After President Bush briefed reporters about Hurricane Rita, a reporter asks him "Sir, what good can you do going down to the hurricane zone? Might you get in the way?"

After a sensible response, another reporter (maybe the same one) yells "Well, critics are saying this is an overcompensation for the response to Katrina."

Just. Can't. Win.

Posted by: Rhodey at 12:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey all -- Rhodey here from The Colossus of Rhodey. Greg is still in transit, evacuating from the incoming Hurricane Rita, so he said I could throw a few posts in here every now and then until his return.

Those Air America nutcases just can't seem to get a decent analogy right. And that's putting it nicely. AA's Randi Rhodes recently compared to the evacuation of people from Hurricane Katrina to the Holocaust:

CALLER (continuing): The thing that really killed me was the fact that when they bussed some of them out of the Dome. They loaded them on the bus, and they wouldn't tell them where they were going.

RANDI: Yeah. What is that?

CALLER: That is like when you transfer prisoners to one --

RANDI (interrupting): Actually, you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of a little visit I made to the Holocaust Museum, and I saw these cattle cars.

CALLER: Yes!

RANDI: And they took people to go on them, but they didn't tell them where they were going.

CALLER: Yes! They do that to prisoners. If they're taking prisoners from one high-security prison to another, they do not --

RANDI: So, what are you supposed to do? Just do a "faith-based evacuation"? (Changing voice, as if an evacuee) "I'm sure he wouldn't send me to Auschwitz."

CALLER: Yeaaw! But why were these people patted down? There was an assumption of criminality made because they were poor and they were black --

RANDI: Check this out. Let's just -- Think about it this way. People were taken one place. Their children were taken another place. THIS IS SO MUCH LIKE THE HOLOCAUST. I can't even -- You know, it's like, you're not supposed to forget the Holocaust so that it can't happen again. And here you have people being loaded onto transportation vehicles, not being told where they're going, and their children are being taken someplace else ...

If you've ever wondered why, given that President Bush's approval ratings are dismal, the Left just cannot gain any ground on him or other conservatives, just consider this idiot Rhodes and the other cretins that gab on Air America.

Posted by: Rhodey at 09:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems to me like this FEC attempt to cripple the Club for Growth should wake up every American who believes that citizens have a right to participate in the electoral process.

The Federal Election Commission yesterday filed its first court challenge against so-called "527 groups," suing a powerhouse Republican advocacy group for violating campaign-finance laws from 2000 to 2004.

The FEC charges that the Club for Growth raised and spent at least $4 million more than the limit, and so the group should have had to register as a political committee and abide by donation and spending limits. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

"This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law," said Michael E. Toner, the commission's vice chairman.

The 527 groups, named for the part of tax code that governs them, played a major role in the 2004 election, the first under the campaign finance rules that Congress passed in 2002. Those rules were intended to eliminate so-called "soft money," the large donations that political parties and interest groups used to flood the airwaves with issue ads.

Instead, the parties have to rely on limited "hard dollar" contributions.

The FEC justifies this action by saying that the Club for Growth refused to make a compromise agreement with the agency.

In the complaint, the FEC said it tried to work out an agreement with the club, but the organization would not agree to a remedy. The FEC is considering action against other 527s.

Any compromise would, of course, include limits upon the organization to engage in robust and unfettered political speech of the type envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think that the group’s president, former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, has it right when he describes this action as an act of war against the First Amendment. To compromise, which would effectively be a surrender, would be a betrayal of the Club for Growth’s limited government principles.

I think the solution that needs to be adopted here needs to be framed along the following language.

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

Short, simple, and in harmony with our nation’s founding documents, this standard would make it clear that the FEC has only one task – closing up shop and ending its unconstitutional interference with the political speech of Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems to me like this FEC attempt to cripple the Club for Growth should wake up every American who believes that citizens have a right to participate in the electoral process.

The Federal Election Commission yesterday filed its first court challenge against so-called "527 groups," suing a powerhouse Republican advocacy group for violating campaign-finance laws from 2000 to 2004.

The FEC charges that the Club for Growth raised and spent at least $4 million more than the limit, and so the group should have had to register as a political committee and abide by donation and spending limits. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

"This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law," said Michael E. Toner, the commission's vice chairman.

The 527 groups, named for the part of tax code that governs them, played a major role in the 2004 election, the first under the campaign finance rules that Congress passed in 2002. Those rules were intended to eliminate so-called "soft money," the large donations that political parties and interest groups used to flood the airwaves with issue ads.

Instead, the parties have to rely on limited "hard dollar" contributions.

The FEC justifies this action by saying that the Club for Growth refused to make a compromise agreement with the agency.

In the complaint, the FEC said it tried to work out an agreement with the club, but the organization would not agree to a remedy. The FEC is considering action against other 527s.

Any compromise would, of course, include limits upon the organization to engage in robust and unfettered political speech of the type envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think that the groupÂ’s president, former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, has it right when he describes this action as an act of war against the First Amendment. To compromise, which would effectively be a surrender, would be a betrayal of the Club for GrowthÂ’s limited government principles.

I think the solution that needs to be adopted here needs to be framed along the following language.

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

Short, simple, and in harmony with our nation’s founding documents, this standard would make it clear that the FEC has only one task – closing up shop and ending its unconstitutional interference with the political speech of Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

In recent weeks, we have heard that it is racially discriminatory public policy for the GOP to insist that photo ID should be required to vote. So what does the private bi-partisan Commission on Federal Election Reform urge as one of the tools to make sure the exercise of the right to vote easier and more secure?

Warning that public confidence in the nation's election system is flagging, a commission headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III today will call for significant changes in how Americans vote, including photo IDs for all voters, verifiable paper trails for electronic voting machines and impartial administration of elections.

Now I like some of these proposals, but not all of them. But notice, please, the call for photo ID. Are we to believe that those on the commission who supported this recommendation, including Carter, are crypto-racists who want to disenfranchise black voters? Or are they patriots who are seeking to ensure that Americans can vote in an easy, secure manner?

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like we have one senator who cannot understand basic concepts from Economics 101.

Righteously incensed over the price of gas, government on all levels is springing into action.

Congress has been busiest of all, conducting hearings, holding news conferences and drafting legislation. One bill being written by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would make price gouging a federal offense and heavily fine violators. Another bill to be introduced in the House will call for increased fuel efficiency, and still another, to be introduced in both houses, would impose a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

So, we are now going to have a federal law dictating gas prices? Does this mean that we will see the ever-efficient federal government telling us what acceptable profits are, no doub via an efficiet bureaucratic structure akin to the Post Office?

And listen to Senator Cantwell's reasoning for her bill.

"We need to make price gouging illegal," Cantwell said Wednesday. "We need to make sure that there is a federal price-gouging law on the books, so that in times of national emergencies, oil companies aren't tempted to rake in outrageous profits."

Cantwell is seasoned by her experience with the West Coast electrical crisis of 2001, when Enron traders manipulated the market in California and drove prices to record highs across the West.

In that case, she says, government regulators insisted that spiraling prices were the result of normal market forces. Only years later was it proven that energy traders manufactured the crisis.

Cantwell sees a parallel in the price of gas.

"Oil barons are making $200 million a day in profits," she said. "There is absolutely no reason for gas to go up in Washington as the result of a hurricane."

The problem is that there were sound economic reasons for prices to go up after the hurricane. The reason was an increase in demand and a perceived decrease of supply.

Let me explain.

As Katrina smashed into the Gulf Coast, we were told to expect a decrease in production, combined with shortages. Suddenly, the value of inventory on hand went up as the expected cost of replacing that inventory also increased. A prudent businessman in such a situation raises his prices accordingly because of questions regarding the supply of his product. In this case, that meant an increase in gas prices based upon an expected increase in wholesale gas prices.

At the same time, hearing of a potential shortage, people all over the country rushed out to buy gasoline. I know I did after getting a frantic concerned ( I am reliably informed by said wife that she was NOT frantic, therefore I retract the earlier characterization in the interest of marital bliss) call from my wife about possible shortages due to the expected disruption of production in the New Orleans area. And as anyone who got a C or higher in Economics 101 knows, increased demand leads to higher prices. Station owners raised prices accordingly.

But let's look what happened.

During the last week of August, I was paying $2.52 a gallon at the corner station. By the end of that week, gasoline was up to $2.99 at the same station due to market forces. The the following Monday, they had dropped back to $2.85 -- and one local station had gas for $2.79. Yesterday I could buy gas at the place on the corner for $2.57. Given recent oil price fluctuations and minor supply disruptions, this is not an unreasonable increase from what the prices were three or four weeks ago, especially considering we are all now aware that there is no real shortage, simply a perceived one that created a panic-induced spike in prices. In other words, Adam Smith's invisible hand has worked just like it is supposed.

Maria Cantwell, of course, doesn't get this. She sees these price increases as the nefarious actions of unethical businessmen and women -- she calls them "oil barons". I call them capitalists -- and I call her a socialist. She wants us to live in a land of governent controlled prices. I prefer to live in a land of free markets. But then again, I can understand the basics of economics, and Cantwell can't.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 711 words, total size 4 kb.

Look who is seeking to make money off of her grief and notoriety. I wonder what this does to her unassailable moral authority.

There are moments in history when the courageous actions of one individual act to galvanize a movement – whether for civil rights, women's rights, pro-democracy, or against a war.

The summer of 2005 will forever be remembered with one mother's vigil for her lost son at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cindy Sheehan has re-energized the nation's anti-war movement with her unflagging desire to meet with the president to ask: “What is the noble cause for which my son died in Iraq?”

Cindy Sheehan has become a national symbol of the powerless confronting the powerful, of a mother mourning the loss of her child and seeking answers from the nation's commander-in-chief, the man who made the case for the war in which her son lost his life.

Sheehan's activism has not ended with the president returning to Washington after his vacation. She is now involved in public speaking to groups around the country: one mother with one voice and one mission – to find a way to bring our troops home and spare other parents the grief of losing a child in an unjust war.

For additional information on Cindy Sheehan and her public speaking availability, visit www.speakingmatters.org.

I guess the “personal matters” she needed o deal with when she abandoned her bus caravan last month might have been arranging for a lucrative public speaking contract.

UPDATE: Look at this shameless grave robber's latest outrageous comment.

George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.

Incredible!

(Hat Tip -- StrataSphere, Bogus Gold, Combs Spouts Off, California Conservative, and Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

So, Gov. Blagojevich, would you care to explain this allegation? Did you attempt to steer state contracts those who agreed to make donations to your campaign?

Blagojevich said he had "no knowledge whatsoever" about any pension deals being traded for contributions to his campaign. "Absolutely not," the governor said. "I know nothing about any of that."

Cari's 17-page plea offers no indication he ever spoke directly to Blagojevich or anybody from his political fund-raising operation, but the document laid out a broad "fund-raising strategy" outlined to Cari by Levine. Levine told Cari that he and Blagojevich's two fund-raisers would "not let an Illinois public pension fund . . . invest in a private equity fund" unless that firm hired a consultant they chose, and that consultant agreed to make "certain political or charitable contributions."

Blagojevich was not specifically named in the Cari plea, which referred to him as "Public Official A." Sources confirmed to the Chicago Sun-Times that the governor is Official A. The administration said it had no idea who Official A is.

Top Blagojevich fund-raisers Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Christopher G. Kelly were referred to in the plea as "two close associates" of the governor who helped him "pick law firms, investment banking firms and consultants that would help Public Official A." The Sun-Times confirmed their identities through the same sources.

Blagojevich, Kelly and Rezko have not been charged with any wrongdoing. Attempts to reach Kelly and Rezko were unsuccessful.

Also Thursday, former teacher pension board outside counsel Steven Loren, 50, pleaded guilty to tax-related charges tied to the alleged scheme. Both Cari and Loren are cooperating with prosecutors.

The scheme outlined in Cari's plea deal is similar to allegations raised earlier this year by Blagojevich's estranged father-in-law, Chicago Ald. Richard Mell (33rd), who accused Kelly of orchestrating appointments to state boards and commissions in exchange for contributions to Blagojevich

Why is it that “Public Official A” Blagojevich is getting a pass from the national media for actual corruption involving the diversion of funds into his campaign coffers, while House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is being tarred by allegations that relate to accounting questions and technical definitions? Could it be that the reason relates to the letters R & D, not the letter A?

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

Look what the GOP has found in the state of New Jersey.

At a news conference in Trenton, Republican officials said their analysis found:

# 54,601 people were registered in more than one county, and 4,397 appeared to have voted twice in the 2004 presidential election.

# 170,558 people were registered to vote in New Jersey as well as other states. Of those, 90,025 voted in New Jersey last year, and 6,572 appeared to have voted in two states.

# 4,755 individuals listed in county records as deceased also were listed as voting last year.

Voting from the grave has long been the stuff of Jersey lore, especially in Hudson County. But the GOP analysis found matches between the lists of the dead and the lists of the voting in all 21 counties around the state.

The highest number, 609, was found in heavily populated Bergen County. Monmouth (450), Camden (430), Essex (354) and Union (325) all had more than Hudson, which tied with Morris at 298.

How serious do the Democrats take documentation of such voter irregularities?

Richard McGrath, spokesman for the Democratic State Committee, reacted skeptically. "If the Republican Party conducted the investigation, it's safe to assume the facts and figures are wrong and the findings are suspect," he said.

Given that response, it is safe to assume that the fraud benefits the Democrats and they will fight solving the problem tooth-and-nail.

America, it is time to ask a pointed question.

How much more evidence is necessary to force a complete purge of the voter rolls, the implementation of mandatory photo identification on election day, and other common-sense voting reforms in this country?

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

They may have tried to shut her down, but one woman with courage and a message managed to upstage the anti-American thugs of MoveOn.org who wanted to prevent her from exercising the freedom of speech that they demanded for themselves.

Clarice McMillan, of Alexandria, Va., was standing about 25 feet behind the MoveOn.org protesters holding a small, hand-written sign that read, "Support the president and love the people." She had been there for only a few minutes when she was confronted by a screaming MoveOn.org supporter.

"Damn you! Supporting the president's great, but supporting the people and the Constitution is more important," the unidentified woman screamed at McMillan. "The Constitution and the babies who died is [sic] more important than any president and you know that in your heart."

Another MoveOn.org supporter pulled the now crying woman away, telling her, "Don't make this the event." Other protesters criticized members of the media for videotaping the confrontation and interviewing McMillan, who said she understood the verbal assault.

"Well, she was upset. She was just upset. It's okay, I can understand that people get emotional," McMillan said. "I want the people to get help, but I don't think this is the time for blame and criticism or the time for MoveOn.org to take advantage of this."

MoveOn.org supporters continued to heckle members of the press and interrupt McMillan as she explained why she lodged her one-woman counter-protest.

Bravo, Ms. McMillan. You are proof that one person speaking the truth can overcome the lies of a mob.

Posted by: Greg at 02:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

Should running for office and being certified the winner make you liable for the legal fees of someone who challenges the results?

The results of last year's House District 12 election are finally complete. Justice lost.

Acting on a court order, the Lake County sheriff on Aug. 31 confiscated the $543.60 from Rick Jore's checking accounts at Community Bank in Ronan. The bank took the remaining $25 in his account as its fee for the transaction. The rest goes to the Meloy-Trieweiler law firm in Helena, the firm that represented the Democratic candidate who won the Nov. 2 election with an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The worst of Jore's punishment is yet to come. An Aug. 25 order from state District Court Judge Kim Christopher of Polson directs Sheriff Bill Barron to collect from Jore a total of $15,663.56 - plus 10 percent interest dating to June 16. Finding but a fraction of that amount in Jore's bank accounts, the sheriff now is supposed to seize $15,119.96 worth of Jore's personal property, moving on to his house or land after that if necessary. For his trouble, the sheriff will collect a final $60 as his fee for taking Jore's money and property.

What did Jore do to earn such a penalty?

Nothing. He broke no law. He violated nobody's rights. He neglected no duty. All he did was run for public office, for a seat in the Montana House of Representatives.

Jore ran as the Constitution Party candidate in a three-way race against Republican Jack Cross and Democrat Jeanne Windham. Lake County election officials initially declared the election a tie between Jore and Windham, with Cross trailing a distant third. However a handful of ballots counted for Jore were challenged by Windham and the Democrats. And for good reason: Several ballots marked for Jore also had marks adjacent to Cross' name. County election judges somehow divined the voters' intention in those cases to be to vote for Jore. With the election ending in an apparent tie, the governor got to appoint the winner. She picked Jore. A voter and Democratic proxy named Anita Big Spring appealed to the state Supreme Court.

All Jore did was respond to the lawsuit and argue that hte results should stand -- and he therefore was assessed the legal fees of the folks who challenged the outcome -- even though he is accused of nothing other than having been declared the winner. That outcome is sick.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

In a move strikingly similar to those taken against civil rights activists by racists during the 1950s and 1960s, a pair of homosexual activists in Massachusetts is seeking to intimidate citizens of Massachusetts who want to sign petitions for a proposal to ban homosexual marriages and civil unions in Massachusetts.

``I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses,'' said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff.

Lang, 42, said he and Westerhoff, 36, are only providing via the Internet public information that any citizen could obtain at the secretary of state's office. But anti-gay marriage activists are outraged.

``We think that it is intimidation by no other name,'' said Kristian Mineau, whose name was listed as one of the first 30 signers of the petition. Mineau said he will explore the rights of people who have signed or plan to sign the petition.

``Certainly it raises my concerns. This is the first I have heard of it,'' said Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

Mineau and his wife are listed on the site, along with their address. Also listed: former Mayor Raymond L. Flynn; Dover Selectwoman Kathleen W. Weld and her husband, Walter Weld; and Richard W. Richardson, spokesman for the Black Ministerial Alliance.

This strikes at the heart of public participation in the electoral process. It is also more than a little reminiscent of tactics by the Democrat Party and other racist groups in the South to get the membership rolls of the NAACP and other groups made public so that the public could know which neighbors to harass and which businesses to boycott.

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Several years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, establishing that marriage in the state of California is between one man and one woman. There was a vote of more than 60% in favor of the proposition, so one cannot even argue that it represented a slim majority imposing its will on the state -- the vote was overwhelming.

On Monday, the California Assembly gave the people of California the finger by passing legislation that runs directly contrary to the express wish of the people.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he will veto the bill.

Schwarzenegger's spokeswoman defended the governor's position, saying he continues to back gay rights, including domestic partnership programs that grant same-sex couples most of the rights enjoyed by married couples. She noted that in 2000 California's voters expressed their views on the marriage issue, passing by more than 60 percent Proposition 22, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Why does Arnold take this position? It might have something to do with the California Constitution (bold mine).

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 10.

(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

(d) Prior to circulation of an initiative or referendum petition for signatures, a copy shall be submitted to the Attorney General who shall prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law.

(e) The Legislature shall provide the manner in which petitions shall be circulated, presented, and certified, and measures submitted to the electors.

Since the recently passed legislation has the effect of repealing Proposition 22, a vote of the people is required. However, the legislation does not provide for the constitutionally mandated vote, and is therefore in direct defiance of the California Constitution. One has to recognize this legislation as totally flawed, regardless of one's position on the issue of homosexual marriage. That mandates support for the veto.

Supporters of the legislation, of course, don't want a little thing like constitutional law to get in the way of getting what they want. Take this argument.

The legislature didn't "derail" any vote. Proposition 22 was not voted on by the current California populace. Many of those who voted on Prop 22 are now dead, massive amounts of new voters have entered the pool and in the 5 years since that legislation passed many voters have changed their mind (according to polling data). It is the new California voting population who decided (AFTER Prop 22) that these current politicians (the ones who passed the equality bill) were fit to represent them. Now these politicians have done what they were elected to do and if anybody is "derailing" the will of the CURRENT voting population of California it is Schwarzenegger.

Unfortunately for the owner of that blog, it makes as much sense to argue that as it does to argue that Congress could reinstitute slavery without repealing the Thirteenth Amendment, since they represent the will of the people today and the Thirteenth Amendment represents the will of the people 140 years ago. Any rational person recognizes the flaw in both the posters original argument and the hypothetical I put forth -- both situations would ignore the process mandated by the respective constitutions to take the course of action in question.

Of course, many supporters of homosexual marriage are not anywhere near as intellectual as my old friend dolphin is. Take this example (heck, take the whole thread) from Americablog, where there is outrage that Maria has not forced Arnold to sign the bill.

The Arnold is a Nazi Whore with a wife that loves his fame and money. She sold out her principles when she married this 8 inch 2 around uncut salami that gets more action than the Deli cold cut Of The DAy. Don't think for a minute he isn't available for influential men and wealthy ladies who love nothing more than to get serviced by the German Stud Meister. His body and brain have turned to mush and he can't comprehed that Sheldon et.al.will dump him in a heart beat, once they have used him on the gay marriage thing. He's not the darling of the radical right wing. He's a flabby slob that will never be returned to office, no matter who he diddles. It's over for him. He's sold himself to the highest bidder, slavik accent and all. Besides, he's not Sheldon's type, Mitt Romney is.

Much of the rest of the thread is the same, by the way, unless it gets cleaned up. And they say that conservatives are the hateful folks. Is it any wonder that we do not take them seriously?.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 896 words, total size 6 kb.

The people of Californian passed a Defense of Marriage Act in 2000. It recognizes marriage as being between one man and one woman, and nothing else. Under the California Constitution, there is only one way to for that to be overturned (other than by an over-reaching court decision) -- the people have to vote to repeal it.

Enter the California Assembly, which yesterday voted to permit homosexual marriage. The will of the people is apparently not a consideration to this extremely gerrymandered body, which is willing to set aside a popular vote and the California Constitution when they find it expedient.

I think this quote sums it up best.

"History will record that you betrayed your constituents and their moral and ethical values," countered Jay LaSuer, his Republican counterpart from La Mesa.

The issue here is not even the nature of marriage.

The issue is whether government dictates to the people, or people dictate to the government. Is government the servant or the master.

Quite bluntly, if this is allowed to stand, the very notion of government of the people, by the people, for the people will have perished in California.

Posted by: Greg at 11:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

I’m sorry, but this has to be the most absurd demand for an apology since someone used the word “niggardly”.

The Gary branch of the NAACP wants an apology from Bureau of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Joel Silverman for "offensive and disrespectful" comments he made during a recent public hearing.

Silverman referred to members of a mostly black audience Aug. 17 as having a "city mentality," which many took as a racial remark.

"When you mention the term 'city mentality' to an audience consisting mainly of African-Americans, they're not thinking city mentality means 'regional.' They're thinking you mean the N-word mentality. That was a perception problem," said Tammi Davis, president of the National Association fro the Advancement of Colored People.

Davis has sent a letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels requesting a formal apology and suggesting that Silverman attend sensitivity training.

Now wait – the NAACP even admits that the problem was the perception of the audience, not the words of the of the official. So why does he need to be sensitized? Shouldn’t it be those who are misperceiving the message who get reeducated?

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe I'm wrong to gloat over this misfortune that has befallen these limousine liberals, but a couple of stock & bond socialists like John Kerry and his wife Teresa do sort of bring it upon themselves. How many second's living expenses will this expropriateion take from them?

state governor allied to leftist President Hugo Chavez has ordered Venezuelan troops to seize an abandoned tomato-processing plant owned by the H.J. Heinz Co., a state official said Monday.

The plant in the eastern state of Monagas still belongs to Heinz but hasn't been used for years, said Angelica Rivero, a spokeswoman for the governor.

"The governor decided to seize the plant so it can be protected from looters and later be put to use," Rivero said.

Monagas Gov. Jose Gregorio Briceno told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency the plant changed hands several times under previous governments before Heinz purchased it in 1997 and later ceased operations.

Debbie Foster, a spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh-based food company, said the plant had not been used for eight to 10 years but gave no other comment.

Officials were expected to expropriate the plant, a move that would require the Venezuelan National Assembly to declare the property to be of "public interest." It wasn't immediately clear whether soldiers were posted at the plant Monday.

Chavez, a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro who says he supports socialism, has said the government may expropriate the property of companies whose factories are idle or partially paralyzed in order to put them back to work.

One nearby town, Caicara, suffered because of the actions of the "transnational monopoly," Briceno told the state news agency, known by its Spanish initials ABN.

"At that time I was mayor of that town and I felt impotent, my hands tied, as 30 million kilos (66 million pounds) of tomatoes ... were produced, and the closing of the business led the farm workers to go broke," Briceno told ABN.

Who wants to bet that the Kerrys demand "special assistance" from the State Department?

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 2 kb.

Found on Americablog:

How do we get all the bush people out of this country's government ? I can not believe there is anyone in this country that still supports him. Anyone in government who does should be voted out of office. Until then any more harm he has in mind to do to this country, the congress should not allow to happen. There have to be some republicans that still are honest enough to help stop his policys, and tax cuts. They are so busy getting the spin and talking points going. These were, and are citizens of this country, we can not let those who have brought this mis-handling of help, to now start spinning out of it. I used to be so proud of America, I want to be again.

snobird | 09.03.05 - 2:38 pm | #

Do you believe this guy was ever proud of America?

Posted by: Greg at 07:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that Paul Krugman just can't admit that George W. Bush won the 2000 election fair and square.

None of this has any bearing on my original point, which was not that the outcome would have been different if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened - the Florida Supreme Court had not, in fact, called for a full statewide manual recount - but that the recorded vote was so close that, when you combine that fact with the effects of vote suppression and ballot design, it becomes reasonably clear that the voters of Florida, as well as those of the United States as a whole, tried to choose Mr. Gore.

1) The only vote suppression in Florida in 2000 was by the Gore camp, making sure that members of the military could not get their absentee ballots counted.

2) The problem with "ballot design" seems never to have been a problemin Illinois, where the butterfly layout used in Palm Beach was used for the last several decades -- and which subsequent studies showed could be accurately voted by a four year old.

But we don;t want mere facts to get in the way of Paul writing his column, do we?

Posted by: Greg at 07:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

The Cindy Sheehan "It's All About Me" Tour made an appearance in Houston on Thursday, as the city was ramping up its efforts to help our fellow citizens whose lives were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

She and her fellow-travellers showed up at the offices of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to demand (not request -- demand) an immediate meeting while the Delay and his staff were working to secure the resources necessary to care for the many people in need of shelter, food, and medical care.

I wouldn't usually include a politician's press release or campaign mailing in my blog -- certainly not a whole one, at any rate. And I've had my own disagrements with DeLay, who is my congressman, and I've expressed those on this blog and its predecessor, as well as in letters and calls to DeLay's office. But i think this statement needs to stand on its own, for it sums up Sheehan's narcissistic arrogance quite well.

So I offer for your consideration this statement from the Tom DeLay Congressional Committee.

WeÂ’ve all heard about Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war mother who camped out in Crawford demanding to meet with the President.

Yesterday Ms. Sheehan crossed the line. While our community worked tirelessly to care and prepare for thousands of evacuees from the hurricane Katrina disaster, Ms. Sheehan renewed her attacks on the President and specifically targeted Congressman Tom DeLay.

As Congressman DeLay was working to rally federal resources to help with disaster recovery efforts, Ms. Sheehan and her media-seeking crew “made an appearance?” at the Congressman’s Stafford office demanding a meeting.

Without the slightest bit of concern for the refugees, the disaster efforts that are underway, and the sheer scope of the task in front of our community, Sheehan and her group stated, “We’ve come a long way, and we want a meeting before we leave tonight.”

Right now, there is a critical need for water, food and basic necessities across the entire Gulf Coast, including in the Greater Houston Area where more than 25,000 refugees are receiving aid and shelter.

Congressman DeLayÂ’s offices are working day and night to help lend support to the relief effort. Thousands of volunteers have pitched in and Houstonians are opening their hearts and wallets to care for the masses leaving Louisiana.

Ms. Sheehan and MoveOn.orgÂ’s media stunts show a complete lack of respect for our community, the tragedy we are coping with, and it serve as further evidence of how little they care for anything but their own agenda.

We felt a little background information was in order as a reminder of what this agenda is really about and how bizarre their message is:

•Sheehan says America is “not worth dying for.”

“George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” [Sheehan] said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.” (SFSU Hosts A Terrorist, www.frontpagemag.com, 5/2/05)

•Cindy Sheehan attacks moms who support the War on Terror.

Sheehan calls mothers who have lost children in Iraq and still support President Bush “the continue ‘the murder and mayhem’ moms”. (Cindy Sheehan’s blog, 8/27/05)

Sheehan blames America for the problems in Iraq “We caused these problems. America caused these problems.”

•Sheehan alleges the War on Terror is one big Israeli conspiracy.

“. . . my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.” (Letter to ABC’s Nightline, 3/15/05)

Sheehan is backed by - and has become the tool of - MoveOn.org, professional protestors, and radical PR gurus.

* In the 2004 Presidential campaign, she appeared in MoveOn.org ads attacking President Bush. (www.moveonpac.org)

* Sheehan has developed media savvy with assistance from the national public relations firm Fenton Communications, which has also worked with Moveon.org... (Houston Chronicle, 8/11/05)

* And Lisa Fithian, “a veteran of the Seattle WTO riots and scores of other protests [has] been with Sheehan from the start” helping her coordinate her protest in Crawford and upcoming bus tour. (National Review, 8/29/05) http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200508290901.asp

Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn.org road show is focused on attacking the President, undermining the gallant efforts of our troops overseas, and taking back Congress for the Democrats. This has been their agenda since the 2004 Presidential election and no hurricane disaster effort is going to cause them to let up.

I've only clipped a link to an NPR clip and the final few sentences at the end that discuss DeLay's probable Democrat opponent. But I do think that her actions here in houston make quite clear that her actions are more about Cindy Sheehan than they are about what is good for the United States, otherwise she would have cancelled the multiple Houston stops of her "Honk If You {heart} al-Zarqawi" caravan.

UPDATE: CINDY CUTS AND RUNS -- I guess her 'personal business is more important than either helpin with the hurricane relief in the region where she is travelling or the anti-American goals of her travelling snake-oil show.

Posted by: Greg at 02:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

What would you do if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant by another man? What if they conspired to keep the secret from you for decades? This is the interesting question raised by a New Jersey case.

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.

The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."

Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."

"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.

Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.

"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."

In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.

Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.

Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine – one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.

"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiff’s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 716 words, total size 4 kb.

What would you do if your wife cheated on you and became pregnant by another man? What if they conspired to keep the secret from you for decades? This is the interesting question raised by a New Jersey case.

A man who found out 30 years after his youngest child's birth that he was not the father had the right to sue the biological father for nearly $110,000, the cost of raising the child, an appeals court ruled yesterday.

In the first ruling to extend a statutory deadline in a paternity case, the appellate panel said the man could collect the money even though he missed the deadline under New Jersey's Parentage Act by eight years. The court said it made sense because the biological father, along with the duped man's wife, never told him he was not the boy's father.

The attorney for the biological father said his client had not decided whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"The court has finally shed light on the parameters of the Parentage Act and what it covers and how far it can go," said the attorney, Scott Bocker. "Unfortunately, I don't necessarily agree with everything they said, but ... they have the say in how the statute is interpreted."

Family court expert John Paone Jr. called it "a groundbreaking case."

"There is no precedent in New Jersey where a parent has been compelled to pay child support more than 15 years after the emancipation of a child," said Paone, who has been practicing family law for more than 20 years.

Paone said he does not expect the ruling to be applied widely.

"I still think it's going to be the rare case that the biological father knows he's the father and participates in the fraud," Paone said. "The facts of this case call out for a remedy you don't normally see in the court."

In a 30-page opinion that does not reveal the identities of either man, the mother or the son, the appeals court upheld a nearly $110,000 award granted by a Morris County judge in 2003.

Under the state's Parentage Act, an action to determine paternity could be filed up until the child in question turns 23. But the man who raised the boy did not find out until 1999 -- when the child was 30 -- that his ex-wife had had an affair with his friend in the late 1960s and had gotten pregnant. She gave birth to a son in 1969, and as a friend of the family, the biological father, identified in the ruling as P.J.S. Jr., agreed to be the boy's godfather, the decision said.

Ten years after the child was born, the couple divorced, but the plaintiff, R.A.C., paid child support and kept a relationship with all three of his children.

Now ordinarily I would be troubled by the statute of limitations question. But there is a long-standing legal doctrine – one which I believe dates back to common law -- which the courts have applied to this situation.

The biological father, however, appealed on the grounds the Paternity Act does not allow lawsuits to be filed after the child turns 23.
But the appeals court said just as murderers who avoid detection for years before they are caught can be sued for wrongful death long after the statute of limitation, so too can a duped man sue for child support from a biological father.

The doctrine of equitable tolling, as it is called, "applies to prevent a statute of limitations from being used as a sword by a defendant whose conduct contributed to the expiration of the statutory period," the decision said.

"Here, not only defendant but also B.E.C., the mother of the child, concealed the true facts of D.C.'s parentage from plaintiff. The duplicity was enhanced by defendant's agreement to serve as godfather for the child," the judges said.

In all honesty, I do not know if I would ever have sued in a case like this, but I respect the plaintiffÂ’s right to do so.

I wonder, though, if the ultimate solution to the problem of paternity fraud might be to require paternity tests at birth. What do you folks think?

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 730 words, total size 4 kb.

I’ve heard the charge of “chickenhawk” thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. I’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are “enlightened” enough to agree with them.

Lately I’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:

* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?

* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?

* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?

* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?

* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?

* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions don’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who haven’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve heard the charge of “chickenhawk” thrown around frequently by left-wingers who think that it has some sort of meaning. I’ve even heard it used against veterans who did not serve in combat -- in one case against the head of the Ameican Legion, who spent his time in the Army in Germany rather than Vietnam.

The irony is that those using it seek to undermine the moral authority of those who have not served or are not currently serving, while at the same time arguing that those who serve are either evil killers and terrorists or incompetent victims too dim to understand their exploitation. Ultimately, they believe only in the moral authority of themselves and those who are “enlightened” enough to agree with them.

Lately IÂ’ve been asking these folks if they have taken their turn shielding Iraqi civilians from the folks who are setting off car bombs among them. Andrew Cline offers a few more questions for them in a piece in the American Spectator.

Conservatives need to start flipping that coin to its other side by asking the following questions of anyone who levels the "chickenhawk" charge:

* Why are you not in Darfur feeding starving children?

* Why are you not on the Gulf Coast rescuing hurricane survivors?

* Why are you not in China protesting the political detention of dissidents?

* Why are you not in Swaziland teaching people how to prevent the spread of AIDS?

* Why are you not in Latin America training revolutionaries to overthrow corrupt regimes?

* Why are you not providing abortions to teenage girls?

Unfortunately, these sorts of questions donÂ’t do much to shut up the average hardcore Leftist, but it might get through to those who havenÂ’t consumed too much Kool-Aid yet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Get this bit from has-been sex-symbol and Rolling Stone-castoff Bianca Jagger.

A SURVIVOR of a suicide bombing cursed out Bianca Jagger Monday night during a dinner party after the self-styled "human-rights activist" and her friends told him, "American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe."

Jack Baxter, a New York filmmaker who was partially paralyzed in a suicide bombing in an Israeli café two years ago, was in Los Angeles promoting his documentary about Israel, "Blues by the Beach," and decided to stop by a friend's birthday dinner at the Chateau Marmont.

Baxter says there were six people at the table including himself and his friend Cindy Lou Adkins.

"Bianca was there with two guys from Palm Springs," Baxter told PAGE SIX. "She starts talking about Iraq and saying how disgusting it was what the Americans are doing over there, and one of the Palm Springs boys says: 'Americans are knuckle-dragging barbarians.' "

Baxter claims Nicaraguan citizen Jagger, in the middle of an anti-President Bush rant, said: "I despise this country. I would never be an American citizen. The United States should leave Iraq immediately. Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq."

Baxter, shocked, then said: "Well, what about Saddam giving the families of suicide bombers $25,000 as reward for killing people?" — to which he claims Jagger replied, "So what?"

Baxter continued: "Then [Jagger and pals] start talking about Abu Ghraib and how American soldiers are raping and killing women and children around the globe and that's when I said, '[Bleep] you. Cindy, let's get out of here.' We were just about to leave when I went back to the table and said, 'Bianca, you know what? You're talking this anti-American horse[bleep] here while we got guys dying in Iraq — [Bleep] you! [Bleep] all of you!' Then I did leave.

"I used to be a part-time bouncer at Studio 54 and I remember her from those days. This chick used to flash anyone who cared to look and now she's trying to pass herself off as some kind of pseudo-activist? C'mon!"

Hey, this woman is entitled to believe whatever she wants – but since she despises this country so much, I think it is only appropriate that the borders be closed to her. I’m curious – does Prada have a shop in Havana?

As for the Palm Springs boys, they provide proof that there are, indeed some knuckle-dragging Americans out there – and that they are found on the Left. Not only that, but they don’t even have the cojones to stand by their anti-American comments when confronted.

But Jacob Hopkins, one of Jagger's Palm Springs pals who was at the dinner, said he could not "recall" Jagger saying those things, and added: "We were having a political discussion where she may have said that certain countries invaded Iraq because perhaps of natural resources . . . I don't recall her saying anything anti-American. [Baxter] was outraged and very rude to us. We were simply having a private conversation."

Well, buddy, IÂ’ll show you rude if you make those comments around me. As it is, the fact that you were willing to make them in the presence in the victim of terrorists shows exactly what sort of moral cripple you, your friends, and the used-up floozy you were dining with really are.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 567 words, total size 4 kb.