Could you imagine the outrage if any GOP candidate did this to a photo of a Democrat opponent? Leftwing darling and media heroine Colleen Rowley put this on her official campaign website – and then took it down when she got caught defaming the Congressman John Kline, a 25-year Marine vet.

Powerline reproduces Congressman KlineÂ’s response.

Dear Mrs. Rowley,

It has come to my attention that you have placed on your campaign website a doctored photo of me in which my military uniform has been replaced by a Nazi uniform. I demand that you immediately remove from your website that outrageous and disgusting insult to me, my family, and every man and woman who has ever worn a military uniform in defense of our country.

No one knows better than I the rough-and-tumble of a political campaign, but we owe it to the voters not to cross the line of civility, respect and common decency. With regard to each of these, you have clearly crossed the line by portraying me as a Nazi.

I demand a personal apology from you, as well as an apology to every veteran.
Your attempts to smear my good name and 25 years of honorable service in the United States Marine Corps by equating me to a Nazi shows a lack of perspective, a lack of seriousness, and a lack of good judgment. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sincerely,
John Kline
Member of Congress - Minnesota's 2nd District.

Captain Ed notes that in posting this on her site, she has run smack-dab into GodwinÂ’s Law.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches

Hugh Hewitt, who I disagreed with, raises this issue.

Where are the Democrats who should be denouncing this? The ones who, rightly, slammed the comments directed at Congressman John Murtha's service?

But at least the questions directed at Murtha were in regard to the accuracy of his statements and changes in his story over the years – no one accused him of being a Nazi or a Communist.

Heck, I get crap from the Left when I fairly and accurately point out the personal history of the senior hill-billy from West Virginia.

But then again, lying about Republicans is perfectly acceptable to the Left, while telling the truth about Democrats (or even questioning their veracity) is never acceptable to them.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

IÂ’ve long rejected the notion of open primaries. After all, why should members of one party have a voice in the selection of another partyÂ’s candidates? That is rather like giving the Buddhists a voice in selecting the Pope.

In two states, the GOP has taken steps to tighten-up their nominating process. This could doom a McCain run for the presidency, as the two states, Michigan and Washingon, were both strong for John McCain in 2000 because of cross-over voters.

Republicans in states that gave Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) victories or near victories in the 2000 GOP presidential primaries are looking to bar non-Republicans from voting in their primaries in 2008, which would make it even more difficult for the Arizonan to win the nomination should he run in two years.

MichiganÂ’s Republican Party Central Committee more than a week age approved a plan that calls for holding the Republican and Democratic primaries on the same day, forcing voters to cast ballots in either a Republican or Democratic primary but not both, GOP executive director Saul Anuzis said in an interview.

The expectation is that there will be fewer so-called crossover ballots if voters can only participate in one primary, Anuzis added.

The GOP head must now confer with his Democratic counterpart, Mark Brewer. Democrats are thought to support the change.

In Washington state, where Republicans chose the presidential nominee in 2000 through a combination of local caucuses and a statewide primary, the party is looking to shift more power to the caucuses.

Traditionally, conservative activists, from abortion opponents to gun-rights proponents, have dominated caucuses, in Washington and elsewhere.

“Pat Robertson won every caucus state in 1988 except Iowa,” said Chris Vance, who recently stepped down as Washington state’s GOP chairman and managed Sen. Bob Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign.

In both Michigan and Washington, the people deciding who should be the next president of the United States are almost certain to be, as a whole, more conservative than the people who did so in 2000.

And lest liberals raise a fuss, consider this – do you really want me and my fellow GOPers coming over to the Democrat primary to vote for Joe Lieberman?

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 2 kb.

I've always loved a good parody -- especially when it is used to satirize the hypocrisy of a political opponent. John Cornyn certainly did a masterful job creating and delivering one last week, delivered against Jabba the Kennedy (D-Delerium Tremens).

“In the America of [Alito’s] opponents,” Cornyn said, “no plaintiff ever loses a case; no entrepreneur ever wins, no matter how frivolous the claim of employment discrimination; police departments never win a case, no matter how desperate the claim of a criminal defendant; government agencies, ... could never win a case, no matter how outlandish the request for government benefits.”

Shades of Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" libel of 1987 -- with the added benefit of accurately reflecting the truth, something that could never have been said of Kennedy's scurrilous attack on one of America's preeminent legal minds.

This is the sort of stuff we Texans have long known and loved from Cornyn -- a former Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice. Wouldn't he be marvelous as a candidate for higher office?

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Somehow I doubt we’ll be shrill screeches of condemnation from the Left regarding this case – after all, vote fraud is how they have controlled East St. Louis and St. Clair County for decades.

A former Democratic election worker in this battered city was sentenced Monday to a year and a half in federal prison and a City Hall volunteer got probation for scheming to buy votes in the November 2004 election.

Noting that the case reflected an American election process "under attack" by fraud, U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy ordered former precinct committee member Sheila Thomas' prison sentence to be followed by two years of supervised release.

Murphy rejected a prosecutor's request that Yvette Johnson, 47, get 10 to 16 months in prison and he gave her two years' probation, including five months of home confinement.

"I'm just glad that it's over," Johnson told reporters afterward.

Thomas, 31 and her attorney, Paul Sims, declined comment.

Last June, Johnson and Thomas were convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud. In the same trial, local Democratic Party chairman Charles Powell Jr., former city director of regulatory affairs Kelvin Ellis, and Democratic precinct committee member Jesse Lewis also were convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud.

Thomas, Johnson, Ellis and Lewis also were convicted of election fraud for allegedly paying or offering to pay at least one person to vote.

Johnson and Thomas were the first to be sentenced of the nine people who either were convicted or pleaded guilty in the alleged scheme.

That is all well and good, but I am a bit outraged by this.

In sentencing Thomas, Murphy rejected her attorney's request that she get probation because she was merely a courier of some of that money.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Cutchin argued that Thomas abused the public's trust, pressing that "this kind of conduct can not be tolerated, especially when we're dealing with something so sacrosanct" as elections.

The judge said Thomas "was used by more powerful, experienced, conniving men," but still sentenced her to prison.

Murphy did grant Johnson's request for mercy, citing her rise from poverty and that, aside from the election fraud, she had no criminal background.

Sorry, but I think Judge Murphy got this one dead wrong. I donÂ’t give a ratÂ’s ass that Yvette Johnson once was poor, or that she has no other criminal background. Her crime was nothing less than an attack on the integrity of the American political system. As such, she should have been doing hard time along with Sheila Thomas and the rest of these folks who engaged in a full frontal assault on the voting rights of each and every one of us. Both knew what they were doing, and that it was fundamentally wrong.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

Why, oh why, do we even allow this man to put an (R) after his name?

U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., Monday said he would vote against the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito, the first Republican to do so.

Chafee, in a statement on his Senate Web site, said he was 'concerned about (Alito`s) philosophy on some important constitutional issues. In particular I carefully examined his record on Executive Power, women`s reproductive freedoms and the commerce clause ...'

Chafee is the first Republican to come out against the Alito confirmation but three Senate Democrats -- Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- have said they would vote in favor of Alito`s joining the court.

A running tally by C-SPAN shows support for Alito by 55 senators while 35 have stated opposition. He needs 51 votes to win a seat on the court.

One more reason that IÂ’m urging folks to send their money directly to Steven LaffeyÂ’s campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, here is a Jesse Jackass campaign that I can support.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday a coalition of black city and state leaders will mount a public initiative for housing and jobs aimed at bringing home every displaced New Orleanian who wants to return.

Jackson kicked off the drive in the pulpit of Central City's New Hope Baptist Church, where he called on church members suffering from Hurricane Katrina to demand rapid access to jobs and housing so they can rebuild their shattered neighborhoods.

"You have the right to return," Jackson told a standing-room-only crowd of 300 or so, including about 70 church members who were bused in from Houston.

He urged the congregation to join a mass public march across the Crescent City Connection on April 1. For many, the bridge has become a symbol of injustice after people trying to escape the growing chaos at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on Aug. 31 were turned back by Gretna police on the West Bank. Gretna officials said that city had no facilities to accept any more fleeing families.

Jackson also announced that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has set up a local office and named state Sen. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge, its statewide coordinator.

Jackson's latest effort to bring back displaced New Orleans residents will be his second since the Aug. 29 hurricane. In October, his coalition organized a caravan of five buses that were supposed to be filled with 200 displaced New Orleanians, but instead were filled with adventure seekers and homeless people from cities across the Midwest and South. Only 14 passengers in the group were New Orleans residents.

Regarding his latest attempt, neither Jackson nor Fields proposed policy specifics in an interview Sunday. But they made clear they felt emerging state and city plans to redevelop New Orleans do not do justice to people -- most of them African-American -- who remain in cities like Atlanta and Houston and are unable to return to New Orleans.

We here in Houston will be quite glad to shove most of the New Orleans evacuees back onto buses and get them out of our city as soon as possible. We would like that crowd of whiners, complainers, grifters, robbers, and killers to go back where they came from.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is a Jesse Jackass campaign that I can support.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Sunday a coalition of black city and state leaders will mount a public initiative for housing and jobs aimed at bringing home every displaced New Orleanian who wants to return.

Jackson kicked off the drive in the pulpit of Central City's New Hope Baptist Church, where he called on church members suffering from Hurricane Katrina to demand rapid access to jobs and housing so they can rebuild their shattered neighborhoods.

"You have the right to return," Jackson told a standing-room-only crowd of 300 or so, including about 70 church members who were bused in from Houston.

He urged the congregation to join a mass public march across the Crescent City Connection on April 1. For many, the bridge has become a symbol of injustice after people trying to escape the growing chaos at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center on Aug. 31 were turned back by Gretna police on the West Bank. Gretna officials said that city had no facilities to accept any more fleeing families.

Jackson also announced that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition has set up a local office and named state Sen. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge, its statewide coordinator.

Jackson's latest effort to bring back displaced New Orleans residents will be his second since the Aug. 29 hurricane. In October, his coalition organized a caravan of five buses that were supposed to be filled with 200 displaced New Orleanians, but instead were filled with adventure seekers and homeless people from cities across the Midwest and South. Only 14 passengers in the group were New Orleans residents.

Regarding his latest attempt, neither Jackson nor Fields proposed policy specifics in an interview Sunday. But they made clear they felt emerging state and city plans to redevelop New Orleans do not do justice to people -- most of them African-American -- who remain in cities like Atlanta and Houston and are unable to return to New Orleans.

We here in Houston will be quite glad to shove most of the New Orleans evacuees back onto buses and get them out of our city as soon as possible. We would like that crowd of whiners, complainers, grifters, robbers, and killers to go back where they came from.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Adams is skewering feminists in a series of columns. In the process, he raises an interesting point about the disregard feminists have for human life.

11. When faced with uncertainty, feminists have less self-control than hunters.

Once when I was deer-hunting in Ivanhoe, North Carolina, I saw something moving in the brush about 100 yards away. It was foggy outside and I was looking through a 4 X 32 scope mounted on a Marlin 30-30. I never take a shot over 100 yards with that little brush gun. And I never shoot at anything unless I know exactly what is out there.

That day I got to thinking about the feminist approach to abortion. Feminists often justify abortion by saying that the procedure is no different than picking a scab. ThatÂ’s when I start asking questions.

I often ask feminists about a film I saw of a fetus in the so-called “first trimester” of development. The baby (sorry, that is my opinion) was yawning, rubbing its eyes, and even rolling around and playing in the womb. I like to ask feminists whether they have ever seen a scab yawn.

When I press them on the issue, they seldom admit that the fetus is a person. But they seldom state unequivocally that it is not. They usually say they “don’t know for sure.” And they say that I “don’t know for sure” either.

That really epitomizes our differences. When I know it is a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I donÂ’t know, I also hold my fire.

The feminist who “doesn’t know” whether it is a person, has the abortion anyway. She just pulls the trigger. That really says it all, doesn’t it?

Yeah, it really does say it all.

After all, if one is unwilling to err on the side of human life when uncertain, what regard does one really have for human life?

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

So, does the allegedly "unquestionable moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan extend beyond questions of war and peace in Iraq to include deciding who should or should not be on the Supreme Court? She thinks it does.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has threatened to run for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) seat unless Feinstein filibusters Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Sheehan, who was in Caracas, Venezuela Friday attending the World Social Forum, heard that several Democrats planned to filibuster Alito but that Feinstein, who is up for re-election in November, announced that she will vote against Alito but would not filibuster the nomination.

"I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price," Sheehan said in a statement.

Sheehan became a national figure representing the anti-war movement after her son Casey was killed in Iraq and she stood vigil outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch last summer demanding to speak face-to-face with Bush about her son's death.

Sheehan claimed Alito has "an extensive paper trail documenting the right-wing political agenda that he has actively advanced, not only as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Administration, but also as a judge."

She accused Alito of trying to restrict Congress' power and supporting "efforts to curtail privacy rights, including not only privacy from government surveillance and arbitrary arrest, but also other constitutional rights based on privacy, such as reproductive liberty for women."

Sheehan is scheduled to return from Venezuela on Monday and will travel to the nation's capital to take part in an alternative State of the Union event.

(Another good article appears in the Washington Post)

This dishonest narcissist who has dishonored her son by her anti-American antics doesn't realize that her 15 minutes are up -- and she doesn't get another, any more than she got another meeting with the President.

Hey, Cindy -- it isn't all about you!

UPDATE: DiFi KowTows

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will vote no on cloture regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I’ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.”

Lying coward!

(H/T Michelle Malkin, Blogs For Bush & GOPBloggers)

MORE AT: California Conservative, Martin's Musings, Confirmation Whoppers, Don Surber, Texas Fred, Euphoric Reality, MassRight, PunditGuy, Ken Is Speaking, Mike's America, Reasonable Prudence, Daily Brief

TRACKBACKS: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Gribbit, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, RightWingNation,, PointFive, Adam's Blog, third world country, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Real Ugly American, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Publius Rendevous, Bullwinkle, Voteswagon

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 6 kb.

To honor deceased President Ronald Reagan, the Georgia Legislature is considering a resolution to declare Feb. 6 to be Ronald Reagan Day.

But some are complaining about the failure to honor another former president.

Georgia lawmakers are proposing a resolution making February 6th Ronald Reagan Day, in honor of the 40th U.S. President. But according to Plains residents, there's just one small problem with that.

Former President Jimmy Carter, the only President from Georgia, doesn't even have his own day.

We got some strange reactions we got when residents found out that the 39th President of the United States, and their hometown hero, doesn't have his own day in the State of Georgia.

Jimmy Carter was born and raised in Plains. From his old high school, to City Hall, everyone we spoke to had good things to say about the former President.

"The Pharjac Grille is a local landmark that President Carter himself frequents often. While we weren't lucky enough to catch him there when we visited, the owners say the former President deserves his own day in the state of Georgia."

"Jimmy Carter brought the world to Georgia," says Pharis Short, owner of the Pharjac Grill. She knows President Carter well.

"It is logical that if we're gonna honor a President, Jimmy Carter ought to be the first one we honor," she told us.

Let me point out that Jimmy Carter is still alive – which makes the situations somewhat different. Let me also point out that Reagan was a significantly better president than Carter was.

But perhaps Georgia should honor Carter. Might I suggest declaring April 1 to be Jimmy Carter Day?

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Look at what the actual facts and figures tell us about the capital gains tax cut. It increased revenue, even as it allowed folks to keep more of their money.

On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media: The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBOÂ’s Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now letÂ’s move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBOÂ’s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now letÂ’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. YouÂ’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So letÂ’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

In other words, supply-side economics – AKA Reaganomics – works.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.

Gov. Erlich is ahead in the polls as he seeks reelection in Maryland. Lt. Gov. Steele is in the lead in the race for Senate. The GOP is growing in once solidly Democrat Maryland.

What are the Democrats doing to counter this trend? Seeking out new voters – convicted felons.

Democratic lawmakers, who have long pushed to restore voting rights to Maryland felons, say racial politics and election-year considerations make this the year they open the polls to every ex-convict.

"This law seriously disenfranchises a large number of African-Americans," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat who is gathering sponsors for a voting-rights restoration bill she plans to submit.

"Their disenfranchisement impacts the power of African-Americans in this state," said Mrs. Marriott, whose bill would give all felons the vote immediately upon release from prison.

If Mrs. Marriott's bill succeeds this time -- it has died in committee the past three years -- an estimated 150,000 felons would be able to cast ballots in Maryland. About 85,000 of them are black and likely Democrats, according to Justice Maryland, a penal reform group that supports felon voting rights.

These convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers could vote as early as the Nov. 7 general election, if the law takes effect on the traditional Oct. 1 start date. And felons could sway the results.

Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, won the 2002 governor's race by 66,170 votes, according to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Mr. Ehrlich's re-election bid this year is expected to be an even closer contest against either of the Democratic candidates -- Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley or Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan.

"That might be the line used by Democrats as to why they should support the bill," said Tara Andrews, executive director of Justice Maryland.

And let’s make matters perfectly clear here – this measure primarily benefits violent felons and career criminals. First offenders who committed non-violent crimes generally have their rights restored three years after their release from prison.

That should make it obvious whose side the Democrats are on in Maryland – and it isn’t the side of the law-abiding.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

From Bruce BartlettÂ’s column at Townhall.com.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I’ve regularly pointed out that the Democats are the party of corruption in this country – so corrupt that the media doesn’t treat corrupt Democrat public officials as newsworthy. I’ve had folks minimize the importance of Democrat corruption in their comments here. But the numbers tell the story quite clearly.

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

And by this I do not mean the average, run-of-the-mill liberal (usually a decent, reasonable person who is merely wrong) -- I mean the chronically discontent activists who would not be content with the actions of the United States and the current Administration even if George W. Bush went on national television, announced his capitulation to their policy demands, beheaded Dick Cheney and Karl Rove and then lit a match after dousing himself in gasoline.

Feminism and Marxism and other similar movements "have the ambitions of a monotheistic faith, offering a feminist [or Marxist] answer to every moral and social question, a feminist [or Marxist] account of the human world, a theory of the universe....It drives the heretics and half-believers from its ranks with a zeal that is the other side of the inclusive warmth with which it welcomes the submissive and the orthodox."

I'm not so sure about that last part. I don't think the protesters have a coherent world view that answers all questions; rather, I think they are suffering from debilitating, free-floating resentment that paralyzes them and makes realization of their ideas -- or indeed having any ideas -- impossible. The best examination of the problem of resentment came in the 1914 book Ressentiment (the French spelling is in the original) by Max Scheler. Scheler, a forgotten genius, was a philosopher whose work influenced the future John Paul II. According to Scheler, resentment is "an incurable, persistent feeling of hating and despising" that happens in certain people due to certain "psychic, mental, social, or physical impotencies, disadvantages, weakness or deficiencies of various kinds." It's less about social problems than mental illness.

James Hitchcock, interpreting Scheler, broke it down further: Resentment, he wrote, is about moral values themselves. It was the role of certain people, whether through mental problems or some other disadvantage, to hate the idea of morality itself. This is why resentment is incurable, and different from hatred or jealousy. If you're jealous of your neighbors sports car, you get over it when you by your own. If you resent him because he's a Christian -- well, there's really nowhere to go with that, other than to this year's protest march. It's also why resenters can't forge a coherent philosophy. If you're problem is with the natural law and morality itself, you're not going to be happy in this life. Yes, yes, we all know Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman et al hate Bush, the war, etc. But what are they for? The world may never know.

This lack of vision distinguishes resenters from terrorists; indeed, it is the Left that likes to talk about the resentment of terrorists -- because of the evil USA, they are forced to murder innocent people, and so on. In fact, terrorists have an absolutely clear plan. The want to conquer the world and set up sharia law. They don't hate morality, they just have a demonic understanding of it. They are evil. Yet if they ever attained their (impossible) goals, they would no longer feel hatred. One gets the sense that unlike them, Maureen Dowd just cannot be made happy. This is why the remarks about her problem not being political but a resentment at her failure to attract a man -- remarks I for a long time considered out of bounds -- may have some validity. If this attractive woman has not been able to get and keep a mate, perhaps the fault lies not in the stars or the Republicans.

And that is what differentiates my wife or Dan (a regular commenter here and author of Gone Mild) from the ranters and ravers like Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte -- the latter suffer from a pathological resentment of those whose disagree with them.

And yes -- I will concede that we on the right have a few of that ilk in our midst as well. Just not as many.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 657 words, total size 4 kb.

Though the Chronicle is doing all it can to minimize his front-runner status.

Radio talker and former sportscaster Dan Patrick's entry into the state Senate District 7 race made the outspoken, hard-right, born-again Christian communicator the candidate to beat.

He's well-known in the area from years on the air and has a committed base of conservative fans. The three other Republicans vying to succeed retiring Sen. Jon Lindsay — former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, and state Reps. Peggy Hamric and Joe Nixon — are scrambling for second place.

With four strong candidates and more than a million dollars streaming in, it's likely no one will claim a majority March 7 and the nomination will be determined in a runoff.

The district is solidly Republican, so the GOP nominee will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

The article then goes on to claim that all of the currently serving politicians are seeking to run a grassroots campaign! Like Dan, the only non-elected official in the race, is not the ultimate grassroots candidate?

So far, Ellis and Hamric have been focusing on grass-roots efforts, conceding the public campaign to the better-funded Nixon and better-known Patrick.

Dan Patrick is the ultimate outsider -- to hear that incumbent politicians are running grass-roots campaigns is ludicrous!

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

This bit broke yesterday on Drudge.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has learned Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) office is behind a last ditch effort to stop Judge Samuel A. AlitoÕs confirmation before next week's vote using a 2004 recusal request.

THE DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a complaint filed by H. Gerard Heimbecker of Upper Darby, PA accusing Alito of not properly listing the Heimbecker v. 555 Associates case in his Senate questionnaire.

Kennedy legal aide James Flug is behind the efforts to push this latest attack. The veteran aide has been criticized for Sen. Kennedy's misfires during the Alito hearing last week. Flug was reportedly behind the attacks Kennedy used against Alito related to the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) and Vanguard recusal case.

In the 2004 case, Heimbecker not only filed a request for Alito to recuse himself but also the entire Third Circuit as well.

One Capital Aide aware the situation challenged Heimbecker's credibility. "The individual who filed this complaint is clearly a serial litigant. It will be interesting to see how far the Democrats will push this and what the mainstream media will make of it."

Now I'm not surprised to see Senator Kennedy (D-Who's You're Daddy?)engaged in more desperate attempts to smear a judge he disagrees with.What i am surprised about is his possible willingness to use a bizarre case like this one to do so.

A Delaware County retiree has filed a judicial-misconduct complaint claiming that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. failed to disclose the man's case in his responses to a U.S. Senate questionnaire.

H. Gerard Heimbecker, 70, of Upper Darby, said Alito should have noted his efforts to have all the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges, including Alito, recuse themselves from hearing Heimbecker's appeal.

"Judge Alito holds himself and fellow judges above the law and the complainant beneath the law," Heimbecker wrote in the complaint filed Monday. The 3rd Circuit clerk's office docketed the case and said in a letter to Heimbecker that Alito had been given a copy of the complaint on Tuesday.

Heimbecker, a former fireman and sandwich-maker, describes himself as a conservative Catholic and lifelong Republican. He said Alito's alleged omission violates a rule requiring judges to avoid "impropriety and appearance of impropriety."

"He failed to be honest and totally truthful with the committee, for the reasons that he was protecting himself by not having to answer for his actions in covering up the actions of [another] judge," Heimbecker said yestserday.

Heimbecker is acting as his own lawyer in pursuing the complaint against Alito.

Sounds oh-so-serious -- until you look at the facts alleged in the case. This guy didn't just want Judge Alito from hearing his case -- he argued that the entire Third Circuit Court of Appeals was biased against him, and that NONE OF THE JUDGES should be allowed to hear his case.

Heimbecker wanted Alito and the other appeals judges to recuse themselves from presiding over one of a series of legal actions triggered when the landlord of his Bala Cynwyd sandwich shop did not renew his lease.

He asked the 3rd Circuit to recuse itself because of what he described as a witness' relation to a judge and because he claimed the panel was biased and prejudiced against him in not forcing another judge to step aside.

The landlord, 555 Associates, sued Heimbecker for malicious prosecution after he attempted to bring a private criminal complaint against it, said 555 lawyer Gerald E. Arth. The company won a default judgment in Montgomery County against Heimbecker, and he subsequently lost a lawsuit against it, its employees and others that eventually landed in federal court, Arth said.

"He was angry about what had happened in state court, and the resolution of that, and decided to file a lawsuit in federal court which had no merit, was dismissed," Arth said. "He's tried his hardest, I think, to claim that there was a grand conspiracy against him of lawyers, judges, insurance companies and everything else."

Heimbecker described it as "a case of arrogance. They're going to do what they want. I had the facts and the law and they disregarded all of it."

so what it appears we really have is an angry loser in a previous case seeking revenge. There appears to be no substance to his claim -- but since when does lack of substance (or truth) matter to Senator Kennedy (D-What bridge? What car? What dead girl?), who paid a college classmate to take a final for him and who tried to get his cousin to lie about Chappaquidick.

I personally agree with the White house spokesman about the complaint filed against Alito in this case.

"What this proves is that it's very easy in the United States, both to file suit and to file complaints," Schmidt said. "Every American has that right, no matter how frivolous it is."

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 829 words, total size 5 kb.

It seems that there are those in maryland who are hell-bent on making sure than no one as unimportant as the citizens of Maryland get to have a voice on the definition of a fundamental societal institution.

First, a Maryland judge has struck down the traditional definition of marriage, claiming it is irrationally discriminatory.

In the long-awaited 20-page Maryland court ruling, Murdock took the position that banning same-sex marriage was no less discriminatory than outlawing interracial marriage, saying that "although traditions and values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification."

In other words, a couple of thousand years of Western culture have no bearing on the laws of the state of Maryland.

Democrats are scrambling like cockroaches to avoid allowing the people a say on the issue -- they know it will hurt their party.

Even before the ruling yesterday, House Democrats took steps to try to prevent a constitutional ban from reaching a vote on the floor. House leaders made a technical change in procedural rules Thursday, over the objections of Republicans. Residual resentment from that move spilled into yesterday's floor session.

Minority Whip Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert) admonished his Democratic colleagues for what he said was an attempt to shield them from casting a tough vote in an election year. "We should not fear having a debate," he said.

Yesterday, House and Senate leaders met to discuss how to deal with the issue. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) have cast votes supporting the 1973 law against same-sex marriage.

But both also took the position that a constitutional amendment would be premature, because yesterday's ruling came from a single Circuit Court judge, not from the state's precedent-setting high court.

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), who chairs the Senate committee that would have to approve an amendment for it to advance, said he saw no reason to act before the Court of Appeals has ruled. "One Circuit Court judge's opinion is not cause for amending the constitution," Frosh said.

Political strategists said Ehrlich and Democrats in the legislature probably have recognized the potential for a ballot initiative to provide the governor with a significant political edge as he seeks reelection. Republican political consultant Kevin Igoe said the ruling was like "waving a red flag at a bull" for Ehrlich's conservative base. If the issue appears on a ballot, he said, it would almost certainly drive up GOP turnout.

And since Maryland does not allow mere citizens to petition for an amendment to the state constitution, it is likely that the voice of the people will never be heard on this issue.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Paul Hackett so unhinged that he can’t tell the difference between Christian conservatives and al-Qaeda terrorists.

Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."

Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).

Similarly, he declares most of his state’s voters to be un-American.

Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.

"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.

Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Paul Hackett so unhinged that he canÂ’t tell the difference between Christian conservatives and al-Qaeda terrorists.

Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Columbus Dispatch: "The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world."

Let me offer you a hint, you moron – Christian conservatives are not flying airplanes into buildings, strapping on suicide bombs, or killing your former comrades in the military (who it appears are lucky to be rid of you – you obviously got a Section 8 discharge).

Similarly, he declares most of his stateÂ’s voters to be un-American.

Hackett also said the practice of denying homosexuals equal rights is un-American. The newspaper asked Hackett if that meant the 62 percent of Ohioans who voted to ban gay marriage were un-American.

"If what they believe is that we're going to have a scale on judging which Americans have equal rights, yeah, that's un-American," Hackett said.

Well, Paul, it is clear that you are outside the mainstream of American values. But your goofy comments put you right in line with Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and the rest of the moonbat wing of the Democrat Party. America rejects you – just as it has rejected your party.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

This looks interesting – a big chunk of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s charitable distributions for Hurricane Katrina have gone to an organization with close ties to the head of the Foundation, Rep. William Jefferson (who is also under investigation for possible illegal campaign fundraising).

The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.

However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.

COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.

In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.

And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isn’t at work here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

This looks interesting – a big chunk of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s charitable distributions for Hurricane Katrina have gone to an organization with close ties to the head of the Foundation, Rep. William Jefferson (who is also under investigation for possible illegal campaign fundraising).

The Community of Faith for Economic Empowerment "is right on the front lines providing crisis assistance to supplement rental payments for dislocated families and emergency food and clothing assistance," the recent CBCF statement issued sometime after Jan. 4, explained.

However, COFFEE was established "to implement" the New Orleans "With Ownership Wealth Initiative" (WOW), according to the COFFEE website, and the WOW program was launched by Rep. Jefferson in 2002.

COFFEE's links to Jefferson are so close that the chairman of its board of directors, Rev. Zebadee Bridges, was at the center of a controversy involving Jefferson and the so-called separation of church and state in 1999. Bridges reportedly used his pulpit at the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans to endorse Jefferson for Louisiana governor and to encourage congregants to contribute to Jefferson's campaign.

In heading both the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which claims to have distributed the $290,000 and the WOW program, which is closely connected with the group (COFFEE) that received the funds, Jefferson has opened himself up to accusations of conflict of interest.

And since one of his aides recently entered a guilty plea and implicated Jefferson in criminal activity in seeking bribes, I would not be surprised to find that the Democrat culture of corruption that exists in Louisiana isnÂ’t at work here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

if Bill ClintonÂ’s law license is restored.

The five year suspension that the former (thanks be to God) agreed to in lieu of prosecution for his perjurious statements will end this week.

After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.
Mr. Clinton's suspension from the Arkansas bar, which he formally agreed to a day before leaving office in 2001, expires on Thursday. It is unclear whether the former president will seek reinstatement to the bar, but officials in Arkansas have been preparing for such a request.
"There are people who have had this date marked on their calendar," the executive director of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, Stark Ligon, told The New York Sun. He said court rules prevent him from confirming or denying whether Mr. Clinton has filed an application to be reinstated until the committee takes some action in the case.
However, Mr. Ligon said such applications are routinely approved. "The presumption fairly would be that reinstatement should be granted unless some good cause could be shown why it should not," he said. Mr. Ligon said any request from Mr. Clinton would be sent by fax or mail to a seven-member committee panel, which usually acts promptly. "We can generally get a turnaround within a week to 10 days," the bar official said.

But he might have a problem being admitted to the bar in other parts of the country.

While there appears to be little standing in the way of Mr. Clinton's reinstatement to the Arkansas bar, rules for admission in New York and Washington could pose a challenge to him quickly joining those bars. Admission by reciprocity to the New York bar requires that an applicant show that he or she has spent five of the last seven years working as a lawyer.

A former official with the New York Board of Law Examiners, James Fuller, said the rule is enforced strictly. "I don't know what they'd say about the presidency - if that qualified. I'd doubt it," Mr. Fuller said.

A similar rule would appear to dictate a five-year delay in Mr. Clinton's admission to the bar in the nation's capital, chiefly because he took the bar examination so long ago.

Mr. Clinton, who graduated from Yale Law School in 1973, has spent only a few years practicing law. He served as attorney general of Arkansas from 1977 to 1979. He also worked at a Little Rock law firm from 1980 to 1982, between stints as governor.

Mr. Gillers noted that at any point Mr. Clinton could try to gain admission to the New York or Washington bars by taking the bar examination. Like other bar applicants, he would also have to demonstrate good moral character.

Well, that should be sufficient to stop him from practicing in either of those places. After all, adultery and perjury both demonstrate a lack of good moral character.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

Fortunately, the judges of the Supreme Court of Israel recognize the difference between those imprisoned or their faith and those caught spying.

Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.

The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.

Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.

Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.

He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.

Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.

And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.

Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Fortunately, the judges of the Supreme Court of Israel recognize the difference between those imprisoned or their faith and those caught spying.

Israel's Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition by Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, to be declared a Prisoner of Zion.

The status Pollard requested would have required the Israeli government to do all it can to get him released. Pollard, 51, is incarcerated at a federal prison in Butner, N.C.

Israel, which has pressed the issue of releasing Pollard with the U.S. administration, has refused in the past to assign him that status, originally created for Jewish activists imprisoned in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition on technical grounds, saying Pollard didn't qualify for that status under Israel's compensation law.

Pollard was a civilian intelligence analyst for the U.S. Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet.

He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli Embassy. He was sentenced to life in prison, and has spent the past 20 years in a series of U.S. correctional facilities.

Pollard and his backers should be ashamed.

And Pollard should never take another breath of air as a free man.

Unfortunately, he is due for release in 2015.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

You remember the fuss over the execution of murdering gang thug Tookie Williams, don't you? Huge crowds protested his receipt of justice for the unprovoked murders of four people. The celebrity Left -- especially the Hollywood types -- were out in force protesting.

Last night the state of California delivered justice to a white man. Only 200 protesters showed -- and not one of them a celebrity from Hollywood.

California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday despite arguments from prisoner advocates that condemning a blind and wheelchair-bound inmate in his 70s violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Clarence Ray Allen, whose 76th birthday was Monday, was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison. He became the second-oldest inmate put to death nationally since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.

Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair.

His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well.

The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.

Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.

"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.

Agreed -- and his age is irrelevant, given his abuse of the judicial system to outlive extend his life longer than the lifespan of his 17-year-old victim.

And where wre the celebrities?

At the Golden Globes

I guess the execution of a white guy doesn't offend their PC sensibilities enough to stop the party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 432 words, total size 3 kb.

Why do we continue to put up with Arlen Specter as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? He's not much of a Republican, and he has all the backbone of an amoeba.

So when faced with the Democrats backing out of a deal on a vote on Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, what happens? Leahy lies and Specter folds like a house of cards.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee reached an agreement yesterday evening to wait until next Tuesday to vote on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

The agreement alters the schedule announced Friday, during the final moments of Alito's week-long confirmation hearings, by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who said he would conduct the panel's vote today. His announcement sparked a quarrel with the panel's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), who said he would seek a delay. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) vowed that a vote in the full Senate, which has final say over all judicial candidates chosen by the president, would take place by the end of the week.

In the end, Specter and Frist essentially acknowledged the prerogative Democrats have under Senate rules to postpone any committee decision for one week. GOP leaders grumbled that Democrats had reneged on an earlier agreement about when the Alito vote would take place -- an agreement that Democrats denied ever existed.

Why the delay? because the Democrats are seeking partisan advantage in advance of the State of the Union address.

Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.

Add to that the need to kowtow to the liberal interest groups to which the Democrats are beholden.

Democrats said they wanted to give senators time to observe a three-day holiday weekend without coming back to face an immediate vote. At the same time, they came under pressure from outside interest groups that want as much time as possible to try to rally public opposition to the nomination.

Like I said the other day -- an agreement with Democrats is not worth a fart in a hurricane.

Posted by: Greg at 08:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

You would think that a poll showing a black Republican running ahead of both a black Democrat and a white Democrat in solidly Democrat Maryland would merit some press coverage.

Nope -- only the Washington Times noticed.

But Michael Steele does lead both Kweisi Mfume and Ben Cardin in polling on the race to replace retiring Democrat fossil Paul Sarbanes in the US Senate.

Maryland is proving to be another state to watch in an election year many have predicted will see nationwide gains for Democrats.

In November, Rasmussen Reports observed that just two months after Hurricane Katrina and in the midst of welling controversy over Iraq, the GOP was at a political low point. We also duly noted the good news for the party: the election was still a year away. Now, in blue-state Maryland, the Republicans are making progress in the contests for both governor and senator.

The Senate race got interesting as soon as Democratic Senator Paul Sarbanes announced his retirement last March. It soon seemed Democrats had the edge. By July, Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin led Lt. Governor Michael Steele by five points in our poll. Steele, however, was seven points ahead of former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume.

By November, Steele was neck-and-neck with Mfume, but Cardin had widened his lead over Steele to 49% to 41%. Yet since that time, the number of voters with an unfavorable opinion of Steele has fallen from 33% to 25% and the Republican candidate has pulled ahead of both Democrats. He now leads Cardin 45% to 40% and Mfume 45% to 38%.

Steele has increased his support among black voters in a square-off with Mfume. While the latter still wins most of the African-American vote, Steele's share has jumped from 17% in November to 31%.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of all voters now view Mfume favorably, a five-point decline.

It is unusual for a Republican to be so competitive in such a solidly "Blue" state such as Maryland. Election 2004 confirmed that geography rules in contests for the U.S. Senate.

Eight Senate seats changed from one party to the other. Six of the eight were Republican victories in Red States. One was a Democratic victory in the very Blue State of Illinois. The exception that proves the rule was Colorado where Attorney General Ken Salazar narrowly defeated Republican businessman Pete Coors.

A Republican victory in Maryland would be even more of a surprise. Adding to the intensity of the race, the election of 46 year old Steele could have lasting impact on the balance of power in the Senate.

The poll has some good news for Maryland Democrats, though: the election is still almost ten months away.

Clear progress by Steele over his rivals is a major story, given the Democrat dirty tricks and racist rhetoric that has accompanied this race. But somehow the story seems to have slipped through the cracks here.

Why am I not surprised?

MORE AT GOPBloggers
, Powerline, Hedgehog Report (twice), Blue State Conservatives, Richie I, The Political Teen, Matty N's Blog, Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, Going to the Mat

PAST COVERAGE OF MARYLAND SENATE RACE:
Washington Post Tries To Silence Discussion Of Racism
Dean WonÂ’t Condemn Racism
Black Dems Call Racial Abuse of Blacks Acceptable – If They Are Republicans
Racists Alter Photos Of Prominent Black Republicans -- Race Hos Silent
Steele For Senate
Racist Congressman Slurs White Voters
Steele For Maryland!
Sarbanes Retiring -- Who Will Replace Him?

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 595 words, total size 5 kb.

Here's hoping that we get the whole truth about this Clinton Administration scandal, even with a quarter of the document redacted.

In Monday's edition of the NEW YORK SUN, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., break the first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett, whose investigation lasted 10 year and cost taxpayers $23 million.

The SUN outlines the report's details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involving former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.

The Sun reveals that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration hindered investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington, as well as the investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel's evidence.

The full report, more than 400 pages line, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am.

Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day.

As I've said before, we paid for it, we should see it all. Surely the Democrats don't feel they have anything to lose if we find out what went on during the Clinton Administration, do they?

UPDATE: HERE'S THE ARTICLE.

MORE AT: Michelle Malkin, Six24, Stuck On Stupid, Scottish Right, Macsmind, Bujutsu Blogger, Evil Conservative, Generation WHY?, Right from the Right, Pelican Post, Hot Talk, Kellino.

Posted by: Greg at 05:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 274 words, total size 3 kb.

The death of Ronald Reagan was one of the major events taht led to the creation of my original blog, Precinct 333. He was a major force in shaping my view of America and her place in the world.

Honor the greatest president of the twentieth century on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his inauguration. It may seem like yesterday, but this Friday marks a quarter-century since that momentous event that changed the world.

I'm joining in -- will you?

RSVP to Mike's America.

Posted by: Greg at 02:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

I concur wholeheartedly!

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Powerline
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Greg, Rhymes With Right

Posted by: Greg at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 3 kb.

The Democrats are going to try to delay the vote on Judge Samuel Alito for the most absurd of reasons.

The Washington Times is reporting that Leahy says the delay is needed because members are going places to participate in Martin Luther King Day events.

Senate Democrats yesterday moved to stall the increasingly inevitable confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr., despite a good-faith understanding not to do so.

Vermont Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said panel Democrats did not want to vote Tuesday, as per a November agreement with Republicans, citing Monday's Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday.

"I have been told that a number of our members are going to be home for Martin Luther King events this weekend, will not be back on time on Tuesday, and so they will exercise their rights," Mr. Leahy said yesterday.

Mr. Leahy did not mention any "extraordinary" circumstances that under the agreement he reached with Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, would have allowed a vote schedule change. The deal also calls for a full Senate vote on the nominee Friday.

Excuse me, but wasn't this holiday already on the calendar at the time the vote was scheduled? Didn't everyone know about it and plan accordingly?

The real reason for the delay can be found here.

Democrats say they won't be ready Tuesday to vote on his nomination, since Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has called on party members to hold off making a decision until after a Wednesday meeting.

Notice that, despite the agreement made months ago, the Democrat leadership scheduled this new meeting AFTER the scheduled vote, forcing a delay. The goal is clearly to prevent the president from noting that he has gotten two superlative legal minds confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I guess this is definitive proof that agreements with Democrats aren't worth a fart in a hurricane.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers, The Young Conservatives, Musing Minds

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess that the ersatz "right to an abortion" along with the non-existant "right not to be offended" trump the Constitutional right to engage in speech on matters of public policy and concern.

Or at least that is the goal of San Francisco abortion advocates, who are seeking to limit supporters of the dignity of human life to nothing more than "the right to remain silent".

Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations -- attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" -- have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.

Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.

"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Well, you ignorant baby-killing leftist, it could be because the First Amendment applies to words and viewpoints that don't meet with your approval. If you have a right to run ads advocating your pro-terrorist, anti-American agenda, then the Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Oakland can run its ads questioning whether the current state of the law on abortion is outside of the mainstream.

Linton Johnson, a spokesperson for BART, puts it very well.

"We're not in the business of censorship and don't believe a government agency should be in the business of censorship,'' Johnson said. "It shouldn't be up to a government official to determine whose opinion is right and whose is wrong.''

What is so offensive about the ads? Are they offensive at all? You decide.

The campaign features two ads, each slickly produced and featuring a blurry photograph of a woman against a turquoise background. One ad, headlined "9 months" in large letters, features nine months of a calendar and reads: "Because of Roe vs. Wade, this is the amount of time the Supreme Court says it's legal to have an abortion."

The other contains the message: "The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.''

Both ads conclude with the tagline "Abortion: Have we gone too far?'' and the name and Web site address (www.secondlookproject.org) for the Second Look Project, an effort sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which created the campaign and unveiled it on Washington's Metro subway system a year ago.

In other words, we are not talking about pictures of dismembered fetuses here. We are talking about very mild political speech.

The rhgetoric of opponents is shrill, heated, and hysterical.

Abortion-rights activists are responding differently, calling the ads misleading, manipulative and part of an effort to undermine the pro-choice movement in the Bay Area.

"They're calling for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which will lead to the slaughter of women,'' said Elizabeth Creely of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were illegal. "The Catholic Church is very strong here and is working hard to erode reproductive rights.''

Actually, it will lead to states and Congress to pass laws regulating or restricting abortion, but likely not outlawing it in most places. And as far as the "slaughter of women" you are bleating about, Ms. Creely, the number will be quite small compared to the number of babies slaughtered annually in the name of "choice".

But thank you for clarifying matters for us, ladies -- you want a right explicitly protected by the Constitution to be sacrificed in the name of one that was alien to that document before a group of rogue judges created it in 1973.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Phoblographer, Intergalactic Jester, GeMatt's Place, Paul's Word, W.C. Varones Blog, Cvstos Fidei, Vern Beachy's Raves, Say Anything, Right Side Redux, Beachhouse, Beetle Beat.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Stifle? Please! Is it not free speech to show objection to the ads?

you ignorant baby-killing leftist

Very strong words here. Thing is, it's not quite a baby. That is where the disagreement lays. As far as ignorant. I would take a look at the spelling of your comments on my site vs oh say, mine on yours.

Just saying.

Posted by: Angie at Sat Jan 14 23:02:50 2006 (G6nYu)

2 When you destroy, deface, and attempt to use government to prevent speech by your opponents, you have gone well-beyond legitimate free speech. You have intruded into censorship -- unless you wish to also classify bombs and bullets as free speech as well, in which case maybe we on the prolife side should begin to celebrate rather than condemn that misguided handful of souls who blow up abortion clinics and murder abortionists.

And as for you "not quite a baby" comment, that is about as accurate as the Klan and the Nazis telling you that blacks and Jews are not quite human beings. Human parents, 52 chromosomes, distict genetic identity -- what additional claim do YOU have on humanity, Angie?

As for my spelling. . . there is a reason I teach history and not keyboarding.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 01:57:07 2006 (aVsZG)

3 Rhymes With Right,

You're right on with this one. My colleague at The Inter-Galactic Jester brought this to our attention as well and the big question for those of us not in San Franciso, the big question was, "Is this the same sort of outrageous blood-spattered photographs that we've seen from Pro-Lifers before?" Having made clear that they weren't, their vandalism is disgraceful.

If it was those awful photos, they really wouldn't seem to be be appropriate for a public subway and BART would be irresponsible for posting them.

Posted by: Croaky at Sun Jan 15 10:55:08 2006 (uMmq8)

4 Croaky -- I don't know that I agree with you that there would have been anything wrong with using pictures that show the real face of "choice", or that BART would have been justified in censoring them if they were.

That said, the fact that we are talking a really low-key ad campaign makes the anti-freedom antics of the anti-life censors even more outrageous.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 11:47:07 2006 (bMupf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Once again, the Left proves that what we on the Right say about it is true. Take this from Canada, which is usually tha harbinger of left-wing trends in this country.

A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

“Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

“The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.”

The research paper is part of a controversial $150,000 polygamy project, launched a year ago and paid for by the Justice Department and Status of Women Canada.

Expect this to become a mainstream Leftist cause in this country within about six months -- the logical extension of the demand for court-imposed homosexual marriage.

Posted by: Greg at 07:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Has John Murtha (D-Cut&Run) overstated his war wounds over the years? And did Murtha cut a deal to avoid prosecution and ethics charges in the Abscam case? These are questions being raised by Cybercast News Service, a respected internet media source.

With regard to Murtha's injuries, Marine Corps records indicate the following.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on May 12, 2002, reported that "Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in 'hostile' actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967, and May 7, 1967.

"In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation," the Post-Gazette reported.

On the other hand, Murtha has told the story a bit differently at different times.

But an Oct. 26, 1994, article in the Herald-Standard quoted Murtha as describing two different injuries.

"I was wounded in the arm with shrapnel from a bullet that hit the motor mount of a helicopter. In the other, my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down from a very few feet," Murtha told the Herald-Standard.

A June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat quoted a letter that the newspaper indicated was sent by Murtha to his wife that same year. The letter apparently detailed yet another version of how Murtha qualified for one of his Purple Hearts. According to the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha's injuries involved his being "struck in the ankle" by a "shot that ricocheted off the helicopter."

So which is it? Was Murtha actually wounded. or was he part of the John Kerry "Bactine and BandAid Brigade"? The actions of Murtha's own congressman in 1968 -- who Murtha replaced after his death in 1973 -- seem to indicate that the injuries were not severe.

However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.

Given that congressional offices are usuall more than willing to go to bat for constituents in such cases, it strikes me that the questions raised are certainly legitimate ones. And please notice that those who are questioning Murtha's veracity here are veterans themselves who also served with distinction.

Which leads us to the other question -- was Murtha dirty in the Abscam case, in which he was an unindicted coconspirator?

As for the Abscam case, consider this response to the offer of a $50,000 bribe.

But, a videotape of a Jan. 7, 1980 Abscam-related meeting involving Murtha shows that the congressman's rejection of the offered bribe was less than definite. "I'm not interested. I'm sorry," Murtha told the FBI agent, but added that he meant "at this point.

"You know, we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," Murtha said on the FBI videotape.

In other wors, Murtha did not reject the bribe, he just deferred it.

So how did he avoid prosecution and censure? By cutting a deal.

Interestingly enough, it appears that the decision not to have Murth face ethics charges caused dissension within the committee staff, and resulted in at least one resignation.

A July 30, 1981, article in the Washington Post quoted a committee source as saying that several allegations of misconduct against Murtha were rejected on a "near party-line vote." Since the panel was made up of six Democrats and six Republicans, seven votes were needed to file any charges.

***

Just hours after the July 1981 House Ethic Committee vote sparing Murtha from charges, E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., special counsel for the panel's Abscam investigation, abruptly resigned. At the time, Prettyman refused to discuss with the press his reasons for stepping down.

When contacted by Cybercast News Service regarding the investigation, Prettyman called the Murtha situation "very interesting," but declined further comment, citing the need to maintain attorney-client privilege.

Similarly, when Prettyman was interviewed by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call in 1990, the former special counsel declined to comment on why he had resigned. But when pressed on whether the resignation was due to the Ethics Committee's vote on Murtha, Prettyman said that would be "a logical conclusion."

In other words, the lead investigator felt that charges were warranted, and that the evidence was such that he should resign in the face of the committee's decision not to hold Murtha accountable for his involvement in the Abscam corruption.

One member of the committee at the time even recognizes that he was wrong to support Murtha at the time.

So, why doesn't the media cover Murtha's dirty record? Could it be bias?

And why do they attack the messenger instead?

UPDATE -- 1/16/06: CNSNews editor-in-chief David Thibault responds to liberal whiners.

The amazing response from the Left to the two articles Cybercast News Service published on Friday, Jan. 13, regarding the military and political record of U.S. Rep. John Murtha leaves me wondering whether the Democratic Party and its liberal followers are paranoid or just plain mean.

First, let me say to the Lefties out there who will read this -- it's unfair that the authors of the articles, CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer Marc Morano and Staff Writer Randy Hall are being pounded so viciously on your liberal blogs. These two terrific journalists, who by the way can handle anything you can dish out, were assigned to the stories and did their jobs very well. But, don't blame them. Blame me. I assigned the stories. Nobody else suggested the idea. Nobody else twisted my arm.

If I read the blogs, and by now you know that I have, I'm amazed at the circle of friends and conspirators that I have suddenly developed over the last three days. Judging by the Left's paranoid rants, I'm about to get an invitation to a White House State Dinner, where I'll be able to regale my best bud Karl Rove about my latest journalistic efforts, before attending to my private chat with President Bush about who to target next for a "hit job."

But the problem -- well it's only a problem if you subscribe to this conspiratorial nonsense -- is that I've never met, spoken on the telephone or exchanged emails with Karl Rove. He doesn't know me from a hole in the wall. I haven't spoken with President Bush since he was the governor of Texas and I was a television reporter for the Republican National Committee following him around in Amarillo more than ten years ago. And I'm pretty sure the president doesn't remember me.

I am, however, impressed that our news organization has been recognized by the likes of U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, who labeled our articles on Murtha "despicable." This raises a crucial question for Ms. Pelosi and the Left, regarding our news coverage. They can take their best shot because we can take the hit. But can they say the same thing?

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 8 kb.

You've got to love it when someone takes the position that the media should air an ad that is misleading. But following the release of a report by the Annendberg Center, two leftist groups are demanding that Houston television stations air the ad in question.

A nonpartisan organization that reviews political ads for accuracy said Friday that a controversial commercial rejected by Houston TV stations after being labeled false by Rep. Tom DeLay's campaign is vaguely worded but contains nothing definitively false.

"We find that DeLay's lawyer mischaracterized what the ad said, and that the ad contains nothing that is strictly false," said Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "The worst we can say of the ad is that its ambiguous wording" could mislead viewers about the details of DeLay's interactions with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with a federal investigation of lawmakers and their aides.

The review came after a lawyer for DeLay's re-election campaign, Don McGahn, this week contacted four Houston television stations that had sold airtime for the ad. McGahn called the spot "reckless, malicious and false" and hinted that the stations could face legal trouble if they ran it. They didn't.

so what do the involved groups say?

With Factcheck.org's analysis in hand, the sponsoring groups are now encouraging Houston residents to contact the stations — KTRK (Channel 13), KRIV (Channel 26), KHOU (Channel 11) and KPRC (Channel 2) — and demand that they air the ad, which has appeared on cable stations in Houston and on the Internet.

The spot "contains important information about what Tom DeLay does in Washington and we think people in Houston need to know," said David Donnelly, national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund. The stations either did not return calls seeking comment or, when reached, declined to speak about the ad on Friday.

As a Texan who lives in the targetted district, I demand that KTRK (Channel 13), KRIV (Channel 26), KHOU (Channel 11) and KPRC (Channel 2) NOT run the ad. Given the finding that the ad is misleading -- and the acceptance of that determination by the PCAF -- it is your moral obligation not to become a party to the fraud the group is attempting to commit upon the people of CD22 and the rest of the Houston area.

Posted by: Greg at 03:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

Austin Bay points out that Ted Kennedy's performance during the Alito hearings was more harmful than the recent words of Pat Robertson.

However, hot rhetoric untethered by fact or untempered by reflection undermines debate.

Fortunately, these hot words often burn the unfettered and ill-tempered tongue that utters them.

Take the Rev. Pat Robertson as a recent example of "failure to reflect." When Robertson said that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's tragic stroke might be a divine rebuke for "dividing God's land," a wave of deserved scorn and ridicule swamped the silly man. The White House and The New York Times blasted Robertson, a right-left political condemnation of a right-wing ayatollah.

Idiocy isn't illegal, nor is lying — at least, not if one lies in U.S. Senate hearings. Ted Kennedy provides the recent example of hot, emotion-stoking rhetoric untethered by truth.

On the opening day of Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Kennedy opened up with a faith-based fire Robertson might envy: "Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging racial discrimination on the job. In 15 years, not one."

Kennedy's statement is completely false. Alito found for plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination on the job in several cases (for example, Zubi v. AT&T Corp. and Goosby v. Johnson & Johnson Medical).

Kennedy has avoided Robertson's mass condemnation. His snake dance and sanctimony is as poisonous as the Rev. Robertson's, however, and perhaps more venomous, since his fib slanders Judge Alito.

Ultimately, Kennedy's words are much more harmful to America than Robertson's. Kennedy's lies are a malignant slander that undermines the health of the body-politic, not merely an ill-considered and wrong-headed theological reflection.

Yet while Robertson's buffoonish attempt to explain Ariel Sharon's illness was shouted down, Kennedy's intentional falsehood -- a rhetorical attempt to do to Alito what Oswald and Sirhan did to the senator's brothers -- have barely been noted by the media or his ideological allies. Kennedy certainly have not been condemned for his misdeeds. That indicates that Kennedy and his allies are more concerned about petty partisan advantage than about the well-being of America.

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

I've always believed that it should be easier, not harder, to get on the ballot. That even means that someone like this should be able to run for office.

One gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota is giving a whole new meaning to the "dark side" of politics. A man who calls himself a satanic priest plans to run for governor on a 13-point platform that includes the public impaling of terrorists at the state Capitol building.

Jonathon Sharkey, also known as "The Impaler", plans to launch his gubernatorial campaign on - when else? - Friday the 13th. He'll make the announcement in Princeton.

"I'm going to be totally open and honest," said the 41-year-old leader of the "Vampyres, Witches and Pagans Party."

"Unlike other candidates, I'm not going to hide my evil side," he said.

In Minnesota, anyone who pays the $300 filing fee can get on the gubernatorial ballot and it seems that every year a few eccentric candidates make the rounds.

Sharkey raises the bar. For one thing, he told the Star Tribune in an e-mail that he drinks blood.

Including the impaling of terrorists, rapists, drug dealers and other criminals, Sharkey's platform includes emphasis on education, tax breaks for farmers and better benefits for veterans.

You know, I think I could go for most of those "points" (I hesitate to use that word around a guy called "the Impaler"). After all, he's clearly tough on crime, pro-education, and pro-veteran. And I've always supported helping family farmers stay in the business -- they are the origingal small businessmen.

On the other hand, he is also the perfect candicate for your average Leftist -- especially the ACLU and separation of church and state crowd.

Sharkey said he worships Lucifer and, while he says he has nothing against Christians, he calls the "Christian God the Father" his "mortal enemy."

You know, maybe this explains Jesse Ventura.

Posted by: Greg at 03:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Like matter which encounters a black hole, some news stories are simply sucked in to where no light escapes, quickly slipping ove the event horizon into nothingness.

Such is this story of political corruption in Congress.

A former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court and has agreed to cooperate with an investigation into an alleged conspiracy to funnel money to the eight-term congressman and members of his family.

Brett Pfeffer, 37, told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III that a congressman, identified in court only as "Representative A," lobbied high-ranking officials in Nigeria and Ghana to use technology developed by a small U.S.-based telecommunication company and pressed the Export-Import Bank of the United States to approve loan guarantees. In exchange, Pfeffer said, the congressman demanded a share of the new company created to facilitate the deal.

Unless I've gone deaf, I've missed the uproar over this case. I mean, after all, we have a sitting lawmaker, indictments and guilty pleas, spectacular accusations of criminality. This should be a lead story and be producing claims about a culture of corruption within the lawmaker's party -- expecially given other actions taken by the guy to cover his tracks.

Oh.

That's right.

That is a "D" in the party slot.

He's a Democrat.

Nothing to see here.

Move along.

It just isn't news to the MSM.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

From The Plot to Shush Rush and OÂ’Reilly by Brian C. Anderson

The Right—joined by free-speech defenders from across the political spectrum—needs to defeat the liberal regulatory threat before it does real damage to Americans’ rights to express their political views. President Bush should strongly back Hensarling’s Online Freedom of Speech Act, whose sponsors may reintroduce it soon in the House under regular rules, which require only a simple majority to pass it. Showing that he gets it, the president has just nominated three reportedly liberty-minded lawyers to fill FEC vacancies, including Robert Lenhard, part of the legal team that challenged McCain-Feingold’s constitutionality. One campaign-finance reform group described the Lenhard pick as “beyond disappointing”: excellent news for free-speech fans.

In deciding two campaign-finance reform cases in the months ahead, the Roberts Court, one hopes, will show greater enthusiasm for First Amendment protection of political speech than did its predecessor, which should have shot down McCain-Feingold. If neither Congress nor the Supreme Court repeals this unconstitutional, un-American travesty, we can expect election regulations, in the grim words of Justice Antonin Scalia’s McConnell dissent, “to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come—and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.” Thus will our most effective real protection against “the actuality and appearance of corruption”—the First Amendment itself—be nullified.

Lovers of liberty should expose calls to restore the Fairness Doctrine for the fraudulent power-grab that they plainly are. And the Right, in particular, needs to understand how much it has benefited from a deregulated media universe. It should be confident that it has the right ideas, and that when it gets the chance to present them directly to the American people—as the new media have allowed it to do—it will win the debate.

Probably the most important article I've read in months -- READ IT!

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

The Washington Post does a very sympathetic piece of abortion advocate Kate Michelman. Just in time for the Alito hearings, no less.

Kate Michelman, The Public Face Of a Woman's Right to Privacy

They even include a nicely posed picture.

But so concerned are they about the "right to privacy" that they forget the real face of "reproductive choice".

I guess the focus on privacy makes it possible to ignore the consequences of choice.

No jury will ever convict Michelman for her crimes against the lives of the innocent -- but there is a Judge waiting to give sentence. And there will be no appeal to the Supreme COurt or reliance on Roe v. Wade as precedent.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.