The NOW Gang and the Merchants of Death in the abortion industry have AGAIN lost in their never-ending battle to silence those of us who oppose abortion.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.

One major problem with the position of the anti-speech anti-life groups was that they sought to conflate all pro-life activists into one gigantic criminal conspiracy. The acts of unrelated groups and individuals were said to be a part of a pattern, and leaders of various groups were alleged to be responsible for the actions of individuals who were members, even if they did not direct them to engage in the conduct.

When I talked to Joe Scheidler about this many years ago, he noted that one part of the so-called conspiracy was the fact that he had written a book on how to hassle abortion facilities – the anti-lifers claimed that he was therefore a party to the so-called misconduct of any individual who attempted to implement the peaceful, non-violent tactics he included in the book. Under that theory, Dr. Martin Luther King could have been jailed any time there was a sit-in anywhere in the country during the civil rights movement.

Now any of you baby-killing anti-lifers out there who think this is a bad decision, consider who the allies of the pro-lifers were.

Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

In other words, even the so-called “progressive” movement recognized that your suit sought to undermine legitimate speech and assembly.

Posted by: Greg at 06:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

The agreement to give an additional 45 day review to Dubai Ports World's acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.'s U.S. terminal operations is a good one. One final look at the deal, with special scrutiny of the national security implications, should be sufficient to either scuttle the deal or quell the fears of all but the most close-minded opponents.

An Arab maritime company at the center of a political imbroglio over port security asked the Bush administration Sunday to conduct a 45-day review of the national security implications of its plans to take control of significant operations at six U.S. ports.

The announcement by Dubai Ports World, brokered by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), appears to satisfy the demands of many members of Congress, who had threatened to force a security review if the administration would not conduct one. The administration had approved DP World's $6.85 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., or P&O, earlier this month without conducting a national security review, after a broad, interagency panel that looked at the transaction concluded the takeover of port operations in the United States would not impact the nation's safety.

* * *

"We recognize that there are concerns regarding DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. terminal operations. Despite having already obtained approval by the federal government, we continue to take voluntary steps to assure people that the security of the U.S. will not be harmed as a result of this acquisition," said Ted Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer.

Personally, I am persuaded that the deal is in the best interests of the United States, and that the security concerns voiced by opponents are not grounded in reality. The claimed degradation of national security does not make sense, given that the day-to-day operations will remain in the hands of the same folks who currently work for P&O and the security responsibilities will remain with the US government.

The deal will allow the purchase to proceed, but will keep the US operations independent.

Under the terms of the deal announced by DP World, the company would proceed with its acquisition. That deal is to be completed Thursday.

But DP World said it would "guarantee" the independence of operations at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans by establishing North American operations as a "completely separate" business unit. Management of the North American operations would be left in the hands of P&O's chief executive officer in London, who is British. The chief security officer of the North American unit will remain a U.S. citizen, unless the Coast Guard approves a change.

The rest of the current management of P&O in the United States would also remain in place, and DP World pledged not to interfere with operations, policies, procedures or security that were in place when P&O ran the U.S. terminals.

The statement concluded that all these pledges would remain in place until May 1 or the completion of the CFIUS review.

"We are confident the further review by CFIUS will confirm that DP World's acquisition of P&O's U.S. operations does not pose any threat to American's safety and security. We hope that voluntarily agreeing to further scrutiny demonstrates our commitment to our long-standing relationship with the United States," Bilkey said.

Perhaps some similar management structure can remain in place following the review. After all, I suspect there are more negotiations to come.

MORE AT Blogs for Bush, Middle Earth Journal, The Moderate Voice, Big Lizards, Strata-Sphere

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

Since when is it the business of government to set prices?

The Minnesota Commerce Department on Thursday announced plans to fine a gas station chain $140,000 for repeatedly selling gas below the state's legal minimum price.

The fine against Midwest Oil of Minnesota is twice as large as any imposed on a company since 2001, when the state established a formula based on wholesale prices, fees and taxes to determine a daily floor for gas prices.

The price law was intended to prevent large oil companies from driving smaller competitors out of business, but some critics argue it fails to protect consumers.

According to the Commerce Department, the Midwest-owned stations in Anoka, Oakdale and Albert Lea sold gas below the minimum price on 293 days in 2005.

Kevin Murphy, deputy commissioner of the department, called the violations "willful, continuing, and egregious and warrant a substantial penalty."

This measure costs consumers money every time they buy gas – and that money goes for private profit so that uncompetitive businesses can remain afloat. Such laws are un-American, and must be repealed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve been following this story for the last several days, and am surprised that no one really wants to take this up on a national level. That is really too bad, since it shows the degree to which certain segments of the Democrat Party despise the military but are willing to use a few vets and family members for their own purposes. They tell us we cannot question the ever-changing stories of John Kerry about his military service in Vietnam (while constantly questioning the military service of President Bush), the courage or patriotism of corrupt Congressman John “Cut-n-Run” Murtha or the moral authority of an America-hater like Cindy Sheehan – but if an Iraq vet or Gold Star parent speaks out in favor of the war, they are “un-American” and the Democrats will seek to silence and censor them.

A conservative group recently started an advertising campaign in Minnesota showing veterans and families of slain troops expressing their support for the Iraq war, only to have the head of the state Democratic Party condemn the ads as "un-American, untruthful and a lie." He furthermore demands that Minnesota television stations pull the ads "and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swiftboating' anymore." At least one station so far has complied with the request, which is reason enough for outrage.

But there's been precious little of that. Aside from a handful of bloggers covering the issue and an appearance of one of the veterans on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," the media has ignored the issue completely, essentially proving one of the ad campaign's main points. The current media meme, at least as it concerns the homefront, is that most returning veterans have turned against the war and those still in field are demoralized and jaded. Meanwhile, parents of slain troops like Cindy Sheehan continue to rack up air time and column inches. The ad campaign seeks to correct this blatant misrepresentation.

Which is exactly why Democrats are trying to stop it with accusations that the ads are somehow "untruthful." The claim is absurd on its face, but their list of so-called lies is so slim that a brief analysis is warranted. The veterans in the first ad say that "our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda -- the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11." To liberal ears, this is apparently the equivalent of claiming Iraq was behind September 11. But that's not what the veterans said. In any case, last we checked Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has publicly sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, is the leader of "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Democrats have also taken issue with the ad's statement that U.S. troops "overwhelmingly" support the mission -- a fact clearly upheld by record-setting retention rates in the military branches. The retention rate in the Army, for instance, is the highest it's been in five years, especially in combat units currently serving in Iraq. And that about covers the "lies."

The more disturbing issue here is that Democrats are trying to silence a contrary point of view, and are doing so by calling soldiers and military families "un-American." Whenever Republicans attempt to counter antiwar sentiment, be it from the Cindy Sheehans or Paul Hacketts, Democrats shed crocodile tears over the "crushing of dissent." But this is what crushing dissenters actually looks like -- a smear campaign designed explicitly to keep the public from hearing the other side.

Fortunately, readers can see the ads for themselves at www.midwestheroes.com and decide what's so "un-American" about soldiers and families supporting the war.

What are the Democrats crying foul about? Besides the truthful assertion that American troops fight in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, there is the horrific scandal (if you are a liberal) that one of the Gold Star parents is the – GASP! – step-mother of a dead soldier and not his biological mother.

Powerline owns this issue and this story completely, so I am linking to their many excellent posts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 675 words, total size 5 kb.

I’ve been following this story for the last several days, and am surprised that no one really wants to take this up on a national level. That is really too bad, since it shows the degree to which certain segments of the Democrat Party despise the military but are willing to use a few vets and family members for their own purposes. They tell us we cannot question the ever-changing stories of John Kerry about his military service in Vietnam (while constantly questioning the military service of President Bush), the courage or patriotism of corrupt Congressman John “Cut-n-Run” Murtha or the moral authority of an America-hater like Cindy Sheehan – but if an Iraq vet or Gold Star parent speaks out in favor of the war, they are “un-American” and the Democrats will seek to silence and censor them.

A conservative group recently started an advertising campaign in Minnesota showing veterans and families of slain troops expressing their support for the Iraq war, only to have the head of the state Democratic Party condemn the ads as "un-American, untruthful and a lie." He furthermore demands that Minnesota television stations pull the ads "and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swiftboating' anymore." At least one station so far has complied with the request, which is reason enough for outrage.

But there's been precious little of that. Aside from a handful of bloggers covering the issue and an appearance of one of the veterans on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," the media has ignored the issue completely, essentially proving one of the ad campaign's main points. The current media meme, at least as it concerns the homefront, is that most returning veterans have turned against the war and those still in field are demoralized and jaded. Meanwhile, parents of slain troops like Cindy Sheehan continue to rack up air time and column inches. The ad campaign seeks to correct this blatant misrepresentation.

Which is exactly why Democrats are trying to stop it with accusations that the ads are somehow "untruthful." The claim is absurd on its face, but their list of so-called lies is so slim that a brief analysis is warranted. The veterans in the first ad say that "our enemy in Iraq is al Qaeda -- the same terrorists who killed three thousand Americans on 9/11." To liberal ears, this is apparently the equivalent of claiming Iraq was behind September 11. But that's not what the veterans said. In any case, last we checked Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has publicly sworn loyalty to Osama bin Laden, is the leader of "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Democrats have also taken issue with the ad's statement that U.S. troops "overwhelmingly" support the mission -- a fact clearly upheld by record-setting retention rates in the military branches. The retention rate in the Army, for instance, is the highest it's been in five years, especially in combat units currently serving in Iraq. And that about covers the "lies."

The more disturbing issue here is that Democrats are trying to silence a contrary point of view, and are doing so by calling soldiers and military families "un-American." Whenever Republicans attempt to counter antiwar sentiment, be it from the Cindy Sheehans or Paul Hacketts, Democrats shed crocodile tears over the "crushing of dissent." But this is what crushing dissenters actually looks like -- a smear campaign designed explicitly to keep the public from hearing the other side.

Fortunately, readers can see the ads for themselves at www.midwestheroes.com and decide what's so "un-American" about soldiers and families supporting the war.

What are the Democrats crying foul about? Besides the truthful assertion that American troops fight in Iraq are fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, there is the horrific scandal (if you are a liberal) that one of the Gold Star parents is the – GASP! – step-mother of a dead soldier and not his biological mother.

Powerline owns this issue and this story completely, so I am linking to their many excellent posts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 683 words, total size 5 kb.

Not only did they rip-off Houston taxpayers for $130,000 in bonuses to which they were not entitled, but four members of Councilwoman Carol Alvarado's Mayor Pro Tem staff also authorized salary increases for each other.

Four employees in Houston's Office of Mayor Pro Tem got raises ranging from 11 percent to 64 percent during the same period in which they split $135,000 in what city officials say were unauthorized bonuses, personnel documents show.

The records, released to the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday under the Texas Public Information Act, show that the raises increased the employees' combined annual pay rates by $60,000 during Councilwoman Carol Alvarado's two-year tenure as Mayor Pro Tem.

Alvarado said she did not approve the raises.

The two highest-paid employees — who also got most of the bonus money now under investigation — signed forms authorizing each others' raises, the records show.

All four still are drawing the salaries, since they have been suspended with pay during a probe of the bonuses.

Perhaps we need to start to refer to the councilwoman as "Carol Alvarado Schultz" -- as in "I know nothing-- NOTHING!"

But then again, it may not be a wuestion of stupidity on her part -- it may just be laziness. She authorized staff members to sign documents on her behalf so that she didn't need to be bothered personally, and they took advantage of the authority.

What sort of pay raises are we talking about? Substantial ones.

But the councilwoman said Wednesday that she never authorized anything higher than a 2 percent salary increase approved in 2004.

That is more in line with typical city pay increases. Mayor Bill White recently announced a raise of 1.5 percent for full-time civilian city employees.

According to personnel records, Hernandez received two raises in 2005, increasing her base annual salary 37 percent to $78,000. Watkins' salary rose 55 percent during Alvarado's tenure, from $33,000 to $52,000.

Two other employees in the office, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta, received raises of 64 percent and 10 percent respectively, records show.

I'm not accusing Carol Alvarado of being dishonest -- after all, that woud require her to be an active manager who took the time to oversee the actions of her staff. Instead, I would have to say the was incompetent and negligent in the running of the Mayor Pro Tem's office. But then again, that wouldn't be the first time that she let little details slip right past her.

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

In an increasingly conservative America, Democrats are seeking to compete electorally by shifting left and abandoning officeholders who appeal to middle-of-the-road independents and even conservatives.

Democrats aren't just hoping to take back Congress this year; they also are trying to rid the party of so-called "right-wing Democrats."

Rep. Henry Cuellar represents the solidly Democratic 28th district in Texas. Yet activists from his party are backing his primary challenger, former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

"People have been able to get a good picture of Henry Cuellar's record," Mr. Rodriguez told The Washington Times. "He doesn't stand with working families. On issues like tax cuts, the estate tax and immigration, he has voted with Republicans down the line."

Mr. Cuellar has been endorsed by the conservative Club for Growth, a group that typically endorses Republicans and has supported primary challengers to centrist Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Club for Growth estimates it has raised $150,000 for Mr. Cuellar's campaign.

After a contentious Democratic primary battle in 2004, Mr. Cuellar defeated Mr. Rodriguez, a three-term incumbent, by a mere 58 votes. Since then, Mr. Cuellar has angered many liberals with his support for the war in Iraq and other Republican-backed policies.

Mr. Rodriguez acknowledges that centrists have a place in the Democratic Party, just not in his district. "This is not a swing district. Voters here deserve someone who will represent their values," he said.

The 28th District, stretching from the Rio Grande to San Antonio, is 70 percent Hispanic. In the 2004 general election, Mr. Cuellar received 59 percent of the vote against Republican opponent James Hopson.

Mr. Rodriguez said Democratic activists have pumped more than $250,000 into his campaign in the weeks since his primary challenge gained national attention. "Thank God for it," he said.

Liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (DFA), as well as leading liberal bloggers and unions such as the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, are backing Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Rodriguez "is a real Democrat," said DFA Chairman Jim Dean. "He is not a shill for the White House. We've raised about $40,000 for Ciro so far. It's been a pretty good response, especially considering a lot of people didn't even know about this race until a few weeks ago."

A significant part of Mr. Rodriguez's opposition to Mr. Cuellar stems from their differences on trade. Mr. Cuellar was a vocal proponent of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which Mr. Rodriguez opposes.

Cuellar campaign spokesman Colin Strother said free trade and conservative values are popular in the 28th district.

"Ten of the 11 counties in our district have experienced growth since [the North American Free Trade Agreement] was passed," Mr. Strother said. "Ciro's most vocal supporters are not in the district. Our district is Catholic, Hispanic and conservative. Ciro doesn't represent those values."

Charles Mahtesian, editor of Almanac of American Politics, said the March 7 Democratic primary contest will be as bitter as it was two years ago.

"It's the stated policy of the party to support incumbents," Mr. Mahtesian said. "But at least in Washington and in Congress there are a lot of people secretly hoping it turns out differently."

Speaking as a Republican, I wholeheartedly support this strategy, which seems to me to be the political equivalent of treating a shaving cut by slitting your throat. The 28th District will never vote for a Republican – unless the Democrats abandon the base of conservative Hispanic Catholics. That is where this strategy is headed.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't understand why the President would take this stand. The port deal is not a hill worth dying for.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Mr. President -- why hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than one from the UK? Surely you jest, sir! You REALLY don't get it -- especially when one of the ports is the Port of New York? The answer is really simple -- a bunch of Arabs flew planes into buildings in that city, sir, and killed damned near 3000 Americans. there were at least some connections to the UAE. We want to be sure that this company has been thoroughly vetted.

A ldelay while the matter is more thoroughly warranted -- whether or not one supports Sen. Clinton's proposal to prevent firms controlled by foreign governments from managing our ports.

More at Michelle Malkin,

Posted by: Greg at 11:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Gee, I wonder if this clown demanded the same thing for Dick Cheney or the Bush girls?

The son of a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona was arrested and booked on drug charges, accused of selling narcotics to college students, officials said.

The 24-year-old son of former state Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson was taken into custody Friday after a search of his home, deputies said.

James Robert Pederson was charged with possession of narcotics, marijuana and paraphernalia, and misconduct with weapons, among other charges, Lt. Paul Chagolla said. He was released on his own recognizance Saturday morning.

The elder Pederson, who is challenging Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, asked for the public to respect his family's privacy.

"This is a personal matter that is obviously very troubling and being dealt with within our family right now," Pederson said in a statement.

This is a much more serious matter than the VP’s hunting accident or the underage boozing of a couple of college girls – so I’m sure that the media will give proportionally more coverage to this incident.

Not.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Gee, I wonder if this clown demanded the same thing for Dick Cheney or the Bush girls?

The son of a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona was arrested and booked on drug charges, accused of selling narcotics to college students, officials said.

The 24-year-old son of former state Democratic Party chairman Jim Pederson was taken into custody Friday after a search of his home, deputies said.

James Robert Pederson was charged with possession of narcotics, marijuana and paraphernalia, and misconduct with weapons, among other charges, Lt. Paul Chagolla said. He was released on his own recognizance Saturday morning.

The elder Pederson, who is challenging Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, asked for the public to respect his family's privacy.

"This is a personal matter that is obviously very troubling and being dealt with within our family right now," Pederson said in a statement.

This is a much more serious matter than the VP’s hunting accident or the underage boozing of a couple of college girls – so I’m sure that the media will give proportionally more coverage to this incident.

Not.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the American people are becoming more and more enthusiastic about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a candidate for President. At the same time, opposition is growing to another female candidate.

Growing numbers of Americans oppose a presidential bid by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in 2008 — and favor a run by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — amid broad public willingness to elect a woman as president, according to a nationwide poll released Sunday.

The Presidents Day survey conducted for Hearst Newspapers by the Siena Research Institute of Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y., covered 1,120 registered voters and was completed Feb. 10.

Some 48 percent of survey participants said Rice "should run" for president at the conclusion of President Bush's second term, an increase of 6 percentage points over a similar survey a year ago.

Clinton saw opposition to a presidential bid grow over the same period. About 44 percent of respondents now say Clinton "should not run" for president in 2008 — up from 37 percent who felt that way last year.

The percentage of registered voters who say Clinton "should run" slipped from 53 percent to 51 percent in the past year, as support for a Rice candidacy increased, from 42 percent to 48 percent.

But the most important part of the survey is that Americans feel ready to vote for a woman.

The survey found that 79 percent of participants were willing to vote for a woman as president, and 64 percent said the nation was "ready" for one.

The survey did not test a head-to-head race between Clinton and Rice.
The margin of error for the survey in both years was 2.9 percentage points. That could mean that Clinton's 2 percentage point drop in the "should run" category may not represent an actual change.

The survey found that a majority of registered voters thought a female president would handle national security-related issues as well as a male president, including serving as commander-in-chief of the armed services.

In other words, 2008 may be just the time for a strong, national security-oriented female candidate like Dr. Rice to seek the presidency. We in the GOP need to persuade her that her time is NOW.

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

There are certain crimes I view as beyond the bounds of forgiveness by mortal man. Some include crimes of violence that shock the conscience -- murder, rape, sexual abuse. Others involve crimes of betrayal -- including those which involve betrayal of one's country. In such cases, I oppose leniency as a matter of principle, for such leniency undermines any sense of justice towards those against whom the crimes were committed.

And so I today stand up and demand that Judge Larry Alan Burns throw the book at Duke Cunningham.

Randy "Duke" Cunningham has recurring prostate cancer and will likely die in prison if sentenced to the 10 years behind bars prosecutors are seeking, his defense lawyers said in court papers filed late Friday.

The documents also reveal that Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, are estranged and that the former 50th District congressman, who pleaded guilty to bribery and tax evasion in November, now lives on a ranch performing manual labor in exchange for room and board.

The U.S. attorney's office in San Diego is arguing that the four years Cunningham accepted bribes and cheated on his taxes ---- as well as tampering with witnesses after he came under federal scrutiny ---- warrant the maximum possible sentence.

Cunningham has admitted demanding bribes starting as early as 2000 and continuing until 2004 in exchange for steering Pentagon contracts to defense contractors MZM Inc. of Washington and ADCS of Poway.

But Cunningham's lead attorney, K. Lee Blalack, argued his client's military service during the Vietnam War and other civic and charitable contributions before the bribery took place, as well as his health status, should cause the court to hand down a lesser sentence of six years.

Reached at his Washington home Saturday, Blalack said he is asking the court for mercy.

"Mr. Cunningham admits doing something very wrong," he said. "The question is what constitutes harsh punishment for a 64-year-old man with health concerns which make a 10-year sentence likely to be unsurvivable.

"When you combine that with his lifelong contributions unusually found in one man to his country in war and in peace, that should warrant some mercy and a sentence appropriate for paying his debt to society."

What a load of bullshit! Cunningham betrayed his country by taking bribes every bit as much as if he had passed defense secrets to our nation's enemies. To argue that he deserves anything less than the maximum sentence based uponhis prior good works (which didn't stop him from taking bribes) or his health situation (which is irrelevant to his crime) is to argue that those somehow diminish the harm that he did. But those factors do not do anything to mitigate the harm -- and indeed, like the bribes themselves, are indicative of a flawed character that puts himself and his needs/desires above society's need to exact retributive justice in official corruption cases.

Besides, the punisments meted out in cases of official corruption need to be severe -- that is the best way to dissuade those who would betray America through their own avarice. The message should be loud nad clear -- take a bribe and this country will sek to have you serve every day of your sentence, even if that means you die in prison instead of surrounded by your loved ones.even

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 3 kb.

Gates of Vienna reports on a budding movement for freedom of expression in Great Britain.

Statement of Principle

The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas give offense to someone, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offense in their time.

The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticize and mock.

We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.

We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.

The Baron also supplies contact information for the group and a link to their website.

They will be rallying in Trafalgar Square on March 25. 2006. Spread the word!

Posted by: Greg at 05:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Houston's Mayor Pro Tem, City Councilman Carol Alvarado, has expalnation for of why she isn't responsible for her staff's looting of the city treasury -- supervising her employees is just too much work.

Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado deflected responsibility Thursday for the $130,000 in improper bonuses some of her employees received, saying she trusted subordinates to oversee payroll administration.

"There is no way that an elected official can police every single iota, every single detail, that goes on in their office," Alvarado said. "My job is to delegate, to hire people, to trust people that will bring forward any types of irregularities."

The four employees, who work in the mayor pro tem office that Alvarado oversees, have been placed on administrative leave pending a police investigation into how they received the extra pay since late 2004. They either declined or couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

Top city officials, including Mayor Bill White, Controller Annise Parker, Finance and Administration Director Judy Gray Johnson and her deputy over payroll, Barbara Glick, also refused to discuss the matter.

If performing basic supervisory duties like ensuring that your employees are not robbing the taxpayers blind is too much work, maybe it is time for you to give up your job as Mayor Pro Tem, Carol -- and to consider resigning from office completely.

And frankly, given your past inattention to detail, I don't see why the people of Houston should continue to place any trust in you at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to wonder if the prior work history of a Dallas candidate for the Texas legislature doesn't give him necessary experience for the job.

A Dallas Democrat seeking election to the Texas House of Representatives has acknowledged that he once worked as a prostitute.

Tom Malin, a salesman and actor, said he no longer works as a prostitute but conceded that his previous life could cost him the nomination in the March 7 Democratic primary.

Besides -- couldn't we just call him an "independent businessman in a personal service industry"?

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

Remember Carol Alvarado, the Houston City Councilwoman who claimed a college degree that had never been awarded? Well, now it seems that some of her staff have claimed bonuses that they have not earned -- to the tune of at least $130,000.

HOUSTON -- Four employees in the office of Houston Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado were removed from their jobs Wednesday in connection with improper bonuses totaling $130,000, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Officials said the investigation began after the city's finance director received reports of payroll irregularities.

Office of Inspector General agents and Houston police raided the offices shortly after lunchtime.

The employees were immediately placed on paid administrative leave. Computers were confiscated from the office, and door locks and card keys were changed.

"The matter concerns improper bonuses that were brought to my attention by the director of finance administration (Tuesday) night," Mayor Bill White said. "These were all four employees of the mayor pro tem's office, which is a permanent office within city council, which supports activities of the city council staff."

White said the four city workers apparently shared $130,000 in bonuses, which was far beyond any bonus allowed in city government. He said two workers each took $50,000 by circumventing the entire payroll approval process.

"That's improper. Period," White said. "It's a betrayal of public trust. This isn't our money. It's the public's money. We will follow it through to the full extent of the law."

The employees were making between $40,000 and $75,000.

Criminal charges are expected. More people could be implicated as well.

The mayor said that there was no sign that Alvarado had anything to do with the irregularities.

"I was disturbed to learn of this irregularity that has been reported. I am cooperating completely. I want a very thorough and complete investigation," Alvarado said. "No members of my council district staff are involved with this investigation."

So, Carol, how will you explain this one? Why have you not exercised proper control over your staff?

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle provides some additional details.

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Tom DeLay has pretty solid support among Republicans in the 22nd District. His most serious challenger, Tom Campbell runs well-behind the Congressman. Not only that, he is not really known by party activists, for he has not been involved in local Republican affairs.

U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, forced onto the political defensive by ethical and legal charges, went on the offensive Tuesday, claiming one of his Republican primary opponents has overstated his GOP credentials.

DeLay's campaign said challenger Tom Campbell, a lawyer, has not been active in local party politics and has not voted regularly in Republican primaries.

"Every day he proves he's nothing more than an outsider who isn't concerned with conservative issues or fighting for the priorities of Texas taxpayers," DeLay campaign manager Chris Homan said of Campbell.

Campbell's campaign countered that no pure GOP insider would dare challenge the powerful DeLay, even if he has been weakened by a Travis County indictment relating to campaign finance and a federal investigation into his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"The fact is that Tom Campbell is like you and me. He is not a career politician like Tom DeLay. He is a citizen politician," said Michael Stanley, Campbell's campaign chairman. "Tom Campbell calls on Tom DeLay to get beyond the negative, immaterial distractions and get back to the real issues that are important to the people of the district."

And that, my friends, is really the problem. Folks in CD22 don’t know who Tom Campbell is, and really do not have a reason to support him. We are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke when he appeals to us for support. Whatever good qualities he may have are overshadowed by the disturbing vacuum in his Republican record. It is, ultimately, why I endorsed Tom Delay in my capacity as precinct chair – we know who and what we are getting with him, and we have a sound Republican record on which to judge him.

Now you may notice that I am not attacking Tom Campbell. He appears to be a good and honorable man. It is my hope that this race leads him to greater involvement in local GOP affairs, so that he is in a position to run in the future, should Tom DeLay either retire or be forced to resign as a result of the Ronnie Earle witch hunt. Campbell certainly stands out as a better alternative than Democrat Nick Lampson, and is likely superior to independent challenger Steve Stockman. Now is not his time – but the future may be.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Conscience and corporate ethics get trumped by the pro-abortion/contracetion mentality in Massachusetts.

The state pharmacy board ordered Wal-Mart on Tuesday to stock emergency contraception pills at its stores in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts becomes second state to require the world's largest retailer to carry the morning-after pill.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company would comply with the directive by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy and is reviewing its nationwide policy on the drug.

"Clearly women's health is a high priority for Wal-Mart," spokesman Dan Fogleman said. "We are actively thinking through the issue."

Wal-Mart now carries the pill only in Illinois, where it is required to do so under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but has refused to elaborate.

The unanimous decision by the pharmacy board comes two weeks after three women, backed by abortion rights groups, sued Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart for failing to carry the drug in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam's Club stores in Massachusetts.

The women had argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

It is not a case of "believes". That is what the drug does.

So I guess that means that in Massachusetts, a woman is the ONLY one with freedom of choice. Others cannot refuse to participate in the distribution of what is nothing less than a human pesticide.

Here's hoping that Wal-mart has the corporate will and financial muscle to fprce the phamacy board to back down -- or, barring that, to shut down every phamacy in Massachusetts and Illinois.

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, this is serious disregard for the law -- not something private like a supervisor having sexual relations with a subordinate in the workplace and then providing that subordinate with special treatment and encouraging perjured testimony.

Vice President Dick Cheney was hunting illegally – without the required $7 stamp on his license for quail – when he accidentally shot one of his hunting partners, Texas Parks and Wildlife officials said Monday.

And so was Harry Whittington, 78, who was recovering Monday from a shotgun blast to the face, neck and chest.

In its report, the state agency that oversees hunting and fishing said it found that neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Whittington had purchased the game bird stamp required to hunt quail in Texas, although both had valid hunting licenses. Both will get warning citations, and there will be no fine or other penalty.

Mr. Cheney's office said Monday he hadn't realized he was lacking the proper stamp and has since sent a $7 check to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

"I don't know how they missed it," said Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Mayfield. A statement from Mr. Cheney's office said his staff had asked for applicable permits and would "take whatever steps are needed to comply with applicable rules."

Given the response of the MSM, Kossaks and DUers to this story, it is only a matter of time before Congressional Democrats take up the impeachment call.

Posted by: Greg at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

Jimmy Carter falsely linked Democrat-authorized, politically-motivated, warrantless domestic spying on Dr. & Mrs. King with national-security-imperative listening to terrorist-connected telephone calls that originate outside the US during Mrs. King's funeral this week. It was shameful and wrong of him to do so.

But now we find out that warrantless surveilance for national security purposes was conducted by President Jimmy Carter -- with his personal authorization -- in 1977.

But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

Notice -- that is "inherent authority". Authority which exists as a part of the authority granted each and every president by Article II of the US Constitution, independent of any statute or law. It is power that Congress cannot restrict or eliminate, and that the courts must recognize.

That is why all of the discussion of the FISA law is irrelevant, and the position of the Bush administration is correct.

That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.

I realize that must stick in the craw of a lot of liberals, but the Constitution trumps any statute. Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers delegated to the other two branches by statute, any more than the president can issue an executive order ending a filibuster or preventing the courts from hearing a case. Congress cannot prevent the exercise of such inherent powers of the Executive branch, any more than the Judicial Branch could issue an order prohibiting ta declaration of war or preventing the president from vetoing a bill.

Let's look at what the Carter Administration had to say about FISA.

When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

Did you get that -- the position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he knew was false. He condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended -- and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.

MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Powerline.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Everyman Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 04:07 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 630 words, total size 5 kb.

Former Congressman Bob Barr spoke at the annual CPAC convention this week. He was, by all accounts, accorded a cool welcome, based in large part on his principled opposition to many of the Bush Administration's tactics in the War On Terror.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

But that is precisely the strength of the conservative movement, Mr. Scorcinelli -- we allow for dissent and disagreement and are willing to listen to them. The Left takes a different approach, shouting down and silencing those who disagree. Would supporters of the Patriot Act or the war in Iraq be welcome to speak at major liberal events? And we all remember the refusal of the Democrats to allow even a single token pro-lifer, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, to speak at their convention ON ANY SUBJECT WHATSOEVER (which makes his son's continued affiliation with the Party Of Sucking Dismembered Babies Into A Sink while claiming to be a pro-lifer utterly incomprehensible).

Would Vice President Cheney or Secretary of State Rice get a polite but chilly reception at Yearly Kos or an event sponsored by MoveOn.org? Heck -- would card-carrying liberal Democrat Joe Lieberman get such a reception? I think we all know the answer. And the willingness to tolerate dissent and engage in discussion is part of what makes conservatism a much stronger, attractive (and dare I say it) American ideology than liberalism ever will be.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Maryland Democrats are recognizing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele – the presumptive GOP Senate nominee – in their celebration of Black History Month.

The Maryland Democratic Party has been relentless in criticizing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for U.S. Senate, but party officials say that won't stop them from paying homage to the conservative Republican during Black History Month.

"Michael Steele is an important figure in African-American history in Maryland. There is no question about it," said Derek Walker, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

"We should be proud of the achievements of African-Americans, regardless of what party they are from or what their background is," he said.

Now if they could just communicate that message to the Tan Klan members of their party who throw Oreos at Steele and refer to him with racist epithets, simply because Steele has the independence to think for himself.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Maryland Democrats are recognizing Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele – the presumptive GOP Senate nominee – in their celebration of Black History Month.

The Maryland Democratic Party has been relentless in criticizing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for U.S. Senate, but party officials say that won't stop them from paying homage to the conservative Republican during Black History Month.

"Michael Steele is an important figure in African-American history in Maryland. There is no question about it," said Derek Walker, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

"We should be proud of the achievements of African-Americans, regardless of what party they are from or what their background is," he said.

Now if they could just communicate that message to the Tan Klan members of their party who throw Oreos at Steele and refer to him with racist epithets, simply because Steele has the independence to think for himself.

Posted by: Greg at 02:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

From the Washington Post.

Bush all but ignored many black civil rights and political leaders during his first four years in office. Instead, he focused on building inroads to African American leaders through the pastors of black evangelical churches and business leaders who were not identified with the traditional civil rights agenda.
Bush became the first president since Herbert Hoover to serve a full term without addressing the NAACP, which many acknowledge as the nation's leading civil rights organization. At the same time, Bush's relations with the Congressional Black Caucus were frosty, contributing to a growing gulf between the administration and black voters.

Given the way the NAACP trashed George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign, why would he want to meet with its leaders or address the group? Given the complicity of many black leaders with Al GoreÂ’s attempt to steal the Florida election with demonstrably false claims of black disenfranchisement, why wouldnÂ’t he choose to ignore the entire dishonorable lot of them? Given the implacable opposition of the CBC to the Bush agenda, what good could have come of reaching out to the group? In the case of each of the jilted parties, it was their own actions which resulted in the marginalization. Plus there have been other, more pressing matters to be dealt with during the Bush presidency, matters of greater import than reaching out to the self-important group of foes who would have never responded to his efforts with a spirit of openness. So instead he bypassed the establishment an went to the grassroots for support of policies that were aimed at dealing with real problems rather than historical grievances.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

SteelersÂ’ great Lynn Swann certainly got a great reception from the crowd at the Pittsburgh SteelersÂ’ victory celebration in the Steel City.

Lynn Swann was just speaking at the Steelers victory celebration in Pittsburgh (Rendell is in attendance). He was interrupted by the crowd chanting GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR! He actually had to stop the crowd and remind them that today is just about the glorious Steeler Super bowl victory !

It is a GREAT day in the 'burgh!

And he should get the GOP endorsement this Saturday – making him pretty near unstoppable in the GOP primary as he heads towards a showdown with Gov. Ed Rendell in November.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.

If you are a former member of the House of Representatives who is engaged in the legal business of lobbying, you cannot use the House gym, come on the House floor, or exercise any of the other privileges accorded to former House members.

But if you are convicted of a felony related to official misconduct, you still can.

Former Rep. Tom Bliley (R-Va.), a powerful gavel-swinger at the Commerce Committee in the late 1990s, is no fan of new House rules that prevent lobbyists who were lawmakers from stalking the floor during votes or using the chamberÂ’s gym.

The new rule looks more favorably on former members who are convicted felons, such as Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), than former members who are registered lobbyists, Bliley complained in a hallway outside the House chamber last week.

Bliley, who often visits the House floor, said he used to use the gym frequently and attends events of the Chowder and Marching Club — the House Republican “secret society” — near the Speaker’s suite of offices.

“To show you how stupid it is, when he gets out of prison Traficant ... will be able to use the gym as a former member because he’s not a lobbyist,” Bliley said.

Indeed, said one House source familiar with the situation, Traficant’s privileges remain intact, as do those of former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), who just resigned amid a graft scandal. “I don’t believe it was really raised as an issue,” given the lengthy prison terms both men face, said the source.

Many of Bliley’s old colleagues agree. Several lamented the new rules in a Cannon House Office Building washroom just a few feet from where Republicans were voting on a new majority leader last week. One suggested dumping the rule as soon as possible — perhaps this session.

Dumping the rules would be a great idea – both because of the failure to sanction criminal former members of the body, and because the changed rules do nothing substantive to avoid corruption. Feel-good "reforms" that provide no real reform are not hte answer to official corruption -- prosecution is.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Kathleen Blanco, the incompetent Governor of Louisiana, is now giving ultimatums top the President and the rest of the Federal Government – “Do it my way or face my wrath!”

Gov. Kathleen Blanco kicked off a history-making special session of the Legislature Monday evening at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center with a forceful message to the federal government and state lawmakers to support her levee board and housing programs for hurricane recovery.

In what was widely seen as the sharpest speech of her beleaugured political career since Hurricane Katrina, Blanco admonished President Bush for dodging LouisianaÂ’s requests for aid while announcing an ultimatum to the federal government to give Louisiana a larger share of oil and gas royalites from offshore drilling or face a roadblock to future exploration in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

“If no effort is made to guarantee our fair share of royalties, I have warned the federal government that we will be forced to block the August sale of offshore oil and gas leases,” Blanco said. “It’s time to play hardball, as I believe that’s the only game Washington understands.”

The governor has limited administrative ability to stop the leases, but since such an action has never been taken it is unclear how authoritative her blockage might be. The state receives only a fraction of the annual $5 billion in federal royalties.

Go ahead and try, Kathleen – we would love the opportunity to paint the resulting energy crisis as the work of corrupt and greedy Democrats more interested in lining their own pockets (a Louisiana tradition, we all know) rather than the good of the nation. It might, in fact, be sufficient to get the American people to take you and your state off the dole entirely. You can then fix up your trashy state and tacky city with your own dough. And by the way – those of us here in Houston would be more than happy to put your criminals back onto buses and return them to you.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m not a fan of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I believe the man to have been a pox upon the Presidency. I believe that Hillary is a hypocrite who betrayed her own feminist principles by achieving power the old-fashioned way – by sleeping with a powerful man rather than earning it on her own merits.

That said, I must also say that my objection to the pair is strictly political, not personal. I bear them no personal ill will, for all that I object to them politically.

And so I am pleased to see this gossipy article, and hope that the analysis is accurate.

The state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's union is apparently strong - at least judging by the mongo diamond that Hillary was sporting on her ring finger yesterday.
Sources say the former President quietly gave the iceberg-sized bling - thought to exceed 3 carats - to his wife months ago, in advance of their 30th wedding anniversary on Oct. 11 last year.
But the sparkling stunner is so big that the former First Lady has been nervous about wearing it and hasn't broken it out of her jewelry box on a regular basis until recently.
The big bauble was on full display yesterday, when the junior senator visited University Settlement, an outreach center on the lower East Side, to talk about cuts to early childhood education proposed by President Bush.
"It was a gift from her husband," was all Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley would say.
Of course, it hasn't always been a bed of roses for the Clintons.
After the former President confessed in 1998 to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 book, "Living History," "I felt nothing but profound sadness, disappointment and unresolved anger."
"I could barely speak to Bill," she wrote of the family's summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard in 1998. "And when I did, it was a tirade. I read. I walked on the beach. He slept upstairs and I slept downstairs."
But those days are apparently over - just in time for Valentine's Day next week.

The personal and the political are two separate things for me. I felt a lot of compassion for Hillary Clinton during Monica-gate, because no one should have to go through such a terrible betrayal, much less in the glare of the lights of news cameras. I felt genuine concern for Bill Clinton during his illness a couple of years ago. And so I am pleased by the apparent reconciliation between these two powerful Democrats – because everyone, regardless of politics, deserves to love and be loved. Call me a romantic.

And so it is my hope that they may have many more years together – happy years filled with love for one another.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m not a fan of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I believe the man to have been a pox upon the Presidency. I believe that Hillary is a hypocrite who betrayed her own feminist principles by achieving power the old-fashioned way – by sleeping with a powerful man rather than earning it on her own merits.

That said, I must also say that my objection to the pair is strictly political, not personal. I bear them no personal ill will, for all that I object to them politically.

And so I am pleased to see this gossipy article, and hope that the analysis is accurate.

The state of Bill and Hillary Clinton's union is apparently strong - at least judging by the mongo diamond that Hillary was sporting on her ring finger yesterday.
Sources say the former President quietly gave the iceberg-sized bling - thought to exceed 3 carats - to his wife months ago, in advance of their 30th wedding anniversary on Oct. 11 last year.
But the sparkling stunner is so big that the former First Lady has been nervous about wearing it and hasn't broken it out of her jewelry box on a regular basis until recently.
The big bauble was on full display yesterday, when the junior senator visited University Settlement, an outreach center on the lower East Side, to talk about cuts to early childhood education proposed by President Bush.
"It was a gift from her husband," was all Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Hanley would say.
Of course, it hasn't always been a bed of roses for the Clintons.
After the former President confessed in 1998 to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 book, "Living History," "I felt nothing but profound sadness, disappointment and unresolved anger."
"I could barely speak to Bill," she wrote of the family's summer vacation on Martha's Vineyard in 1998. "And when I did, it was a tirade. I read. I walked on the beach. He slept upstairs and I slept downstairs."
But those days are apparently over - just in time for Valentine's Day next week.

The personal and the political are two separate things for me. I felt a lot of compassion for Hillary Clinton during Monica-gate, because no one should have to go through such a terrible betrayal, much less in the glare of the lights of news cameras. I felt genuine concern for Bill Clinton during his illness a couple of years ago. And so I am pleased by the apparent reconciliation between these two powerful Democrats – because everyone, regardless of politics, deserves to love and be loved. Call me a romantic.

And so it is my hope that they may have many more years together – happy years filled with love for one another.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didn’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasn’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that such rhetoric has become so common among Leftists that it does not even get covered by the major media.

When the US didnÂ’t capture Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, it wasnÂ’t by mistake, Congressman Maurice Hinchey of Hurley theorized.

Instead, Hinchey said the Administration had a motive for not capturing him. “Why did we do that? The only logical answer that comes to mind is they didn’t want to capture Bin Laden because if they captured Bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq,” he said.

Hinchey is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who he says lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.

In a different time – during WWII, for example, under Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – such rhetoric would have earned one a jail cell for undermining the war effort. Maybe we have not become the dictatorship that the Left claims we have.

Posted by: Greg at 01:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

National Review has come down on the same side of the issue that I have in the race between ersatz Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee and Cranston Mayor Steven Laffey.

Even if Laffey were to win the primary but lose the general election, beating Chafee would send a helpful message to the kind of Republican who thinks Chafee's "independence" is something to admire and emulate. (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine come to mind.) That message: that Republican voters will not be taken for granted just because they are in the minority in their state. Then there's the tantalizing possibility that Laffey might actually win both the primary and the general election. It's a chance worth taking. What do conservatives have to lose? The worst possible outcome is only that Rhode Islanders will trade a virtual Democrat for a real one.

So show Laffey some love, and send some cash his way.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

Now let me begin with the observation that I defended Cindy Sheehan's arrest on Tuesday, a position that I believe to be consistent with what I am about to say. I believe the arrest -- and the eviction of the more cooperative Mrs. Young -- were both legally and constitutionally defensible. After all, courts have long recognized that the government may impose legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions on speech without running afoul of the expansive language of the First Amendment. Try, for example, to engage in free speech about the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a courtroom during a trial -- you will find yourself in cuffs faster than you can say "contempt of court".

At the same time, I think the policy on political speech -- at least as regards t-shirts -- is absurd. So did someone on Capitol Hill -- the rule was changed, but no one told the cops.

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T-shirts," Gainer's statement said.

As a result, charges have been droppped against the Ditch Bitch and apologies have been issued to both her and Mrs. Young. But I think the policy was defensible, despite the claims by some folks that the Supreme Court decision in Cohens v. California some 3 1/2 decades ago should have settled the matter. In that case, the offending profanity ("Fuck the Draft") had only been visible in the hallway -- Mr. Cohens had folded the jacket so it could not be seen prior to entering the courtroom. The justices noted that the expansive right to free speech might not have protected that expression in the courtroom, where it was more likely to disrupt the proceedings -- and one could analogize that ruling (and others expressly permitting time, place, and manner restrictions on speech) to the case at hand, where a shirt permissible in the Rotunda might be inappropriate in the Gallery, especially during a televised address to the nation.

But I think such the arrest was a bad idea -- as was the removal of Mrs. Young and at least one other individual. Captain Ed puts it very well, and I want to echo his position.

I suspect that CQ readers will disagree with me on this one, but I concur with Gainer. Neither woman should have been arrested or made to leave the gallery on the basis of their t-shirts, especially at a public event like the SOTU speech. I don't think that the two women had equivalent standing, nor do I think that Mrs. Young's t-shirt would have been as potentially distracting as Mrs. Sheehan's. However, the point is that as long as both women behaved themselves, their t-shirts would have had no disruptive effect on the speech. Yes, I know that there is a tradition of restraint in the gallery, but politicians of both parties make extensive use of those guest passes for political purposes during SOTU speeches. Every president in the television age put people up there that they used to emphasize major points of their speech, and no one barks about that exploitation of the gallery.

When I first heard that Sheehan had been arrested, the reports said that she had attempted to unfurl a banner in the gallery. That kind of action certainly would have justified the removal of Sheehan from the gallery but hardly qualified as a criminal act, especially under the amorphous terms of "unlawful conduct." Having to face charges for wearing a t-shift with a slogan on it is flat-out ridiculous. What laws does that "conduct" break? And since when have we become so fragile that the wearing of a protest t-shirt become so unsettling?

Both women should have reconsidered their wardrobe for the speech. However, a fashion crime should not equate to police action, and arresting someone for wearing a dumb t-shirt should not happen in America.

This is exactly right. While the mode of dress of these individuals is indicative of the breakdown of decorum that exists in contemporary society, the conduct did not rise to the level of the criminal. And while I have no doubt that Mrs. Sheehan was going to engage in a disruption of the speech (frankly, I think the Secret Service should have objected to the loony lefty's presence in the Gallery given her rhetoric and conduct), she had done nothing meriting suspicion (though I suppose the arrest could possibly be justified on the grounds of her failure to cooperate with security).

Mark in Mexico notes this little detail about Mrs. Sheehan's missive to her fellow moonbats.

She says, "I am speechless with fury at what happened . . ." and then proceeds to speak for another 18 paragraphs, 57 sentences.

She says, "I did not wear it (a protest T-shirt under her jacket) to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech." She could not have unzipped it during the president's speech because she was arrested 45 minutes before the speech started.

She says that as she was being fingerprinted, "That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights." Her son Casey was killed April 4, 2004 in Iraq. Her activities, from the protests outside the Crawford ranch all last summer to last week's appearence with Hugo Chavez and his stooge Harry Belafonte where she called George Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and "10 times worse than bin Laden" have been well documented. But, she just then (last night) realized her loss?

My response to Mark is this -- the Ditch Bitch is a self-obsessed narcissist who never learned a basic lesson taught in every astronomy class (an understood by mentally healthy individuals) -- "the Earth revolves around the Sun, not around Uranus".

On the othe hand, maybe some time in jail would have allowed Mama Moonbat to get the psychological help she really needs. She is, after all, a rather sad, pathetic character who has clearly lost contact with realit following the death of her son. Folks on the Left should be ashamed to use her as they do.

UPDATE: My buddy Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey points out that Sheehan as much as admits that the purpose of the shirt WAS, in fact, to grab the cameras and thus engage in a political demonstration in the Gallery. He also asks a great question.

Well, it seems Cindy Sheehan wanted to make "a scene" at the State of the Union Address after all. In her latest Daily Kos entry, she admits as much, although some have zeroed in on the fact that she was "merely hot" and just wanted some relief (she thus exposed the "protest" T-shirt she had on). While the Kos entry does mention she "was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs" and hence unzipped her jacket, she goes on to note

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on.

The debate over free expression is a good one here. Some have argued that Sheehan's 1st Amendment rights were violated (she herself says she is filing a lawsuit ... hey, if she didn't it wouldn't be America after all, eh?) whereas others have stated that it wasn't the time and place to protest. If, for example, Sheehan was allowed to wear such a shirt for that event, why wouldn't she be "within her rights" to take the microphone from President Bush to rebut him after each point he made? Where is the line drawn? And is a dress code a violation of free speech rights in this case?

An interesting issue indeed.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1487 words, total size 10 kb.

She caused a disturbance – she got arrested. Why should that come as a shock to anyone?

Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night after demonstrating in the spectators gallery of the House of Representatives as part of a larger war protest that was held outside the Capitol.

Sheehan, who was apparently given a gallery ticket by a member of Congress, began to attract notice about 30 minutes to an hour before President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

Now lest you think this was a politically motivated arrest on the part of Capitol police, consider that Sheehan was not the only spectator removed from the gallery over a “message shirt” regarding the war in Iraq.

The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn't a protest but a message of support.

In other words, it was not simply a question of who Sheehan was or the content of her message – it was a broad, general policy respecting time and place. But the moonbats will not mention Mrs. Young’s experience.

Not that this is even a new policy, as Drudge points out, and was used to shield Bill Clinton from criticism in 1999.

The Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said at the time that he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told "several people felt threatened by your shirt."

Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn't let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. "They were polite and professional," Delp added, "but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up."

So you see, there really is not much of a story here – a clear and consistent policy was clearly and consistently enforced in an even-handed manner. Sheehan was arrested only because she refused to comply with the directions of those charged with enforcing the policy. Not every location is a public forum.

OTHERS WRITING:
Michelle Malkin, Say Anything, Generation Why?, GOP and College, The Jawa Report, Oblogatory Anecdotes, A Blog for All, Cam Edwards, Patterico, Tammy Bruce, Sister Toldjah

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 599 words, total size 5 kb.