Texas governements can no loner take private property in order to pass it on to private developers in the state of Texas. As such, the worst aspects of the Supreme Courts anti-property rights Kelo decision have been nullified here in Texas.

Texas' governor signed a law Wednesday strictly limiting the power of state and local government to seize private property for economic development.

The measure was in response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that said governments have broad power to bulldoze people's homes to erect shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.

Gov. Rick Perry added the eminent domain issue to the summer legislative agenda, and the new law was approved by the House and Senate earlier this month.

At least 25 states have considered changes to eminent domain laws this summer.

Under the Constitution, governments cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." Local governments have traditionally used their eminent domain authority to build roads, reservoirs and other public projects. But over decades, the high court has expanded the definition of public use, allowing cities to employ eminent domain to eliminate blight.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., could take homes for a private development project. But the ruling also allowed states to ban the practice.

Mission accomplished.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

I really enjoy reading BaltimoreÂ’s Gregory Kane on virtually any issue. He offers the perfect analogy to explain the relationship between George W. Bush and Vincente Fox on immigration issues.

Mexican President Vicente Fox seems to think of the United States as his country's northern suburb. President George W. Bush doesn't have the guts to correct him.

In fact, the relationship between Fox and Bush can best be explained this way: If Fox and Bush were inmates in the same prison, Fox would be slapping Bush and taking his Christmas packages.

On the matter of illegal immigration, Fox has shown that Bush has a fully nurtured and developed wimp gene.

Yeah, that sums it up quite nicely. It seems that this president is more interested in placating our southern neighbor than telling it to quit encouraging and facilitating the violation of American sovereignty.

Make sure you read the column.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American Left’s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.

The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.

"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.

The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

No, this is not about Bush and Sheehan.

It is a question for the American LeftÂ’s new favorite dictator, Hugo Chavez.

A woman who rushed up on a stage to hand President Hugo Chavez a note was pulled away by bodyguards on Tuesday, and the Venezuelan leader urged supporters to remember there have been threats against his life.

The incident occurred while Chavez was addressing thousands of supporters in a Caracas convention center.

"It's dangerous, because I'm threatened with death, so you have to understand that the security team surrounding me is on alert," Chavez told the crowd.

The incident came more than a week after the U.S. religious broadcaster Pat Robertson drew condemnation from Venezuela's government and others for suggesting that Chavez should be assassinated because he poses a threat to the United States.

Come on, Hugo, meet with the poor homeless woman. You claim that the Venezuelan people love you and support you. What have you got to fear?

Or do you only meet with celebrity liberals and fellow dictators now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at this excuse for the prevalence of fraudulent registrations in NYC.

Mr. [John] Ravitz [the executive director of the NYC Boad of Elections] responded yesterday to the officials' calls for investigations, saying: "If people really think two weeks before a primary that I can now have all my entire staff look throughout the voter rolls and look at an address that might be suspect on the face, it's an unrealistic feat."

He earlier said the board does not independently conduct systematic reviews of the voter rolls but will probe questionable registrations if someone brings specific charges to its attention. He added that it would be nearly impossible to investigate all registrant names that appeared suspicious, lest someone really named "Lou Gehrig," to use Mr. Ravitz's example, be subjected to unfair and undue scrutiny.

Moreover, Mr. Ravitz said, many of the dubious registrants and those who registered at questionable addresses would not be voting in this election, because their failure to cast ballots in the last four years rendered them "inactive" and thus ineligible to vote.

"I don't want anyone to think there are going to be Elmer Fudds voting in the primary," Mr. Ravitz said.

In other words, the city doesnÂ’t look for fraud. More to the point, the board doesnÂ’t want to hurt anyoneÂ’s feelings because they have a name that looks suspicious. Besides, Ravitz explains, it would cost too much money to actually investigate the voting rolls to detect fraudulent registrations and voting.

Elected officials are calling for action.

A candidate for Manhattan borough president and a member of the City Council, Eva Moskowitz, Democrat of the East Side, said the board must be "proactive."

Calling the board's approach "ridiculous" and "government at its worst," Ms. Moskowitz said investigating and rooting out potential irregularities in the voter rolls "is the Board of Elections' job."

"They don't have too much to do other than prepare for elections and make sure the lists are clear and honest," she said.

Mayor Bloomberg and some of the public officials trying to unseat him this year, meanwhile, responded by declaring their affection for the democratic process.
"Voting is a sacred right and responsibility," Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement sent by e-mail. "Abuse of this fundamental right is unacceptable. ..."

One of his Democratic challengers, C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, said in an e-mail: "Placing false names and/or addresses on voter registration forms and other documents undermines the city's democratic process. Therefore, the entire election process - from signature collection to the actual act of voting - must be taken very seriously.

"For its part, the Board of Elections must work to improve its efforts to weed out false names and addresses. The board has an important role to play in this process and it cannot afford to be asleep at the wheel," the statement read.

The Democratic mayoral front-runner, Fernando Ferrer, said in a written statement that voting fraud disenfranchises everyone "and must be vigorously prosecuted."

The statement from the former Bronx borough president also said: "We must also be vigilant that efforts to crack down on voter fraud do not result in an illegal purging of legitimate voters from the rolls."

Maybe we will see some action – or is this all window-dressing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.

Look at these examples of voter registration fraud in New York City.

Dozens of voters have registered in New York City claiming to reside at addresses that correspond to city, state, and federal office buildings, public and private schools, churches and clerical offices, and major cultural attractions, a review of Board of Elections records conducted by The New York Sun found.

In addition to questionable residences, the search unearthed curious names given by registrants, including "Donald Duck," "Elmer J. Fudd," "Isaac Newton," "Napoleon Bonaparte," "Rhett Butler," and "Jesus Christ."

Searching the Board of Elections database by address yielded four New Yorkers who said their residence is 1 Centre St., site of the city's Municipal Building - and home to, among other city departments, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, the Department of Finance, and offices of the Manhattan borough president, the public advocate, the county clerk, and the mayor.

It is also, apparently, the home of "Valerie D. Cooper," who listed as her "Apt. No." 517 - an office of the city comptroller. Ms. Cooper could not be tracked down for comment, nor could her identity be confirmed by the Sun.

Among the other addresses with multiple registered voters are
· 26 Federal Plaza
· The Adam Clayton Powell Jr. State Office Building
· Madison Square Garden
· Radio City Music Hall
· Lincoln Center
· Macy's
· St. Patrick's Cathedral
· The Guggenheim Museum
· Alfred E. Smith School
· Harvey Milk High School
· Edgar Allan Poe Literacy Development School
· The headquarters of the New York County Republican Committee
· The Episcopal Diocese of New York
· The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

When will the issue of ballot security be taken seriously?

When will we be permitted to purge the voter rolls of the nation and get rid of the fake, the dead, and the foreign?

How widespread is the problem?

And which party is benefiting from this voter fraud?

Posted by: Greg at 12:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

We always hear that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I guess that makes this moonbat from Americablog one of the most patriotic Americans out there, if one accepts that statement as true.

The best thing bush could do for NO, a city I love, and the rest of the country is go down there ASAP and drown.

But then again, these are the same people who think that the al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are freedom fighters and that the US soldiers are murderers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Why does anyone take Charles Rangel seriously any more? Certainly this comment is sufficiently out of line and not based in reality for the media and his fellow Dems to call him on it.

The dean of New York's congressional delegation suggested in a television interview that Vice President Dick Cheney may not be healthy enough to perform his duties.

Rep. Charles Rangel was being interviewed on NY1, the New York City-based all-news channel, when he was asked Friday night whether he thought President Bush was taking too much vacation time this summer.

"Oh no, it makes the country a lot more safe," the Manhattan Democrat said. "The further Bush is away from Washington, the better it is. And sometimes I don't even think Cheney is awake enough to know what's going on. Rumsfeld is the guy in Washington to watch. He's running the country,"

"Cheney's not awake enough?" reporter Davidson Goldin asked.

"Well, he's a sick man you know," Rangel said. "He's got heart disease, but the disease is not restricted to that part of his body. He grunts a lot, so you never really know what he's thinking."

Asked whether he was suggesting that Cheney was not healthy enough to do his job, Rangel said, "Why do you think people are spending so much time praying for President Bush's health?"

"If he ever leaves and Cheney's in charge, there's not very much to pull together for the rest of our nation," he concluded. "This is a sad state of affair."

The White House declined comment Saturday.

Cheney has had four heart attacks, and a pacemaker was placed in his chest in June 2001.

His most recent annual heart checkup occurred in July and found him in good health.

So Rangel now claims to know more than the Vice PresidentÂ’s cardiologists? And we wonÂ’t get into the fantasy-based notion that the President being outside of Washington DC renders him impotent to run the country.

Hey, Charlie – when are you going to become reality-based?

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

There were a number of principled responses to the Lawrence v. Texas case. One of those, often derided by the pro-sodomy lobby was the position that Lawrence had the effect of opening the door to legal polygamy and incest.

Jeff Jacoby points us to a case that pointedly raises the issue regarding incest laws.

''I BELIEVE severe punishment is required in this case," the judge said at Allen and Pat's sentencing in November 1997. ''I think they have to be separated. It's the only way to prevent them from having intercourse in the future."

Allen and Pat were lovers, but a Wisconsin statute enacted in 1849 made their sexual relationship a felony. The law was sometimes used to nail predators who had molested children, but using it to prosecute consenting adults -- Allen was 45; Pat, 30 -- was virtually unheard of. That didn't deter Milwaukee County Judge David Hansher. Nor did the fact that the couple didn't understand why their relationship should be a crime. Allen and Pat didn't ''have to be bright," the judge growled, to know that having sex with each other was wrong.

He threw the book at them: eight years for Allen, five for Pat, served in separate maximum-security prisons, 25 miles apart.

If this had happened to a gay couple, the case would have become a cause celebre. Hard time as punishment for a private, consensual, adult relationship? Activists would have been outraged. Editorial pages would have thundered.

But Allen and Patricia Muth are not gay. They were convicted of incest. Although they didn't meet until Patricia was 18 -- she had been raised from infancy in foster care -- they were brother and sister, children of the same biological parents. They were also strongly attracted to each other, emotionally and physically. And so, disregarding the taboo against incest, they became a couple and had four children.

When Wisconsin officials learned of the Muths' relationship, they moved to strip them of their parental rights. The state's position, upheld in court, was that their ''fundamentally disordered" lifestyle made them unfit for parenthood by definition. Allen and Patricia's children were taken from them. Then they were prosecuted for incest and sent to prison.

Now tell me -- where does the logic of this law, this prosecution, differ from that in Lawrence v. Texas? After all, we had a pair of consenting adults engaging in a loving and consensual relationship. The state declared their relationship to be disordered and criminalized it. And do not tell me that hte reason is the potential for birth defects -- the courts have long-ago restricted the right of the state to engage in prohibitions of sex or reproduction for eugenic purposes. So what are you left with, other than public disgust and public morals, both of which are ruled out as a basis for legislation under Lawrence and related homosexual rights cases.

And consider what Lawrence actually says. It says that the state cannot regulate ''the most private human conduct, sexual behavior" whenit occurs between consenting adults.

''The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in striking down the Texas law under which John Lawrence and Tyron Garner had been convicted of homosexual sodomy. ''The state cannot by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Does a prosecution for incest between consenting adults respect their private lives, as required by Lawrence?

No, it does not.

Does the prosecution demena their existance?

Arguably it does, in violation of Lawrence.

Does the criminalization of their sexual conduct have the effect of demeaning their existence or controlling their destiny?

It most certainly does.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to overturn the convictions -- but only on procedural grounds, not on the actual merits of the argument that the Lawrence precedent nullifies all consensual sexual activity between adults. But that is really at the heart of the issue here, and will have to be confronted either by the Supreme COurt itself or by lower courts around the country.

Unless, of course, Lawrence established only one constitutionally protected class of sexual conduct -- and, in the process, special rights for homosexuals only.

Regardless, the Supreme Court must clean up the mess that it made by clarifying the scope of Lawrence v. Texas. Are all laws regarding consensual adult sex constitutionally infirm? Is homosexual conduct the only form of sexuality considered deviant by the majority of citizens and their legislators that gets constitutional protection? Or was Lawrence wrongly decided by a court more concerned with political correctness than constitutional correctness?

A nation waits.

Posted by: Greg at 04:55 PM | Comments (107) | Add Comment
Post contains 797 words, total size 5 kb.

I can’t help but be struck by the similarity in these two stories. And I cannot help but be offended by the implicit argument that the dead victim’s presumed wishes should override the safety of others.

The first comes from Australia. A marine biologist was attacked and killed by a great white shark. The parents’ response?

Horrified friends saw Jarrod Stehbens, 23, dragged under by a Great White off Glenelg Beach, South Australia.

His body has not been found, and normally there would be a search for the "killer" shark.

But dad David said: "Jarrod would not have wanted anything killed.
"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do. He loved the sea."

Uh, I’m sorry for your horrible and tragic loss, but I’ve got to tell you that it doesn’t matter what Jarrod would have wanted. Setting aside the fact that he is dead, we have a creature out there that has now attacked and killed a human being. That creature must die to make sure it does not repeat the action. It is about safety for others, not revenge.

And then there is this from Houston. A prominent Hindu community member was robbed and murdered, and his killer has been arrested. That killer now faces the death penalty. The response from some of the victim’s friends? You guessed it.

The arrest is just the beginning of a judicial process that could involve the death penalty if there is a conviction. And that could stir up complex reactions among Chopra's friends.

Vijay Pallod, a friend and co-worker, said Akhil was a nonviolent person who always sought the positive.

"Akhil, I don't think he would ask for the death penalty," Pallod said. "But this is going to be a debate among the community."

Again, I’m sorry, but this is not just about revenge. It is also about the safety of others in the community at large. The individual here has killed once simply to enrich himself. We must render him permanently incapable of doing so, regardless of what the victim would have supported.

Those who support the “do not kill” message here are not bad people – just misguided. They think the victim and his beliefs outweigh the needs of society as a whole. And they are wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

I canÂ’t help but be struck by the similarity in these two stories. And I cannot help but be offended by the implicit argument that the dead victimÂ’s presumed wishes should override the safety of others.

The first comes from Australia. A marine biologist was attacked and killed by a great white shark. The parentsÂ’ response?

Horrified friends saw Jarrod Stehbens, 23, dragged under by a Great White off Glenelg Beach, South Australia.

His body has not been found, and normally there would be a search for the "killer" shark.

But dad David said: "Jarrod would not have wanted anything killed.
"He was doing exactly what he wanted to do. He loved the sea."

Uh, IÂ’m sorry for your horrible and tragic loss, but IÂ’ve got to tell you that it doesnÂ’t matter what Jarrod would have wanted. Setting aside the fact that he is dead, we have a creature out there that has now attacked and killed a human being. That creature must die to make sure it does not repeat the action. It is about safety for others, not revenge.

And then there is this from Houston. A prominent Hindu community member was robbed and murdered, and his killer has been arrested. That killer now faces the death penalty. The response from some of the victimÂ’s friends? You guessed it.

The arrest is just the beginning of a judicial process that could involve the death penalty if there is a conviction. And that could stir up complex reactions among Chopra's friends.

Vijay Pallod, a friend and co-worker, said Akhil was a nonviolent person who always sought the positive.

"Akhil, I don't think he would ask for the death penalty," Pallod said. "But this is going to be a debate among the community."

Again, IÂ’m sorry, but this is not just about revenge. It is also about the safety of others in the community at large. The individual here has killed once simply to enrich himself. We must render him permanently incapable of doing so, regardless of what the victim would have supported.

Those who support the “do not kill” message here are not bad people – just misguided. They think the victim and his beliefs outweigh the needs of society as a whole. And they are wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Look where Democrat activist Fred Phelps is going next.

The fanatical American Baptist minister, Fred Phelps, is on his way to Sweden.

"We'll hunt down your king," he said ominously to Expressen. "It doesn't make any difference where he tries to hide."

Phelps' hatred of the royal family and all things Swedish is linked directly to his equally virulent hatred of homosexuals. He praises homophobic crimes, including murder. When controversial Swedish minister, Åke Green, was convicted of inciting hatred of homosexuals following an anti-gay sermon, Phelps saw red and turned his attention to Sweden.

"You're doomed to spend eternity in hell," he continued. "All you Swedes and your Swedish king and his family."

The minister and twenty members of his congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, are planning to come to Sweden at the beginning of September. They are bringing plenty of placards in order to spread their message that Sweden is the cradle of all evil and that the king rules a nation of sodomites.

King Carl Gustaf is their primary target.

"Your king represents your doomed country and we'll find him wherever he may be."

A lot of this has to do with the case of Swedish minister Åke Green, whose conviction of a hate crime for preaching a sermon critical of homosexuality was overturned this spring. The Swedish Supreme Court will hear the government’s appeal this fall.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

I own my house. What business, then, does the government (any government, from the federal level down to my city) in regulating who I may or may not sell my house to? That is not a rhetorical question, given the nature of this case in Virginia.

In the first case of its kind, the Alexandria Human Rights Commission unanimously agreed Monday night that Long & Foster Real Estate Co. discriminated against a single gay man who wanted to buy a home in a quiet, tree-lined neighborhood.

Instead, the house went to a young married couple, who continue to own it.
The commission cited the McLean-based real estate company for discriminating against Lawrence Cummings, 52, because of his marital status or his sexual orientation. The basis for its decision won't be made public for 30 days.
Long & Foster could be required to pay up to $5,000 in fines to the city of Alexandria.

Cummings has already paid thousands of dollars in attorney's fees since he learned that his offer on the house in the Beverly Forest area had been rejected in February 2004.

"It is for the cause. For the principle," he said. "I don't believe you can discriminate against someone for their martial status or sexual preference and be able to get away with it."

Actually, Mr. Cummings, you are exactly wrong in every moral sense. You have no right to buy a house if the owner is unwilling to sell it to you. And that is the case even if you are willing to meet the price set by the owner – because the right to determine who one does business with is a matter of fundamental human rights that pre-exists any statute.

LetÂ’s look at the particulars of the case.

In February 2004, Cummings and his partner had already made offers on six houses and were getting tired of looking. When he saw the ranch-style house on Pullman Lane on a Saturday, he thought he had found what he was looking for. "I thought, 'Oooooh, cute,' " he explained. He met the sellers briefly and made an offer for the asking price -- $555,000 -- that same day.
"I thought surely I was going to get this house," he said.

But two days later, his agent called and said the owner had chosen a young married couple who had made an offer of $45,000 less. "She said it was the fact that I'm single and they sensed that I'm gay," Cummings said. And so he filed his complaint.

At the hearing, Cummings's attorney played a tape of a voice-mail message from a Long & Foster agent to a Realtor for McEnearney Associates, who was representing Cummings, describing the seller as a "fuddy-duddy" and explaining who she wanted to own the house:

"She was just extremely concerned that a young family, who would love the house and care for it, just like they did, down to the last curtain, which had been made from a wedding dress from one of their children, [would] love the house as much as they did," Anise Snyder of Long & Foster left in the message to David Howell of McEnearney, according to the case file.

Brien Roche, attorney for Long & Foster, said that the young couple who bought the house had made an equal offer, put down more earnest money and were chosen because they had shown more enthusiasm, even writing a letter about how much they liked the house and the curtains. Cummings, an interior designer, loved the house, too, but not the curtains, he would say later. "Old, dirty drapes? I don't think so," he said.

"There were both business and emotional reasons as to why the seller chose the people," Roche said in the case file. "It had nothing to do with marital status, nothing to do with anything other than the facts I just mentioned."

But ultimately, who cares if it was marital status or sexual orientation – or even race? The ultimate right regarding the conveyance of the home to another individual belongs not to the buyer, but to the seller. The house was hers, and she had every right to decide that she wanted to see a traditional family in that house rather than a childless pair of homosexuals. She had every right to arrange her business affairs in such a way that the house went to such a family – even if the decision made no sense from a purely economic standpoint. The right to make such a decision is essential to any meaningful concept of economic liberty.

More to the point, no one can point to a natural right – as opposed to a government-decreed positive right – to acquire a particular piece of property. That government believes it has any sort of moral right to regulate or penalize the decision of an owner to sell to a preferred buyer is corrosive of the right to own and dispose of property – and with it, the capitalist system.

Now some may argue that I am supporting housing discrimination. They are right. But as long as that discrimination is engaged in by a private party, I don't see a compelling government interest in stopping it that in any way justifies the infringement of property rights stopping it would entail.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 PM | Comments (86) | Add Comment
Post contains 894 words, total size 5 kb.

Get your red-hot victim rhetoric here!

Black leaders in Dallas and across the country are crying foul as a string of federal corruption investigations have targeted black politicians.

"Our leadership is being attacked all over the country," said Dallas Nation of Islam minister Jeffrey Muhammad. "We need to realize this and come together with a local and national agenda for the betterment of our own community."

Most of the people named so far in the FBI's investigation into corruption at Dallas City Hall and the city's tax-credit housing program are black. They include four black City Council members and three black members of the powerful City Plan Commission.

The predominance of blacks named in the investigation has stunned veteran black politicians.

Yo, J-Mu – quit selecting morally-challenged lowlifes as your leaders and you won’t have this problem. Elect some folks with the moral fiber to say no to bribes, kickbacks, and other schemes designed to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayers. If you do that, then there will be no need for your so-called leaders to be prosecuted. Unless, of course, you claim that one must be a felon to be authentically black.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’m not a big fan of John McCain. That said, I think he pegged this one exactly right regarding the Cindy Sheehan situation.

"It's impossible to put yourself in the position of the president of the United States and say what he should or shouldn't do. If I was president of the United States, I probably wouldn't" meet with her, McCain told the Citizen editorial board.

Sheehan, whose son, Casey, was killed in Iraq last year, stood vigil with throngs of protesters outside Bush's Texas ranch last week, demanding the president hear her argument for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Her story spawned similar anti-war protests across the nation, including one in Tucson Aug. 17.

Bush has taken heat from many for avoiding Sheehan, including some congressional Republicans who say the decision makes the White House appear unsympathetic.

McCain said he's seen Bush after meetings with families who lost loved ones - including Sheehan at an earlier meeting.

"He cares. He grieves. He has the greatest compassion and sympathy for these families and anyone who says he doesn't isn't telling the truth," McCain said. "I've seen it with my own eyes."

But giving in to demands for a face-to-face meeting would set a precedent that would potentially have costly implications for the White House, McCain said.

"Perhaps her coming out of a meeting and saying she had berated the president of the United States and that she demanded another meeting and had demanded meetings for other families who have now turned against the war," McCain said. "And should he continue now a dialogue with them? And if he doesn't have a regular dialogue with them, then he's insensitive and blah, blah, blah."

And to all the folks who think McCain is the only good Republican – he believes that we need to increase the presence of US forces in Iraq.

Rather than giving in to public pressure to bring troops home, the White House should be increasing the military presence in Iraq, he said.

"We cannot afford to fail. We cannot lose. If we lose, you will see Iraq factionalize, maybe be broken up," McCain said. "You will see it as a new center for Muslim extremism - slash - terrorism, and it will be sending a message throughout the world that the United States can be beaten."

So, all you folks out there criticizing the war – do you want America to win, or to be beaten? Are you with us or against us?

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

Utah is a pretty conservative place. I don’t think I’m betraying any sort of national secret by saying that it is because of the Mormons. I mean, they are as conservative a bunch of pro-family traditionalists as you are likely to find – and they are centered right in Salt Lake City.

That’s why this move by Salt Lake City’s mayor seems sort of dictatorial to me – he’s going to impose domestic partnership benefits on the city by decree, even if the city council rejects them. After all, he has the power.

No lobbying or emotional debate necessary.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson apparently can extend health benefits to unmarried partners of gay and straight city employees anytime he wants. And he said Tuesday that he will "absolutely" offer the benefits once the city finishes its research on the plan and he gets formal word he can do it without a City Council vote.

Still, Anderson hopes the council passes a symbolic resolution supporting the idea.

"As long as we're going to do this, we should demonstrate unity on this issue," he said. "Providing for equality should not create more division in our community."

Even a symbolic resolution is hardly a sure thing. The city's seven-member council leans conservative, and this is an election year for four of them.

If the council rejects a resolution, Anderson said he would go ahead and offer the benefits anyway. Barring quick action from another city, Salt Lake City would become Utah's first government to offer domestic-partner benefits.

Do you get the arrogance there? The use of what I can only assume to be the royal “We” in the third paragraph? Translated, the mayor is saying “I want a resolution of support, but I’m acting even if you refuse me one – and if that causes division, my opponents are the bad guys.”

I’d like to encourage the members of the City Council out in Salt Lake City to go on record in opposition to these benefits. What’s more, I’d like to encourage the people of Salt lake City to vote out any member of the council who votes for a resolution of support – and eventually Mayor Anderson. His tactics are antithetical to the American system, and he and his supporters need to be righteously slapped down by the vast majority whose values he is trampling upon.

HereÂ’s a link to the email addresses of the members of the Salt Lake City Council. Be respectful, but express your views.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

This is just stupid, and offensive.

Conservative U.S. evangelist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying the leftist leader wanted to turn his country into "the launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

The founder of the Christian Coalition said during the Monday night television broadcast of his religious program, "The 700 Club," that Chavez, one the most vocal critics of President George W. Bush, was a "terrific danger" to the United States.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned Robertson's comments as "inappropriate" and said they were from a private citizen and did not represent the U.S.

While I would not object to seeing the people of Venezuela rise up and give him the Mussolini or Ceaucescu treatment, I donÂ’t want to see our own government get back in this business over one tin-horn dictator.

Shut up, Pat!

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, since I’m a member of the local GOP ballot security committee, which trains poll-watchers and election judges how to spot and stop vote fraud. Selwyn Duke reports on some of the means by which fraud is perpetrated in Washington DC.

Experience has taught Deep Vote that it is transiency which provides Democrat political operatives with the most golden of opportunities to steal votes. In depressed urban areas an inordinate number of residents move in and out every year, with some taking up residence for only a brief time.

Stability is less common among the poverty-stricken and others suffering social dysfunctions, and such people are more numerous in large urban areas than elsewhere.

A high rate of transiency inevitably leaves a large number of people who no longer live in an area on the voter rolls. The local authorities, says Deep Vote, “are always somewhat late on removing non-residents.” All the Democrat operatives need do then is ascertain who these people are and vote for them. Deep Vote explains the mechanics of this process.

What we first need to know is that the Democrat operatives who are central to this fraud are known as “block captains” and “apartment captains.” Deep Vote tells us that a captain is a GOTV (Get out the vote) term for a campaign volunteer who knows the territory and is given a list of voters on his block or in his building who are believed to be sympathetic to his candidate. He is then charged with the task of driving these partisans to the polls.

Deep Vote then explains that since captains are usually “local/neighborhood leaders” or in the least have “been there for a while,” they “would know who has moved out.” It is then that the captains examine the voter rolls and “vote those people.”

This problem is not just confined to large urban areas. Yeas ago, as the GOP committeeman for a college campus voting precinct, I found that there were many registered voters who had long since moved on. Take my own dorm room as an example. There were six voters registered to that address – and I was the only one of them who actually lived there. It took me three months to get those voters tracked down and registered at their correct address or purged from the rolls. It never crossed my mind to engage in the mischief that was available to me.

Why are these ineligible voters left on the rolls?

Deep Vote also mentions factors that have exacerbated this problem by enabling these election thieves. First, many states have enacted “Motor Voter” laws, which he says often increase the chances of this type of vote-fraud. The reason for this is that such laws lead to the registration of larger numbers of irresponsible people who live transient lifestyles.

Then, not surprisingly, where there’s the appearance of corruption and turpitude there often lurks the Reverend without a congregation, Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he brought pressure to bear on Washington, DC to stop purging the voter rolls because doing so was “racist.” You see, racism is something on which ol’ Jesse is an authority.

Anyway, such a story is reminiscent of the hue and cry that ensued when Florida purged its voter rolls; back then accusations of racism were hurled as well. Just know, though, that those who use this ploy are scoundrels, scheming to facilitate the vote-fraud that can vault their candidate into office. Such people are to be despised.

Yeah, that’s right – easy registration and difficulty in purging the rolls (where it is done at all) make the casting of votes by these ghost voters that much easier. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the mischief that can be made of the process by these “extra voters”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart, since IÂ’m a member of the local GOP ballot security committee, which trains poll-watchers and election judges how to spot and stop vote fraud. Selwyn Duke reports on some of the means by which fraud is perpetrated in Washington DC.

Experience has taught Deep Vote that it is transiency which provides Democrat political operatives with the most golden of opportunities to steal votes. In depressed urban areas an inordinate number of residents move in and out every year, with some taking up residence for only a brief time.

Stability is less common among the poverty-stricken and others suffering social dysfunctions, and such people are more numerous in large urban areas than elsewhere.

A high rate of transiency inevitably leaves a large number of people who no longer live in an area on the voter rolls. The local authorities, says Deep Vote, “are always somewhat late on removing non-residents.” All the Democrat operatives need do then is ascertain who these people are and vote for them. Deep Vote explains the mechanics of this process.

What we first need to know is that the Democrat operatives who are central to this fraud are known as “block captains” and “apartment captains.” Deep Vote tells us that a captain is a GOTV (Get out the vote) term for a campaign volunteer who knows the territory and is given a list of voters on his block or in his building who are believed to be sympathetic to his candidate. He is then charged with the task of driving these partisans to the polls.

Deep Vote then explains that since captains are usually “local/neighborhood leaders” or in the least have “been there for a while,” they “would know who has moved out.” It is then that the captains examine the voter rolls and “vote those people.”

This problem is not just confined to large urban areas. Yeas ago, as the GOP committeeman for a college campus voting precinct, I found that there were many registered voters who had long since moved on. Take my own dorm room as an example. There were six voters registered to that address – and I was the only one of them who actually lived there. It took me three months to get those voters tracked down and registered at their correct address or purged from the rolls. It never crossed my mind to engage in the mischief that was available to me.

Why are these ineligible voters left on the rolls?

Deep Vote also mentions factors that have exacerbated this problem by enabling these election thieves. First, many states have enacted “Motor Voter” laws, which he says often increase the chances of this type of vote-fraud. The reason for this is that such laws lead to the registration of larger numbers of irresponsible people who live transient lifestyles.

Then, not surprisingly, where there’s the appearance of corruption and turpitude there often lurks the Reverend without a congregation, Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he brought pressure to bear on Washington, DC to stop purging the voter rolls because doing so was “racist.” You see, racism is something on which ol’ Jesse is an authority.

Anyway, such a story is reminiscent of the hue and cry that ensued when Florida purged its voter rolls; back then accusations of racism were hurled as well. Just know, though, that those who use this ploy are scoundrels, scheming to facilitate the vote-fraud that can vault their candidate into office. Such people are to be despised.

Yeah, that’s right – easy registration and difficulty in purging the rolls (where it is done at all) make the casting of votes by these ghost voters that much easier. It doesn’t take much imagination to see the mischief that can be made of the process by these “extra voters”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 658 words, total size 4 kb.

Thanks to the racial gerrymander required by the Voting Rights Act, Sheila Jackson Lee will be in office making a fool of herself for years. Here is the latest chapter.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee visited the anti-war inspired "Camp Casey" near President Bush's ranch on Monday, lending support and words of encouragement to several families whose loved ones died in Iraq.

"It is time to bring our troops home," Lee said at the demonstration started by Cindy Sheehan, of Vacaville, Calif., on Aug. 6.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son Army Spc. Casey Sheehan died last year in Iraq, is currently in Los Angeles to be with her mother, who had a stroke. But about 60 other people were spread between two anti-war campsites near the ranch on Monday.

"What we want to do is give America a sense that it's OK to speak up and ask questions," said Lee, a Democrat from Houston.

She said that coalition forces of U.S. allies could come in to fill the security gap in Iraq.

Before you get too impressed, remember that this is the same buffoon who complained that the names for hurricanes didn’t sound black enough, and who asked NASA staff if the Mars Rover had taken any pictures of the flag that Neil Armstrong had left behind. She’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer – which is why she is the only member of Congress to associate herself with the group camped out in Crawford.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah – they are just here to work. Tell that to this girl.

An illegal alien, Jose Ramirez, 28, has been arrested and charged with the brutal beating of a 15-year-old girl who allegedly ignored his whistles at a construction site in Spotsylvania County.

Police say the 15 year old girl suffered a broken nose, bone fracture to the right side of her face and received approximately 30 stitches to her face and back of her head.

Police say the 15 year old girl was walking by on a road, when Ramirez, who was working on a construction project at a nearby townhouse, whistled at her.

Witnesses told police the next thing they saw, Ramirez appeared enraged and took off running after the girl. He allegedly began to beat her on her face and head.

Ramirez then fled into a nearby wooded area. Short while later, authorities found Ramirez a few blocks away. Ramirez, an illegal alien from El Salvador, allegedly resisted arrest but was finally subdued.

Ramirez is facing aggravated malicious wounding charges as well as abduction with intent to defile. Both charges carry a possible life sentence.

One more reason to send them all back.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah – they are just here to work. Tell that to this girl.

An illegal alien, Jose Ramirez, 28, has been arrested and charged with the brutal beating of a 15-year-old girl who allegedly ignored his whistles at a construction site in Spotsylvania County.

Police say the 15 year old girl suffered a broken nose, bone fracture to the right side of her face and received approximately 30 stitches to her face and back of her head.

Police say the 15 year old girl was walking by on a road, when Ramirez, who was working on a construction project at a nearby townhouse, whistled at her.

Witnesses told police the next thing they saw, Ramirez appeared enraged and took off running after the girl. He allegedly began to beat her on her face and head.

Ramirez then fled into a nearby wooded area. Short while later, authorities found Ramirez a few blocks away. Ramirez, an illegal alien from El Salvador, allegedly resisted arrest but was finally subdued.

Ramirez is facing aggravated malicious wounding charges as well as abduction with intent to defile. Both charges carry a possible life sentence.

One more reason to send them all back.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Cindy Sheehan's 15 minutes are over. Her protest at Camp Dhimmi (I refuse to defile her son's sacrifice by referring to it by his name) has pretty much exemplified the worst of the anti-war/pro-jihadi movement.

Here are some examples.

Deb Saunders points out that Sheehan's protest is less about principled opposition to the war than it is a cry for attention -- emotion lacking in logic.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan who died in combat in Iraq, became a public figure when she demanded a second visit with President Bush so he could answer her questions: "Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?" She had set up camp near the president's home, until a second tragedy -- her mother's stroke -- caused her to leave Thursday.

By the time that happened, Sheehan, who has made her personal situation the issue and has hurled so many personal insults at others, was complaining that the protests are "not about me," they're about the war.

Not true. Cindy Sheehan never asked Bush to meet with other mothers of those who have died in Iraq. She has never tried to represent those mothers of slain soldiers who support the war. What's more, while many thoughtful critics of the war exist, Sheehan personifies the me-me-me focus of the anti-war movement. And that corner doesn't think.

Similarly, other parents of our honored war dead are speaking out against Sheehan's claims to moral authority superior to those who support continuing to oppose jihadi terrorism. Take this example from Portsmouth, NH.

Exeter's Natalie Healy lost her 36-year-old son Daniel Healy on June 28. Healy was serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan. He died when the MH-47 Chinook helicopter he was riding in was shot down. Fifteen other Americans also perished in the crash.

Healy considered the rally a success. She was pleased with the turnout considering the slightly rainy weather and the short notice — she only started planning the rally on Thursday.

The rally started at noon and ended at about 2 p.m., although some involved with the demonstration stayed longer. The group included both veterans, as well as those who just wanted to show their support for the current conflicts.

***

In Portsmouth, Healy stood on the sidewalk clutching a photo of her son to her chest and an American flag in her other hand. Healy wants the troops to know that not all Americans feel the same way about the war as Sheehan does.

"It angers me and scares me," Healy said, speaking about Cindy Sheehan's protest. "I remember Vietnam. I remember how the protests started out back then. I'm here to do whatever I can."

Dan Healy's sister, Shannon, said support showed by the rally was wonderful. Shannon Healy said she had to take a little time off work, but felt it was important.

"No matter your politics," Shannon Healy said. "Love Bush or hate him. You have to support the men and women. ... I think Mrs. Sheehan is disrespecting the memory of her child. It's disrespectful. Her son made the choice (to be in the military)."

In interviews, some of those who spoke at the rally said that Sheehan's demonstration is aiding the enemy, by providing propaganda for the other side. Mixed with this was some anger that the media is focusing too much on the negative aspects of the war, like body counts or bombings, instead of on the good the soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's moral superiority. This mother recognizes the value of her son's sacrifice and is proud of it. She didn't threaten offer to run her son down with the family car to get him out of combat. She hasn't constantly changed her story about a meeting withthe president or engaged in anti-American tirades. She respects what her son volunteered to do and is proud of it. Natalie healy is the voice of most service parents --not Cindy Sheehan.

And then there is this father, who has started a camp (Fort Qualls, in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall) in opposition to Sheehan's. He has also had to fight to keep his son's memory and sacrifice from being desecrated by Sheehan's followers at Camp Dhimmi.

In Crawford, Gary Qualls, the father of a slain soldier, explained his reasons for supporting the pro-war camp. "If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that," said Qualls, who is friends with the local business owner who started the camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.

Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

So much for the anti-American/pro-jihadi rabble who claim to respect the moral superiority of the parents of dead servicemen and women to speak out on the war. I guess that is only the case if those parents oppose the war -- supporters of the war (the vast majority of family members of Iraq and Afghanistan heroes) may be disregarded as inconsequential by the pro-Islamist Left.

Get this, residents of Camp Dhimmi and your supporters -- America rejects you.

Posted by: Greg at 07:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 923 words, total size 6 kb.

It now seems that some of the the Minutemen coming to Houston might actually exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A number have concealed carry permits, and the local organizers will not forbid them to carry their weapons.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. I won't discuss whether or not these folks should be carrying weapons when legally authorized to do so.

No, what I want to point out is this glaring lie from an HPD spokesman.

Houston police are aware that some of the Minutemen will be armed, and officers will make sure that all laws are obeyed, said Lt. Robert Manzo, an HPD spokesman.

Well, maybe just by the Minutemen. There will be no enforcement of our nation's immigration laws, nor laws against hiring immigration criminals. That means the border jumpers and those who aid and abet them will get a free pass -- as usual in this sanctuary city.

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times certainly got a sweetheart deal when it got the city of New York to steal use eminent domain to acquire the land for their new headquarters. Not only did they get to lease the land at significantly less than the open market would have cost them (and eventually buy it for $1.00), but they also got the right to determine who could rent other space in the building. Who gets excluded?

The lease, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, also bars renting space in the 52-story building for "a school or classroom or juvenile or adult day care or drop-in center." It forbids "medical uses, including without limitation, hospital, medical, or dental offices, agencies, or clinics." It gives the New York Times Company "the sole and absolute discretion" to reject United Nations or foreign-government offices, including any "considered controversial" or that are potentially the focus of demonstrations. It bans any "employment agency (other than executive-search firms) or job training center" and auction houses, "provided, however, the foregoing shall not apply to high-end auction houses specializing in art and historical artifacts." Discount stores are forbidden. And the deal bars "a welfare or social-services office, homeless shelter or homeless assistance center, court or court-related facility."

In fact, any government office is excluded from the building if it would attract people who arrive "without appointment."

But wait -- I thought eminent domain was the taking of land for a "public purpose". If the public is effectively excluded from the property by a private party, how can it be deemed a public use?

I wonder -- would the Times be willing to see a similar bargain given to Halliburton, or to an oil company?

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, No Land Grab, and The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid)

Posted by: Greg at 03:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

The man is chairman of the Judiciary Committee -- and the Roberts hearings are coming up. Why is Arlen Specter in Cuba meeting with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez?

VENEZUELA'S President Hugo Chavez, a fierce critic of the United States who has threatened to stop oil supplies, has met a US Republican senator, Arlen Specter, who has also been in Cuba this week.
The left wing president met with Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US ambassador to Caracas, William Brownfield, for two hours on Wednesday night, the Venezuelan leader said in a speech on Thursday.

The meeting came at a sensitive time in relations between the United States and Venezuela, a major supplier of oil to the US markets.

Chavez threatened last weekend to stop oil exports to the United States unless Washington halts what he called its "aggressions".

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has in turn been to Peru and Paraguay this week to lobby against the influence of Venezuela and Cuba.

Media reports quoted Specter as saying he wanted a normalisation in relations.

Before going to Venezuela, the US senator was in Cuba where he had hoped to meet President Fidel Castro but it was not known if he was successful.

I repeat -- Why?

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 1 kb.

ArenÂ’t you liberals proud of your new allies?

Thanks to the internet, SheehanÂ’s popularity among the armband brigades is spreading like fire creeping up a moonlit cross. On the webÂ’s premier hate website, Stormfront.org, Duke supporter James Kelso (whose screen name is "Charles A. Lindbergh") posted a link to a video message from Cindy Sheehan entitled, "Mr. President, you lied to us."

Cindy is also popular at the American Nationalist Union. ANU is run by Don Wassall, former national chairman of the Populist Party, a racist third party organized in 1984 by Willis CartoÂ’s Liberty Lobby; in 1988, the party nominated David Duke for president. ANUÂ’s Nationalist News section links to four articles supporting Cindy Sheehan, including a delightful link to an article on Justin RaimondoÂ’s Hate America Right website Antiwar.com about Christopher Hitchens: "Drink-Soaked Trotskyite Popinjay Slimes Antiwar Mom "

Duke is not the only figure on the White Wing to embrace Sheehan. The explicitly Nazi National Socialist Movement backs her, as well. NSM "Commander" Jeff Schoep entitled one recent radio broadcast "NSM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN," then devoted a second broadcast to Sheehan the next day.

The racist website Altermedia.info jumped on the bandwagon early, posting multiple articles hailing Cindy Sheehan. One article, written under the pen name "Charles Coughlin," dubbed the menopausal valley girl "The Rosa Parks of the Peace Movement," an awkward metaphor considering the source. Another article, authored by "James Buchanan" (another great Democrat), hinted the "Neo-Cons" had solicited the services of the redneck who fired shots into the air within earshot of Sheehan and her leftist Big Top.

Another article written by the late Fr. CoughlinÂ’s acolyte, "Woman Loses Son in Iraq; Neocons Treat her Like Dirt," also made its way on Stormfront.orgÂ’s discussion forum, inspiring 14 pages of commentary. The very first respondent, neo-Nazi "Reichmann88," [1] wrote:

This lady sounds like a potential WN ["WN" is short for "White Nationalist" – BJ]. I'll bet she has no clue about Israel's involvement in her sons death. Sad indeed!! May God Bless Her!

Reichmann need not worry; it appears Sheehan "knew."

Another Stormfront contributor commented, "If there are any Texas WN units nearby Mrs. Cindy Sheehan they should reach out to hear [sic.]." When another message claimed Sheehan "probably would spit in your face if you approached her with WN," forum member "Messiah" assured:

I've known Cindy for over a year now, and no, she wouldn't spit in anyone's face for what they said....while she's not a WN, sheÂ’s a decent person who resents deeply what Bush has done with his lies in creating this war, and using the US for Israel's interests. I feel like she does about these Neo Con/Israel created wars.

And evidently she reciprocates the sentiments of this racist scumbag.

It has long been a tactic of the Left to tar conservatives with the words or deeds of some obscure supporters. Will the Left recognize that when they receive broad-based support from the Klan and the Neo-Nazis there may be something wrong with their position on the war?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

I find this new law interesting, if it goes into effect.

North Carolina lawmakers have approved a measure that would require courts to give battered spouses something extra when they seek a restraining order - information on how to apply for a concealed weapon.

However, victim's advocates who support efforts to curb domestic violence said the measure could end up causing more problems by bringing guns into already volatile relationships.

"In my experience, if you've got a fire out there, I don't think you put it out by throwing gas on it," said Bart Rick, a Seattle-area sheriff who chairs the National Sheriffs' Association domestic violence committee. "When I read this ... I went 'Whoa.'"

The president of the gun-rights group that pushed for the measure said it's more about helping victims of domestic violence help themselves.

"We're not interested in them shooting their abusers," said Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina. "We're interested in delivering a message: When police can't protect these people, they are capable of protecting themselves."

The measure becomes law Oct. 1 unless Gov. Mike Easley decides to veto it. His office declined Wednesday to comment on his plans.

The bill, which passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the legislature, would also add protective orders to the evidence a sheriff can consider when determining whether to issue an emergency permit to carry a concealed weapon. Normally, an applicant must wait 90 days for such a permit.

I love the fact that the victim disarmament folks – under the guise of protecting the public – what to make sure that crime victims are unable to fight back.

Personally, I only see one flaw with this law – it ought to require that the court issue a Glock and a box of ammunition to the victim when the restraining order is issued.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Am I the only one who sees these as chickenshit charges?

Gov. Bob Taft was charged with four ethics violations Wednesday for failing to report dozens of gifts that included dinners, golf games and professional hockey tickets, deepening a scandal that has rocked Ohio's Republican Party.

Taft, a Republican and member of a distinguished U.S. political family, becomes the first governor in Ohio history to be charged with a crime. The charges are also an embarrassment for a politician who has pushed for high ethical standards in his office.

Taft, could be fined $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail on each count if convicted, though time behind bars was considered unlikely.

Taft will respond publicly on Thursday and is not planning to resign, spokesman Mark Rickel said. Prosecutors said they expected the governor to appear in court Thursday but declined to say whether a plea agreement was in the works.

The gifts were worth about $5,800 and given over four years, prosecutors said. Taft earlier had revealed that he failed to report some outings but said the omissions were accidental.

Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the gifts included two golf outings worth $100 each paid for by embattled coin dealer Tom Noe. Noe is a Republican fundraiser whose $50 million investment of state money in rare coins launched the scandal that led to Taft's revelation that he failed to list golf outings on financial disclosure forms.

State law requires officeholders to report all gifts worth more than $75 if the donor wasn't reimbursed.

O'Brien said the gifts also included meals and tickets for a Columbus Blue Jackets hockey game.

If this is what passes for “corruption” and “unethical conduct” in Ohio, then I think the laws are overly stringent. According to other reports I’ve seen, some of the gifts, meals, and outings come from long-time friends and associates. Given current prices for a meal at an up-scale restaurant, or fees for a round of golf, it is virtually impossible not to cross that threshold in the course of spending time with someone in a purely casual capacity. I took a friend to see the Houston Texans last weekend because my wife was unable to use her ticket. By the time I bought his ticket (and we were in the cheap seats), paid for parking, and grabbed a drink and a bite to eat, we were pushing that $75.00 figure. If such normal human interaction is banned under the law, then the law is an ass.

UPDATE: Taft pleads no contest, and is fined for the offenses.

Posted by: Greg at 01:46 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

Here's an article that you need to be aware of. Ronald R. Griffin has something important to say to you.

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me.

I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

Yeah, that's right. Cindy Sheehan is one person with one opinion. It is far from the majority opinion of the families of those who have died in this crusade against jihadi terrorists. Where are the cameras covering those thousands of onther survivors? Why are their views not trumpetted throughout the land? What makes Mrs. Shehan -- a liar whose very words condemn her as hateful of this country and a supporter of terrorists (like Lynne Stewart, for example) -- the one with the moral authority to speak?

Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

May God bless you, sir, and those many survivors whose beliefs parallel yours.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 3 kb.

The ABA has spoken. Judge John Roberts is "well qualified" for the US Supreme Court. That is, I believe, what the Left used to cal the Gold Standard" for judges.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts earned a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday, clearing one hurdle in his path to joining the high court.

The rating by unanimous vote of an ABA committee was disclosed as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for the start of confirmation hearings on Sept. 6. Roberts will face almost an hour of questioning from each of the 18 senators on the committee.

The committee also will hold one hearing that will be closed to the public.

For more than 50 years, the ABA has evaluated the credentials of nominees for the federal bench, though the nation's largest lawyers' group has no official standing in the process. Supreme Court nominees get the most scrutiny.

This is the fourth time the ABA has rated Roberts. He was designated as well qualified in 2001 when he was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He earned the same rating in 2003 when he was nominated again for the appeals courts and then confirmed. He was rated as qualified as an appeals court nominee in 1992, but the Senate never took up that nomination.

Of course, you know that being rated "well qualified" will no longer be sufficient since the nominee is a conservative. After all, , the "Gold Standard" is only the "Gold Standard" if they like the nominee.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Patrick Leahy slandered Judge John Roberts in comments designed to pave the way for leftist groups to announce their opposition to his nomination to the US Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."

However, even the AP notes that the recently released documents show nothing of the kind.

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

"Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement.

In other words, Senator Leahy has just announced that ANY conservative nominee is unacceptable and outside the mainstream.

No mater what the results of the last several elections show.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.

Senator Patrick Leahy slandered Judge John Roberts in comments designed to pave the way for leftist groups to announce their opposition to his nomination to the US Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick Leahy says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Firing his broadside one day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, Leahy said Roberts' views were "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy and access to justice."

However, even the AP notes that the recently released documents show nothing of the kind.

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

"Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now," Leahy said in his statement.

In other words, Senator Leahy has just announced that ANY conservative nominee is unacceptable and outside the mainstream.

No mater what the results of the last several elections show.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Ward Churchill is taking a one semester sabbatical this spring, to research and write more anti-American bullcrap on the taxpayerÂ’s dime.

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said he plans to take a sabbatical in the spring to finish a book about the repression of the Black Panther party.

Churchill said he needs the one-semester sabbatical to finish his research project, adding that his leave has nothing to do with a CU faculty committee's ongoing inquiry into his writings.

Pauline Hale, a spokeswoman for the university, said CU's regents have not seen the request for the sabbatical and that protocol requires they approve all such leaves.

Churchill said the request was approved at the college level last fall, before controversy erupted in January over an essay he wrote shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, comparing World Trade Center victims with Nazi Adolf Eichmann.

The request was approved by the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Churchill said, and he had assumed it was approved by the regents.

"I have not heard that anything went awry," Churchill said Tuesday "My assumption was that things went in a normal fashion."

Now it is known that Churchill has a history of academic dishonesty, including plagiarism and just plain making stuff up. Does it really take a work-free semester to do that – especially since his fall class load consists of only one course?

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

The CornerÂ’s Tim Graham points out a bit of liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the lives and health of Americans.

The Los Angeles Times reports that state and federal officials are investigating the deaths of (now) four California women who've died after taking the RU-486 abortion-inducing drug cocktail. The first one most media outlets ignored was teenager Holly Patterson in 2003, but the latest is Oriane Shevlin, a 34-year-old mother of two, who died from a blood infection in June. Wendy Wright at Concerned Women for America and others have been on the FDA's case on this one, which was ram-rodded through the regulatory process in the last year of the Clinton administration.

When it comes to the FDA, the networks would rather obsess over less lethal scandals from corporate greedheads, like, I kid you not, Taco Bell taco shells: "The charge is that Taco Bell taco shells sold in grocery stores contain a gene-altered corn specifically banned from food because of the risk of allergies in people," CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews explained. "While there are no known reports of injury, this finding by a coalition of environmental groups is the most serious evidence so far of the potential danger in some gene-altered food."

Yep – we cannot leave taco shells on the market because they contain grain which has never harmed anyone who has eaten them – but four dead women are not grounds for removing the RU-486 feticide drug.

I’m curious, though. Isn’t DEATH the ultimate infringement on “a woman’s right to choose”? Guess not.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonah Goldberg makes a point that I have tried to make.

The great irony is that the people who resort to such "arguments" (they're really just insults) are the ones questioning free-speech rights, because they are suggesting the criticism was inappropriate and, in some vague and stupid way, unconstitutional. Right? That is the upshot of what they're saying. I mean, if you immediately assert that someone has the right to say something as a way to rebut criticism, aren't you implying that such criticism violated their rights — which is, by definition, unconstitutional.

The paranoia enters into it when you consider the nature of the accusation. If you immediately assume that criticism from the political Right is tantamount to questioning someone's constitutional right to speak in the first place, what you are really saying (Pace Dan Savage) is that if you scratch a conservative you'll find a Storm Trooper just under the surface. We knuckle draggers may say we're just offering criticism, but what we really mean is that anyone we disagree with has no right to say so. That so many on the Left seem to believe this, says a lot about the intellectual and psychological state of Lefties while saying nothing of interest about conservatives. I don't think it's always a matter of projection — assuming your enemy sees things the same you do — but I do think this knee-jerkery illuminates in a small way the bad faith of the Left. Not only does the "I have the right to speak" tantrum dodge the merits of specific criticisms, it starts from the assumption that as a matter of first principles left-wing protest should never be questioned.

Indeed, that's the reason the Left has rallied so fiercely behind Cindy Sheehan. Wedded to a form of identity-politics logic which says some "authentic" voices cannot be questioned and inauthentic voices need not be listened to, these hardcore left-wing activists love Cindy Sheehan because they think she's above reproach. They immediately resort to the argument "How dare you question a woman who lost her child!" Sheehan's loss is obviously a terrible one. But the death of her son does not make her anymore qualified to rant about Israel and oil tycoons controlling American foreign policy than it would be if her son was alive. But her backers do not care, indeed they don't think anyone has the right to even point this out.

So rant on, Saint Cindy Sheehan of the Ditch, Our Lady of the Martyred Soldier. You have every right to spew your venom towards our president and our country – and even the anti-Semitic rhetoric that has brought Nazi/Klan moron David Duke to your support.

But I have the right to say you are wrong. And the speech-suppressing fascists are those among your supporters who demand silence of those of us who criticize the dishonor you bring to your sonÂ’s name and sacrifice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

When Houston Mayor Bill White created the Safe-Clear mandatory towing program for local highways, he meant well. The program has been one embarrassment after another for the city, and has exceeded the expected cost. Now it seems to be a source of victims for criminals.

Andrea Anderson broke down along Highway 59 near Collingsworth. A Safe Clear wrecker was dispatched.

"I was hot and sweaty and waiting for a long time," she said. "I was forced to use the Safe Clear program, where I could have used my warranty tow."
A wrecker from Unified Auto Works towed Anderson's car to Humble. She paid the bill with her check card. Several days later, Anderson checked her bank account and found more than $600 worth of unauthorized charges, along with a list of overdraft fees.

Around the time Anderson was trying to figure out who was draining her bank account, a different woman's car broke down along Interstate 10 near Lockwood. Again, a wrecker from Unified Auto Works was dispatched as part of the Safe Clear program.

The woman talked with the Troubleshooters but asked to remain anonymous. She told them she also paid Unified with her credit card. And soon after, she also got hit with hundreds of dollars in unauthorized charges.

These women had no choice of towing company, and were forbidden to call the company of their choice or use AAA. Thanks, City of Houston, for providing criminals with easier access to victims.

(Hat Tip: Lone Star Times)

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

First it was New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Now Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is acting to shore up border security in her state by declaring a state of emergency and setting aside funds to deal with the crisis.

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday declared a state of emergency along Arizona's border with Mexico, freeing up $1.5 million in disaster funds to help border counties combat booming illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Napolitano criticized the federal government for "moving too slow" on border security, evolving into a hot-button, election-year issue in Arizona and across the country.

"This is a federal responsibility, and they're not meeting it," Napolitano said. "I've just come to the conclusion (that) we've got to do what we can at the state level until the federal government picks up the pace."

Napolitano's announcement came three days after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson issued a similar declaration, complaining that the federal government has failed to stem growing smuggling-related violence to the east of Arizona, an increasingly popular illegal immigration corridor. Both governors are Democrats.

In the mean time, we have the GOP governors of Texas and California doing little or nothing to deal with the crisis along their borders. And we have a GOP president and GOP Congress all talking about amnesty plans and guest workers rather than acting to stem the tide of invading immigration criminals.

WhatÂ’s the deal, Republicans? Do you really want to lose the next few elections?

Posted by: Greg at 01:25 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

I've talked about this case before. Millionaire businessman and government official patronizeds a Masseuse with a prostitition conviction (like we believe all she was giving him was a massage), dumps his family to carry on a public affair with her, and eventually marries her. Oh, yeah, did I mention she's under a deportation order?

Well now, seeking a better venue for their lawsuit against the US government, Ralph and Nicole Yanhong Hu Isenberg have fled Dallas for New York -- on the very day on which Nicole was required to voluntarily leave the United States under an agreementshe signed with the US government.

The choice was clear: Leave the country voluntarily by Monday or be deported.

Instead of catching an international flight, Nicole Isenberg fled to New York City with her husband, Ralph, a former member of the Dallas City Plan Commission, and started preparing a federal lawsuit against U.S. immigration officials.

"We are still trying so hard to have a judge listen to our case and keep our family together," said Mrs. Isenberg, who has a 6-week-old child with Mr. Isenberg and a teenage daughter from her first marriage whom he adopted.

"We won't give up."

Mr. Isenberg, a Dallas real-estate developer, vowed to continue his fight for his Chinese wife's freedom and her green card.

"There is no better place for me to be than New York," he said Monday.

Mr. Isenberg has been grappling with immigration authorities on his wife's behalf since they met about three years ago.

He recently resigned his position on the City Plan Commission after revealing to the media that his 30-year marriage dissolved when he met and later married Nicole – formerly known as Yanhong Hu, a Dallas massage parlor worker who had once been arrested on a prostitution charge.

The misdemeanor charge was unfounded, the Isenbergs said, and was dismissed after she served five months' probation.

Both sides in the Isenbergs' immigration dispute accuse the other of egregious misdeeds.

Paul Hunker III, chief counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Dallas, has characterized Mrs. Isenberg as one of the worst violators of immigration law he has seen.

She is not eligible to adjust her status in the U.S., he said, because she engaged in prostitution, committed fraud by lying about the prostitution charge, overstayed her visa by more than a year and was ordered deported in absentia when she missed an immigration hearing.

Mr. Hunker, learning that he could possibly be named in the Isenbergs' lawsuit, referred questions Monday to spokesman Carl Rusnok.

"She was supposed to have left the U.S. by today. It looks like she has no intention of meeting that agreement," Mr. Rusnok said Monday.

"We will take whatever enforcement actions we deem appropriate. ... ICE is a federal organization. We have ICE agents in New York as well."

Gee, what part of "not eligible to adjust her status" is so hard to understand? The mere fact that she married a millionaire with lots of good political connections is not a basis for her being allowed to stay in the US. She is a convicted prostitute who overstayed her visa and was ordered deported years ago. On what possible basis could they possibly argue against the order to leave a country where she has no legal right to stay? Especially since she agreed to leave, and was given several extensions.

Well, they are using the kitchen sink strategy. Every possible argument is out there. All of them sound like pure bunk (and not the kind where Mrs. Isenberg used to make her moneu on her back). More offensive is the attempt to play the China card.

Mr. Cox [the Isenberg's lawyer], who speaks fluent Mandarin, said Mrs. Isenberg's case has received widespread coverage in China, where Mr. Isenberg has been called "China's son-in-law."

"I hope our government will do the humane thing, the fair thing," he said. "People in China are watching to see if we are fair to a Chinese citizen."

We4ll, Mr. Isenberg, maybe your in-laws have a spare bedroom for you over at their place. You and your wife need to get on the slow boat (or maybe a chartered jet) to China, where you and she can wait until she is eligble to come back to this country under American law.

Oh, and Mr. Cox, since the article makes it clear that you were an active participant in the violation of this agreement, which includes flight from federal authorities, I look forward to hearing that you face the appropriate criminal charges, serve time, and are disbarred as the unethical scoundrel you are.

Oh, I would like to point to one quote from an ICE representative.

"We will take whatever enforcement actions we deem appropriate. ... ICE is a federal organization. We have ICE agents in New York as well."

Send them in -- throw her out.

Posted by: Greg at 05:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

She's already made antin-Semitic comments in the media. Now Cindy Sheehan has a high-profile backer who agrees with her.

Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him and a good explanation why her son and otherÂ’s sons and daughters must die and be disfigured in a war for Israel rather than for America.

Recently, she had the courage to state the obvious that her son signed up in the military to protect America not to die for Israel.

I take it that David Duke has therefore gone back to the Democrats -- right where the Klan has traditionally found its home. I wonder if Senator Byrd has welcomed him with open arms?

And given Duke's past Nazi associations, I can't help but remind folks that the name is short for National SOCIALISTS.

MORE FROM Blogs for Bush, Jack Lewis, Conservative Outpost, T. Longren, Wizbang,.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 PM | Comments (99) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.