderous statment?

Garcia, a former Houston police officer, said HPD would monitor the Minutemen "as they would the KKK, as they would the Black Panthers."

So a peaceful group with a political agenda that engages in legal activities will be treated as terrorists by the city of Houston. Where is the ACLU ? Doesn't this constitute a violation of the civil liberties of the Minutemen?

By the way, Archbishop Fiorenza Councilmen Quan and Garcia, Mr. Rubio and all the rest of you folks who are speaking out in support of immigration criminals, you do not speak for the majority of Houstonians -- particularly not those in neighborhoods infested with these lawbreakers. Even the local birdcage liner fish wrapper daily newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, notes as much.

Though polling has shown Houstonians support the diversity brought by immigration, Rice University sociologist Stephen Klineberg said the city's residents are ambivalent about illegal immigration.

The day laborers the Minutemen plan to monitor are particularly unpopular in some neighborhoods. Residents and business owners complain of the crime and trash associated with the men gathering on dozens of corners across Houston. The city has tried to solve the problem by supporting the creation of day-labor centers.

In other words, the border jumpers are not welcome in Houston -- and we want you to quit using taxpayer's money to assist the immigration criminals in continuing their lawbreaking ways.

Posted by: Greg at 05:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Tell me that the man doesn't sound like a raving idiot here.

The four senators who met with President Bush at the White House Tuesday morning discussed a number of potential Supreme Court nominees, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said he thinks they've agreed not to name those names.

"We have a long ways to go," Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters after the breakfast meeting at the White House. He said President Bush has hundreds or thousands of names to go through and "he didn't give us any names."

Nevertheless, Reid added, "There were a lot of names discussed at the meeting, of which we're not going to talk about any of those names. I think that's an agreement that we have, and we'll stick by that."

So the president didn't name any names, but you discussed the names in the meeting. But you won't talk about them now because you may have made an agreement to keep the names that were not given but were discussed -- but you aren't really sure if you agreed not to talk about the names that were not named but were discussed.

Uhhhhh... right.

However, acting true to form, there was this detail from another participant in the meting.

[The names of women and Hispanics did come up, Sen. Patrick Leahy later told Fox News.]

This would be the same Senator Patrick Leahy whose leaking of classified material in the past has caused deaths.

Posted by: Greg at 07:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.