Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is an arrogant nutjob. That seems to be a plus for her Georgia constituents, who seem to find those qualities to be a plus. As a member of Congress -- more to the point, a female African-American Democrat member of Congress -- she manages to get away with a certain amount of misconduct that most of us would never be permitted.

But this woman went well over the line yesterday.

Why she was allowed to walk away is beyond me -- and why there have been no sharges filed and no arrest made is absolutely beyond me.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney and a police officer scuffled Wednesday after the Georgia Democrat entered a House office building unrecognized and refused to stop when asked, according to U.S. Capitol Police.

McKinney, a sixth-term congresswoman who represents suburban Atlanta, struck the officer according to one account, a police official said, adding there were conflicting accounts. The officer, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the incident, spoke only on condition of anonymity.

No charges were filed, police said.

McKinney issued a statement Wednesday night saying she regretted the confrontation.

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now," she said.

Oh bullshit, bitch! If you really supported the Capitol Hill Police, you would have complied with a reasonable request that could have been made of any American citizen -- and of any member of Congress. You would not have "scuffled" with the cop, which is a violation of criminal law right there -- a law you and your colleagues passed. And you certainly would not have hit the officer, which would have earned most Americans a ride in a squad car and a huge legal bill, along with jail time.

And you certainly would not have forgotten that one of these guys died to protect you and your colleagues a few years ago, so that is why the security has been ramped-up for several years.

Members of Congress do not have to walk through metal detectors as they enter buildings on the Capitol complex. They wear lapel pins identifying them as members.

McKinney routinely doesn't wear her pin and is recognized by many officers, the police official said, adding that she wasn't wearing it when she entered a House office building early Wednesday.

By one police account, she walked around a metal detector and an officer asked her several times to stop. When she did not, the officer tried to stop her, and she then struck the officer, according to that account.

So she doesn't wear her identification, and tries to go around the security. One would damn well hope she would be stopped!

In her statement, McKinney said most members of Congress expect Capitol police to recognize them. "I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued," she said. "I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID."

Yeah -- and if they do not recognize you, they are going to stop you and they are going to demand identification. Who are you to object, you arrogant moron? And more to the point, who are you to lay hands on an officer?

Not that this is the first time that Her Majesty The Congresswoman has objected that she is not immediately recognized by everyone, and that they have not genuflected in the presence of her sublime personage.

Not being recognized is apparently something of an issue for Rep. Cynthia McKinney , as a Capitol Police officer discovered yesterday.

In 1998, the outspoken Georgia Democrat wrote a scathing letter to President Bill Clinton accusing White House guards of racism after they failed to recognize her when she arrived for an event. For years, the Hill newspaper reported in 2002, Capitol Police kept a photo of her posted in a basement office to warn security officers against committing any other such embarrassment.

Maybe it's time to change the photo. The police department is investigating a bizarre scuffle yesterday morning between McKinney and an officer who tried to stop her at a congressional office building checkpoint after apparently failing to realize she was a member of Congress.

McKinney allegedly "stabbed" the officer with her cellphone when he grabbed her, said a police source who requested anonymity because the investigation had just begun; the officer, whom the source did not identify, is considering whether to file criminal charges. The source said the officer was not seriously injured.

* * *

How on earth did this all come to pass? Could it be the officer didn't recognize her after her recent makeover? The 51-year-old recently ditched her trademark braids for a softer, full-bodied do that started turning heads around her suburban Georgia district in January.

So apparently she doesn't even look much like her photos since she had the makeover.

This woman needs to be treated like every other American. Capitol Hill Police need to appear in her office. They need to cuff her. They need to get her out to a police car and stuff her. And in the process, they need to rough her up, just as would happen to anyone else who assaults a cop.

And then her colleagues need to expel her from the House of Representatives for conduct unbecoming a member.

Though I doubt that such a course of action would keep her constituents from reelecting her in a district designed to keep her coming back.

And for any liberal who objects to my words -- what would be your response if this were my congressman, Tom DeLay? My response would not change -- but I also believe that he would not do anything like this.

MORE AT GOPBloggers, Captain's Quarters, Radio Equalizer, Delusional Duck, Chainik Hocker, Slobokan, College Conservative Movement, Lunch Counter, Michelle Malkin, Right Winged, Uncooperative Blogger, Suitably Flip, Wizbang, Iowa Voice, Rolling Barrage Mind in the Qatar, Decision '08

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1053 words, total size 8 kb.

Left-wing loon Jim McDermott is know for going to foreign countries to make treasonous statements in support of our nation's enemies. Democrats, of course, call this "dissent" and label it "the highest form of patriotism".

Fine. I won't get into that political question with them.

But will they at least act against their law-breaking colleague after he has been slapped down twice by courts for breaking federal law on wiretapping?

federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. Jim McDermott violated federal law by turning over an illegally taped telephone call to reporters nearly a decade ago.

In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott violated the rights of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was heard on the 1996 call involving then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

The court ordered McDermott to pay Boehner more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and at least $600,000 in legal costs.

McDermott, D-Wash., has acknowledged leaking a tape of a 1996 cell phone call involving Gingrich to The New York Times and other news organizations.

The call included discussion by Gingrich and other House GOP leaders about a House ethics committee investigation of Gingrich. Boehner was a Gingrich lieutenant at the time and is now House majority leader.

* * *

McDermott was never charged with a criminal offense, but Boehner later filed a lawsuit accusing McDermott of violating state and federal wiretapping laws. A federal judge ruled in Boehner's favor in 2004, a ruling that was upheld Tuesday by the appeals court.

"Because there was no genuine dispute that Representative McDermott knew the Martins had illegally intercepted the conversation, he did not lawfully obtain the tape from them," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in an opinion shared by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

In other words, the Clinton "Justice" Department (a misnomer if there ever was one) refused to prosecute a clear violation of the law against one of their important partisan allies. It took one of the victims filing a civil suit against McDermott to get any justice -- and this unethical little weasel still does not admit his own wrong-doing.

I'll just ask one question -- would Democrats be so passive on this matter if the law-breaker in this case had been Tom Delay, and the illegal recording had been of Democrats? I think we all know the answer.

Oh, and what does this say about Democrat opposition to undeniably illegal domestic spying?

MORE AT: Lifelike Pundits, Danger Management, Darth Dilbert, Freedom Eden, Liberally Conservative, GOPBloggers, Slobokan, Gay Patriot, Iowa Voice, Michelle Malkin, RedState

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 456 words, total size 4 kb.

If you think that the theft of private property for private development under the guise of eminent domain was outrageous, wait until you see this one. A city in New York is looking to steal an exclusive private golf club with members from around the country – to turn it into an exclusive, publicly-owned private golf club for city residents only.

he mayor of North Hills wants to use the power of government to condemn Deepdale--whose members are a diverse group of people from all over the country and around the world--to make it an exclusive high-end golf course restricted to people who live in his small village and would be willing to pay thousands of dollars in yearly membership fees. The model is said to be the nearby Village Club of Sands Point, which is owned by that village. There you not only have to pay village taxes but membership dues to join. A full family membership at the Sands Point club costs $18,000 a year. If this is indeed the model for Deepdale, the club would become "public" in name only but in truth would be every bit as exclusive as any private club.

The mayor even went on television twice recently to brag about his plan. He told WNBC reporter Greg Cergol that turning Deepdale into "a village golf course exclusively for the village residents" would be a nice "amenity" for them. According to the reporter, the mayor explained that "his goal" is "to turn Deepdale into a private club for his village's 5,000 residents." And he told Channel 12's Bill Mooney that his plan would "increase property values"--private property values--in North Hills.

It is time to rein-in the expansive power of government to take property, lest private property ownership becomes nothing more than a legal fiction.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Unfortunately, he wasn’t seeking freedom for Cubans – he was calling for the overthrow of the American government. The oppressive Castro regime is just fine with him.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan called for "regime change" in the United States on Monday and denounced "wicked" U.S. policies for turning the world against America.

"We need a new government, we need regime change in America," he said at the end of a visit to Communist Cuba.

Farrakhan, who led the Million Man March on the Washington Mall in 1995 to promote black self-reliance, said the Bush administration's domestic policies were "sucking the blood of the poor and the weak."

IÂ’ve got a suggestion on what you can suck, Louie.

The controversial African American leader defended Iran's right to develop a nuclear energy program to reduce dependence on oil and said Washington's opposition was a pretext for a war.

"The Muslim world should unite against America's desire for a preemptive strike against Iran and Syria," he said at a news conference.

Farrakhan said a similar pretext was used by Washington to invade Iraq "to rape the treasuries of the United States of hundreds of billions of dollars to be doled out to the friends of President Bush, Halliburton and Bechtel and associates."

IÂ’d suggest Bush Derangement Syndrome, but he was making similar comments decades before anyone head of George W. Bush.

He thanked President Fidel Castro and blasted the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba as a "wicked blockade." The U.S. government has no moral grounds to criticize Cuba, where education and health care are free, he added.

Education is provided by the government in this country, you moron, and health care is denied to no one due to generous government programs.

I’ve got an idea, though – since Calypso Louie, who murdered Malcolm X, thinks Cuba is such a fine place, why don’t we arrest him and throw him into a jail for criticizing the government once he returns. After all, that is what his hero, Fidel, would do to a Cuban who spoke so disrespectfully of him. But then again, that is why this ignorant fool makes such statements about our country – there is no personal cost to doing so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

There are times when mere politics need to be set aside. This is one of them.

Erma Ora James Byrd, 88, the wife of U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) died March 25 at their home in McLean. The cause of death was not immediately available, but the Associated Press said she had been ill for five years.

The senator's Web site said she grew up in the West Virginia coal fields and met the future senator when both were students in grade school in Raleigh County, W.Va.

They were married May 29, 1937, when both were 19, according to the site.

At the time of their 65th wedding anniversary in 2002, the senator said that "in my life, Erma Ora Byrd is the diamond. She is a priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense."

She once said in a newspaper interview that she left politics to her husband. "The people elected him, not me," she said.

The account on the Web site described a couple who "came up the hard way."

It said that their first refrigerator was part of an orange crate nailed to the side of their home and that in their early years, "they spent many hours at square dances and community events, where Robert would play his fiddle and Erma would dance."

In addition to her husband, survivors include two daughters, five grandchildren and six great-grandchildren.

Senator Byrd, I have opposed you on many things over the years, but in this one I stand by your side. The loss of a loved one, especially of a companion of so many years, is a a deep and difficult pain to the heart of even the most sprit-filled of individuals. I would like to offer my condolences in this time.

Please know that you and your family are in my prayers as you face this loss, and that it is my profound hope and faith that the Lord will pour out his healing graces upon you all.

Lord, eternal rest grant unto your servant, Erma Ora Byrd, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace. Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

But only after endorsing him, despite knowing of his support for terrorism against Israel.

Democrats pulled an Arab-American candidate from their election ticket on Saturday amid a furor over comments he made four years ago that some interpreted as sympathetic to Palestinian suicide bombers.

At the urging of state party leaders, including Gov. Jon S. Corzine and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, Passaic County Democrats withdrew its endorsement of Sami Merhi for freeholder, a member of the county's legislative body. They chose a school board member to run in his place.

"I'm in shock, feeling betrayed," Merhi said. "They should be ashamed of themselves."

The Lebanese-born Merhi made the comments at a September 2002 Democratic fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, where he condemned the Sept. 11 terrorists "as cold-blooded murders" and "crazy fanatics."

When asked whether he would apply the same label to Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israelis, Merhi said, "I can't see the comparison."

From what I can tell, the real reason Merhi opposed the 9/11 attack was that his godson, who worked at the World Trade Center, died at Ground Zero. I feel reasonably confident he would be a part of the "you have to understand the grievances" crowd had he not lost family that day.

What is shocking is that this terror-backer feels he is the one who has been victimized here.

Mehri indicates he may run in the primary without an endorsement, or he may sek theRepublican nomination for the position. Speaking as a Republican, I'd like to say that he is not welcome in my party, any more than David Duke was welcome. I don't doubt that national party leaders will show up in Jersey to campaign against him if he does attempt to befoul our party by seeking our noimination.

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

This letter is certainly a damning one, coming as it does from a historian and former service secretary. Should we take it seriously, and abandon our support for the President?

I recently ran across the text of a letter, penned by liberal historian and former Secretary of the U.S. Navy George Bancroft, about the president of the U.S.

In it, he wrote: "How can we reach our president with advice? He is ignorant, self-willed, and is surrounded by men, some of whom are almost as ignorant as himself.

"So we have the dilemma put to us. What to do when his power must continue for two years longer and when the existence of our country may be endangered before he can be replaced by a man of sense. How hard, in order to save the country, to sustain a man who is incompetent."

If your response is that even his allies should abandon him, given his incompetence, you would certainly change history.

After all, the "man who is incompetent" is not George W. Bush -- it is Abraham Lincoln.

Reviled by enemies -- and even by allies -- in his lifetime, Lincoln is generally remembered as one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever had, regardless of his flaws and errors. I can point to other presidents similarly reviled -- Jefferson, Truman, Reagan -- who are seen today as men of vision and (if not greatness) high achievement.

So remember -- George W. Bush is in good company.

Posted by: Greg at 06:14 AM | Comments (79) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

The New York Times does an interesting profile of the next United States Senator from Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. The personal biographical information on the man is compelling.

Open and personable, Steele had a prominent speaking role at the Republican convention in 2004, and by the following spring the Republican hierarchy was trying to coax him into the Senate race. The field was kept clear. Money was promised. It didn't matter that Steele lacked some of the attributes typical of a candidate running for high office. He was not a proven vote-getter, having ridden to victory as the running mate of Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a popular congressman from outside Baltimore who became the state's first Republican governor elected in 36 years. Steele, who is 47, had no personal fortune to offer up to the cause, no campaign war chest. He had been an associate in a law firm, then left that job to open a consulting firm that struggled.

What Steele had to offer, as a candidate, was personal biography, his inspiring life story: childhood in a poor section of Washington; college at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; then three years studying for the priesthood at a monastery, where he wore the long white tunic of the Augustinian order before deciding that his call to service lay elsewhere. His mother had worked in a laundry, making the minimum wage; his stepfather drove a limo. His parents weren't educated themselves, but they valued learning and made sure the homework in their household got done. Steele's only sibling is Monica Turner, a Georgetown-educated pediatrician (as well as an ex-wife of Mike Tyson, the former heavyweight champ).

The thing is, the article never seems to realize that it answers the question found in its title, "Why is Michael Steele a Republican Candidate?" It talks about a philosophy of self-reliance, pro-live policies, a focus on family, on faith, and on exonomic opportunity, but never wants to accept that these are, in fact, the reason for Steele's finding a home in the Republican party. It talks about his outreach to Democrats (especially black Democrats) as if that is somehow a negative, when it is the ultimate positive.

I'd have to say that the article is worth the read, and reasonably fair -- especially given the source.

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

The sound you just heard was another door being slammed in the face of leftoids seeking to destroy Tom DeLay with corruption allegations.

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff has advised friends that he has no derogatory information about former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and is not implicating him as part of his plea bargain with federal prosecutors.

Abramoff's guilty plea on fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy charges requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress. That led to speculation that this would mean trouble for DeLay, who faces money laundering and conspiracy charges in Texas.

However, Abramoff has not given a clean bill of health to any other congressman -- including Rep. Robert Ney, who has stepped down as chairman of the House Administration Committee. Ney was the only member of Congress named in court papers connected with Abramoff's guilty plea Jan. 4.

You just have to feel for these folks as they try to destroy my congressman -- every time they turn around they run into these little obstacles. Unethical prosecutorial conduct. Charges that are invalid. Lack of evidence. Why, its almost enough to make a guy want to chip in to get them some Thorazine to tame their dementia.

Almost.

MORE AT: GOPBloggers, Big Lizards

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

This is interesting – and really disturbing.

A prominent Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, is alleging that the authors of a Harvard Kennedy School paper about the "Israel lobby," one of which is the Kennedy School's academic dean, culled sections of the paper from neo-Nazi and other anti-Israel hate Web sites.

"What we're discovering first of all is that the quotes that they use are not only wrenched out of context, but they are the common quotes that appear on hate sites," Mr. Dershowitz, who is identified in the paper as part of the "lobby," told The New York Sun yesterday.

"The wrenching out of context is done by the hate sites,and then [the authors] cite them to the original sources, in order to disguise the fact that they've gotten them from hate sites."

The paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," was written by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and a political science professor and the codirector of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, and published by the Kennedy School.

In the 83-page "working paper," the professors suggest that a vast network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq.

The paper has drawn sharp criticism from prominent Harvard faculty, Harvard students, and a member of Congress, with many critics alleging that the document is riddled with factual inaccuracies and suffers from bias and faulty research.

According to Mr. Dershowitz, one of the paper's most prominent critics, Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt not only demonstrated "shallowness" in their analysis,but also based that analysis on quotes and viewpoints widely available on the Web sites of hate groups.

The paper, the law professor said, was "simply a compilation of hateful paragraphs lifted from other sources and given academic imprimatur." Mr. Dershowitz said that he and his research assistants were currently working on a comparative chart showing the parallelism between parts of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper and quotes available on neo-Nazi Web sites.

I can’t wait to see the full results of the analysis, which already appears to show that Jew-hatred is at the heart of much of what passes for “scholarship” on issues related to Israel and the Middle East.

Posted by: Greg at 12:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

We are getting reports of Vice President Cheney’s “demands” when he travels. Tell me, is there anything in this for folks to get worked up about?

At least that was the evidence from "Vice Presidential Downtime Requirements," the heading of a document posted Thursday on the Smoking Gun Web site and confirmed as authentic by Mr. Cheney's office.

The document listed 13 requirements. Among them were these: All televisions sets in Mr. Cheney's hotel suite should be tuned to Fox News, all lights should be on, and the thermostat set at 68 degrees. Mr. Cheney should have a queen- or king-size bed, a desk with a chair, a private bathroom, a container for ice, a microwave oven and a coffee pot, with decaf brewed before arrival.

The vice president should also have four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite and four to six bottles of water. He must have the hotel restaurant menu, with a copy faxed ahead to his advance office. If his wife is with him, she should have two bottles of sparkling water, either Calistoga or Perrier.

For his reading material, Mr. Cheney should have The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper.

Hmmm… the man wants a comfortable room in which he can work, simple amenities, and a few favorite refreshments that are consistent with his health needs. He wants to be able to plan for a heart-healthy diet at mealtime. He wants access to current mainstream news sources, including the up-to-the-minute convenience of Fox News, since his job requires he be up-to-date on domestic and world affairs. Oh, the unreasonableness of it all!

At least if you view the world through the eyes of a sufferer of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

We are getting reports of Vice President Cheney’s “demands” when he travels. Tell me, is there anything in this for folks to get worked up about?

At least that was the evidence from "Vice Presidential Downtime Requirements," the heading of a document posted Thursday on the Smoking Gun Web site and confirmed as authentic by Mr. Cheney's office.

The document listed 13 requirements. Among them were these: All televisions sets in Mr. Cheney's hotel suite should be tuned to Fox News, all lights should be on, and the thermostat set at 68 degrees. Mr. Cheney should have a queen- or king-size bed, a desk with a chair, a private bathroom, a container for ice, a microwave oven and a coffee pot, with decaf brewed before arrival.

The vice president should also have four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite and four to six bottles of water. He must have the hotel restaurant menu, with a copy faxed ahead to his advance office. If his wife is with him, she should have two bottles of sparkling water, either Calistoga or Perrier.

For his reading material, Mr. Cheney should have The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and the local newspaper.

HmmmÂ… the man wants a comfortable room in which he can work, simple amenities, and a few favorite refreshments that are consistent with his health needs. He wants to be able to plan for a heart-healthy diet at mealtime. He wants access to current mainstream news sources, including the up-to-the-minute convenience of Fox News, since his job requires he be up-to-date on domestic and world affairs. Oh, the unreasonableness of it all!

At least if you view the world through the eyes of a sufferer of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by: Greg at 12:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Strangely enough, I donÂ’t hear anyone in the Democrat Party calling for resignations or imprisonment, as they do regularly with Tom DeLay. I guess it is because they are members of the right (and by that I mean Left) party.

Let's start in the state of Misery . . . uhhh. . . Missouri.

A political committee dedicated to helping Democrats win seats in the Missouri House must pay a $104,000 state fine for financial misconduct during the 2002 elections.

The fine, one of the largest ever levied by the Missouri Ethics Commission, stems from an admission by the House Democratic Campaign Committee that it mixed its money with another committee, came under the control of a candidate for office and failed to properly report donations and spending in support of candidates.

In addition to the committee, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis and a former House member, must pay a $600 fine for his involvement with the committee's practices.

The fines are the result of an internal investigation, said Robert Connor, executive director of the Ethics Commission. Additional fines are possible, Connor said.

In addition to Carnahan and the committee, the statement of facts that accompanied the fine said former lawmaker Bill Gratz of Jefferson City and Team Missouri, a committee that commingled funds with the Democratic campaign committee, also violated campaign finance laws.

Both the Democratic committee and Team Missouri are considered continuing committees under Missouri law, which means they are not established to elect any single candidate.

And also this, from Maine (and Rhode Island).

Former Democratic Party Chairman Patrick Colwell owes Maine voters an explanation.

Colwell resigned Sunday, several months before the end of his two-year term and just weeks after news broke of a highly questionable series of transactions involving campaign funds.

On Dec. 31, Maine's Democratic Party gave $10,000 to the campaign of Matt Brown, a Democrat from Rhode Island who is running for the U.S. Senate.

Two weeks later, the Maine Democrats received $6,000 from Richard Bready, a Rhode Island businessman who supports Brown and had already given the maximum donation to him under Rhode Island law.

Bready also gave $5,000 to the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and $6,000 to the Democratic Party in Hawaii. Both organizations also gave money to Brown's campaign.

In all, Brown received $25,000 in donations from the Democratic Party state organizations in those three states -- money that has since been returned.
Federal election laws prohibit money exchanges made to avoid campaign donation limits. The flow of money from Maine to Rhode Island and back appears to be exactly that type of transaction.

Dem corruption – its all around us. But don't expect any real punishment, because honesty is optional for Donks.

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

Rabid Legislator Alert!

State Police are investigating an allegation that state Sen. Ada Smith, D-Queens, assaulted a staffer Tuesday morning in the Legislative Office Building.

Lt. Glenn Miner, a State Police spokesman, confirmed "we've been made aware of the allegations" but could not comment on the specifics or say whether an arrest of the 17-year incumbent is imminent.

Law enforcement sources said the staffer alleged Smith threw coffee in her face and pulled her hair. The alleged attack, according to a person familiar with the details of the complaint, happened after Smith returned from a Weight Watchers meeting and announced she had lost about four pounds, and the staffer remarked that she thought the senator would have lost more given her active lifestyle.

The staffer went to St. Peter's Hospital, complaining of eye damage and abrasions on her neck, the source said.

Smith's office said the staffer no longer works there. It had no immediate comment.

And it isnÂ’t like this is SmithÂ’s first tangle with the law.

Smith was found guilty in Albany City Court and ordered to pay $200 in 2004 for failing to obey a direct order from a police officer in May 2003. She refused to hand over her government ID and drove through a security checkpoint at an Empire State Plaza parking garage. A trooper said Smith cursed and sped off, refusing his order to stop.

Last year, Douglas Greene, a former chief of staff for Smith, asked Albany County District Attorney David Soares and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to investigate her for providing no-show and semi-show jobs and having staff work on political business. The state ethics commission had cleared her of any wrongdoing within its jurisdiction.

Smith was cleared last year by the state Division of Human Rights of accusations by another ex-chief of staff, Philip Wayne Mahlke, for racist remarks and firing him because he's gay.

Smith was also charged with biting a New York City Police officer's hand during a traffic dispute in 1998. In 1996, she was accused of threatening a former staff member with a knife. In both cases, Smith denied the charges.

You know, she may have even topped Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

Sounds like a good, solid Republican. Can she unseat Congressman Cut-N –Run?

WASHINGTON, Pa. -- Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey announced her bid Wednesday to challenge Democrat John P. Murtha in effort to become the next representative to the 12th Congressional District, which includes Armstrong County.

"For decades, western Pennsylvania looked to John Murtha to stand up for our values, but as the years have drifted by, Murtha has drifted further and further from the ideals that made this country great," she said in a prepared statement. Irey, a Republican, will face Murtha in November as both are running unopposed in their parties' primary elections.

"Murtha has become part of the problem in Washington and I don't believe we are receiving the representation we deserve and the time for a change is now," she said.

What a signal to the troops if she manages to pull this off. If you repudiate the mission and our fighting men, America's heartland will repudiate you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Sounds like a good, solid Republican. Can she unseat Congressman Cut-N –Run?

WASHINGTON, Pa. -- Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey announced her bid Wednesday to challenge Democrat John P. Murtha in effort to become the next representative to the 12th Congressional District, which includes Armstrong County.

"For decades, western Pennsylvania looked to John Murtha to stand up for our values, but as the years have drifted by, Murtha has drifted further and further from the ideals that made this country great," she said in a prepared statement. Irey, a Republican, will face Murtha in November as both are running unopposed in their parties' primary elections.

"Murtha has become part of the problem in Washington and I don't believe we are receiving the representation we deserve and the time for a change is now," she said.

What a signal to the troops if she manages to pull this off. If you repudiate the mission and our fighting men, America's heartland will repudiate you.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

What Democrats don't understand is that they can't just use religious language -- they have to understand Christianity and the Bible if they want to use them to attract voters.

Case in point? The junior senator from New York.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ratcheted up her talk about religion yesterday - saying a GOP-sponsored bill making it a felony to be in the United States illegally would have "criminalized" Jesus.

Clinton, who's considered the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 White House race, made the comments at a hastily scheduled news conference about the House-passed bill aimed at illegal immigrants.

Clinton blasted Republican leadership, which "is constantly talking about values and about faith [but put] forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation."

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," she added.

"Because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

You know -- that interpretation will not fly with most religious voters -- and is transparant enough to offend most of them.

MORE AT GOPBloggers

Posted by: Greg at 11:46 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, Congressman Tom Delay and his lawyers seek only one thing from the Texas courts -- a speedy resolution to the politically motivated charges against him.

The arguments before the state 3rd Court of Appeals on Wednesday were about whether a felony charge of conspiracy to violate the Texas Election Code should be reinstated against former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). But the underlying issue was politics.

In a thinly veiled reference to DeLay's bid for reelection this year while under indictment on state money-laundering and conspiracy charges, the congressman's attorney asked the three-judge panel to rule quickly.

"Justice delayed is justice denied in this case," Houston lawyer Dick DeGuerin said in his opening remarks. "I ask you treat this case with dispatch and render decision forthwith."

DeGuerin later told reporters the criminal case against DeLay has clearly affected not only his reign as majority leader but also his quest to win a 12th term to Congress this year. DeLay was forced to step down from his leadership post upon being indicted in September on charges stemming from the 2002 election cycle.

I think it is reasonable for me to say that th charges DeLay is facing do trouble many folks in the Texas CD22. Republican voters would like to see the case resolved prior to the November election. As long as Ronnie Earle is permitted to drag the proceedings out, the election is being conductd under a cloud., which is exactly what the partisan hack prosecuting DeLay intends.

Personaally, I don't care if we get a dismissal of all charges or a trial -- I want Tom DeLay to have had his day in court before we vote in November.

And most importantly, so does DeLay -- which seems to be the impulse of an innocent man.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Illinois Democrats have been tainted with the stench of corruption back to at least the days of Stephen Douglas. One county Democrat party, though, claims to be seeking to change that.

St. Clair County Democratic leadership has distributed election packets to countywide precinct committeemen, which include an affidavit stating that money from the party will not be used to buy votes.

The unusual action follows the vote buying convictions in June of five East St. Louis politicians. They had helped distribute more than $70,000 received by city Democratic precinct committeemen two days before the 2004 election from the county Democratic organization.

While St. Clair County Democratic Central Committee Chairman Robert Sprague could not be reached for comment, a fax received Monday from his Belleville law office included these documents given to precinct committeemen countywide for today's primary election:

• A one-page letter from Sprague warning that money from the county committee should be used only to pay to help get the vote out, including paying workers to canvass the precincts, for advertisements and to provide transportation to needy voters. The letter also advised that precinct leaders should "keep a record of all expenses" and "under no circumstances" use party money to pay for votes.

• An "affidavit," with room for a notary's signature, stating that a committeeman or election worker swears that no party money will be used "in violation of any federal, state or local laws or regulations."

• A one-page photocopy titled "Election Crimes" that outlined federal voting laws.

I donÂ’t buy this for a minute, given my experiences of working elections in St. Clair County. I remember an incident during one campaign in which a guy with our opponentÂ’s campaign told us within 30 votes how many votes we would be up prior to the announcement of the votes from East St. Louis and down after those votes came in. As recent convictions of prominent county Democrats show, the corruption continues.

Which leads us to this further Democrat commentary.

Sprague's letter to the committeemen also refers to "recent efforts by the Republicans and their friends to suppress the vote of Democrats in St. Clair County..." No further explanation was offered as to whether this referred to last year's federal vote fraud prosecution under a U.S. attorney appointed by a Republican president, or whether local Republicans were suppressing Democratic voters.

My interpretation is that Sprague is concerned that the feds are not allowing corruption as usual to continue in St. Clair County. As a result, IÂ’m willing to bet that the other protestations that vote buying is prohibited are not worth the paper they are printed on.

But then again, if the St. Clair County Democrats had any integrity to begin with, the memo would never have been necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

While the one may have been less elegant and academic, no matter how you slice it, it comes out the same – the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago join with the former Klan leader and the virulently anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood in proclaiming that the Jews control America.

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

I guess that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism really have gone mainstream on the Left.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

While the one may have been less elegant and academic, no matter how you slice it, it comes out the same – the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago join with the former Klan leader and the virulently anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood in proclaiming that the Jews control America.

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

"I have read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is," he said in an e-mail. "It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American University essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." Duke added that "the task before us is to wrest control of America's foreign policy and critical junctures of media from the Jewish extremist Neocons that seek to lead us into what they expectantly call World War IV."

I guess that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism really have gone mainstream on the Left.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

These rumors have been floating around for some time. Hopefully this will lay them to rest.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a lightning rod for criticism about administration policies, on Sunday rejected the notion of resigning and said he would serve out his term.

"I made sure both in 2000 and 2004 that the president had other options. I mean, I didn't ask for this job. I didn't campaign for it. I got drafted," Cheney said on CBS television's "Face The Nation."

Being part of the administration was a highlight of his career, Cheney said. "I've now been elected to a second term. I'll serve out my term," he said.

No one with any sense thought he was -- though I would have loved to see Condoleezza Rice take the job and the GOP nomination if he did.

(H/T Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

This seems rather disturbing -- and potentially illegal.

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.

Seems to me that they are out to undermine the civilian control of the armed forces, as well as subborning violations of the UCMJ provisions limiting the political speech and activities of members of the military.

SHAME! (But then again, the party of Teddy the Swimmer, Robert the Kleagle and Howard the Screamer has no shame.)

Posted by: Greg at 05:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’ve made the argument in the past that state sanctioning of homosexual marriage will inevitably lead to state sanctioning of group marriage. Charles Krauthammer, one of the most gifted conservative columnists living today, makes that argument much more effectively than I ever have.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. . . .

To simplify the logic, take out the complicating factor of gender mixing. Posit a union of, say, three gay women all deeply devoted to each other. On what grounds would gay activists dismiss their union as mere activity rather than authentic love and self-expression? On what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?

Indeed, once the law is untethered from the definition of marriage which has dominated Western civilization (especially since the beginning of the Christian era) for at least two millennia, then there is really no legitimate basis for arbitrarily upholding any part of that traditional definition. And if, the Lawrence v. Texas holding that “

UPDATE: Eric at The Liberty Papers takes on the issue of homosexual marriage and polygamy from a libertarian perspective.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage that IÂ’ve encountered is the one that says that the government has no right to intrude into the personal relationships of consenting adults and forbid them from entering into a legal status, in this case marriage, that they wish to enter into freely. This doesnÂ’t mean that government is endorsing the relationship, any more than it endorses a producer of pornographic films who forms a corporation to run his business. It merely means that the government is allowing people to engage in consensual activities that affect nobody but themselves. The logic, if you accept it, seems to me to be unassailable and its hard for me to find an argument that says that polygamy is per se different.

As much as I would like to endorse his position, I canÂ’t, because the legal recognition of homosexual marriage brings with it government imposed legal burdens upon those not party to that personal relationship. After all, giving legal status to homosexual couples then subjects those who have moral and/or religious objections does not just give the parties to that marriage standing and status before the government. Rather, it also gives them certain special status regarding retirement and healthcare benefits, non-discrimination in housing, and other so-called rights (legal privileges, actually, that are framed as rights) in relationship to private individuals and entities. As such, the recognition of a legal status for homosexual couples forces non-consenting individuals with moral and/or religious objections to act in a manner contrary to their sincerely held beliefs.

So long as such parties to homosexual marriage are in a position to use the power of government to force non-consenting individuals and entities to recognize and reward a relationship that is repugnant to them, then the argument that nobody is harmed by permitting homosexual marriage (or polygamy) must fail – unless we redefine the benefits conferred by the granting of legal status to those relationships. But if we do that, don’t most of the arguments in favor of granting legal recognition to those relationships evaporate?

Others writing include Andrew Sullivan, Ann Althouse, Kathleen Kersten, Susie Bright, Sister Toldjah, , Chez Diva, Icarus Fallen, Uncommon Sense, Bullwinkle Blog, Below the Beltway, Prodigal Sun, Dappled Things, Right Side of the Rainbow,

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Samantha Burns, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Real Ugly American, Camelot Destra Ideale, Voteswagon, Uncooperative Blogger, Blue Star, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 926 words, total size 8 kb.

I donÂ’t blame these guys for seeking to pass a law setting out specific guidelines for surveillance of foreign communications that involve an Americans. I just find the idea to be a flawed, especially because of the conclusion that some will draw from it.

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday.

They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

I think the motive is good – these Senators want to settle the issue once and for all. Unfortunately, this bill does not accomplish that end – in fact, it muddies the waters even further.

First, as IÂ’ve already pointed out, Congress lacks the authority to prevent such surveillance, as the Constitution grants the President the inherent power to conduct it to protect national security. Nothing Congress does can limit that power, any more than the President can issue an executive order limiting the power of Congress to consider certain legislation.

Second, the legislation could be interpreted by partisans opposed to the President (or the security of the United States) to be a concession that the current program is illegal. IÂ’ve already seen gleeful Leftists make exactly that assertion, despite the fact that this is clearly not the intent of the bill. Simply put, you do not give your enemies (and the enemies of the United States) ammunition to attack programs essential to protecting the national security of the United States.

No, this piece of legislation needs to be withdrawn immediately, for the good of national security and the preservation of presidential power under the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 4 kb.

Will this scandal over illegal spying on an American citizen purely for political advantage – as opposed to constitutionally valid spying on enemies of America to protect national security – be covered aggressively by the American press? Or will they continue to ignore and suppress the misdeeds of the Democrat Party.

Federal prosecutors have decided to bring charges against a Democratic researcher accused of fraudulently obtaining a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, now a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Lauren B. Weiner, who has since resigned from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, will be charged with obtaining the report without authorization, according to a letter sent to Steele by the U.S. attorney's office in the District.

A copy of the March 8 letter, which notified Steele that he is considered a victim in the case, was obtained by The Washington Post yesterday.

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

That this crime has been dropped down to a misdemeanor and will be wiped from Weiner’s record is utterly unacceptable. The conduct of DSCC staff is comparable to some Watergate figures who illegally obtained personal records of individuals on Nixon’s “enemies list”.

WhatÂ’s more, no one else will face charges over the matter.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

Of great concern to me is the failure to go after the DSCC and its chairman, Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Not that I am surprised – our justice system and the obsolescent mainstream media hold the Democrats to a much lower standard of conduct that that to which Republicans are held.

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, the arrogant and corrupt mayor of Chicago (just like his dad), wants the gun owners of Illinois to appear before him in person to justify allowing them to continue to exercise the rights guaranteed under this.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I won’t be coming to Chicago, Richie – I wouldn’t even come at the summons of your father, who was a bigger and more competent thief than you are. But I will gladly give you an explanation of my need to have my gun.

I need it in the event that it becomes necessary to defend myself and my family against those who would do us harm or violate our rights – including uppity politicians who decide that the inalienable right to the means of self-defense may be revoked if they feel that we, the people don’t “need” our guns.

Sic semper tyrannis, asshole.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Mayor Richard M. Daley, the arrogant and corrupt mayor of Chicago (just like his dad), wants the gun owners of Illinois to appear before him in person to justify allowing them to continue to exercise the rights guaranteed under this.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I won’t be coming to Chicago, Richie – I wouldn’t even come at the summons of your father, who was a bigger and more competent thief than you are. But I will gladly give you an explanation of my need to have my gun.

I need it in the event that it becomes necessary to defend myself and my family against those who would do us harm or violate our rights – including uppity politicians who decide that the inalienable right to the means of self-defense may be revoked if they feel that we, the people don’t “need” our guns.

Sic semper tyrannis, asshole.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

I love my state's junior senator, John Cornyn.

His latest zinger is up on his official website.

Democrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0

al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0

Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0

I think it is time for the Senator from the not-so-great state of Wisconsin to be Murtha-ized. Will get anyone to join him in voting for his resolution? Probably not -- which is why Harry Reid is doing everything in his power to prevent a vote on the Feingold Resolution.

Hat Tip -- GOPBloggers & Blogs for Bush

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 2 kb.

I found this comment on my site this morning, from my liberal regular Dan. Rather than deal with the substance of the item I posted, he decided to attack the source I used (the generally accurate Drudge Report).

Right wing logic - Drudge, the least accurate source in the world, says something, and the left should react as if it's true, and if they don't, their hypocritical.

I said that doubt that the silence of the Left will stop when the article comes out.

I wonder if the Left has equal contempt for this source -- the reliably liberal Washington Post, which is engaging in spin control on behalf of senior staffer Bradlee.

Vanity Fair is reporting that former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee says it is reasonable to assume former State Department official Richard L. Armitage is likely the source who revealed CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward.

In an article to be published in the magazine today, Bradlee is quoted as saying: "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption." Armitage was deputy secretary of state in President Bush's first term.

In an interview yesterday, Bradlee said he does know the identity of Woodward's source and does not recall making that precise statement to a Vanity Fair reporter. He said he has no interest in unmasking the official who first told Woodward about Plame in June 2003.

"I don't think I said it," Bradlee said. "I know who his source is, and I don't want to get into it. . . . I have not told a soul who it is."

The identity of Woodward's source emerged as one of the big mysteries of the CIA case after he disclosed last year that a government official with no ax to grind had told him about Plame, an undercover operative, a month before her name was revealed by columnist Robert D. Novak. Since then, guessing Woodward's source has been a Washington parlor game.

Plame is at the center of an investigation by a special prosecutor into whether White House officials knowingly disclosed her name to the media to discredit allegations made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that the administration twisted intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. The probe has resulted in charges of perjury, making false statements and obstructing justice against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.

Beth Kseniak, spokeswoman for Vanity Fair, said the reporter who wrote the story, Marie Brenner, was traveling in India and was unavailable for comment.

Bradlee, currently Post vice president at large, said he learned the source's name from someone other than Woodward. Woodward said he did not reveal the source to his friend and former boss.

"He is not in the management loop on this," Woodward said. "Maybe he was alerted from somebody else, if he in fact did learn" the source's name.

Woodward and Bradlee refused to disclose the source's name. Armitage did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Bradlee's brief comments about the source are included in a lengthy article about the Plame case. Bradlee is the longtime Post editor who rose to prominence when his reporting team of Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the Watergate story. Woodward and Bradlee refused for many years to reveal the identity of Deep Throat, a key source.

So now we wait -- will the silence continue? Will there be demands for an Armitage perp-walk? Or will the hypocritical liberal silence continue?

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 4 kb.

Rouge prosecutor Ronnie Earle had his mountain of subpoenas thrown out by a Texas court today. It seems the stay in the case that he had demanded!

A state appeals court today threw out more than 30 subpoenas requested by Travis County prosecutors building a criminal case against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, saying the investigation should have stopped in December when a district judge halted proceedings in his court.

District Attorney Ronnie Earle has been issuing the subpoenas ever since Senior District Judge Pat Priest dismissed all or part of three indictments against DeLay, R-Sugar Land. Earle appealed Priest's ruling, and the judge stayed the case pending a ruling by the Third Court of Appeals.

Most of the subpoenas involved political fund-raising controversies that have involved DeLay, some dating back to 1996.

After Earle subpoenaed records from DeLay's wife, Christine, DeLay's legal team asked Priest to quash the subpoenas. Priest told DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin that the case was stayed while on appeal, so he would neither halt Earle from issuing subpoenas nor would he enforce them.

DeGuerin then asked the appeals court to intervene.

"Because the state has obtained a stay in the proceedings ... we hold that subpoenas may not issue compelling witnesses to testify and produce documents at the stayed proceedings," the order by a three-judge panel said.

The panel, which is scheduled to hear Earle's appeal on March 22, said Earle may not issue any more subpoenas while the stay is in effect; ruled all the ones issued after the stay are "null and void;" and any subpoenas issued before the stay are suspended while the appeal is pending.

The unsigned order was issued by Judges Bea A. Smith, David Puryear and Alan Waldrop. Smith is a Democrat. Puryear and Waldrop are Republicans who are up for re-election this year.

What more evidence do you need that this guy is out of control and on a political fishing trip? First he attempts an ex post facto prosecution of actions in 2002 under a statute that did not go into effect until 2003. Then he ignores fundamental rules of procedure. Can we just get all charges dismissed and this Democrat demogogue disbarred?

More At Wizbang,

Posted by: Greg at 03:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

That is what Drudge is claiming.

THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

Llama Butchers doubts the Left will now demand the arrest and imprisonment of their favorite Bush-trashing former State Department official.

Richard Armitage is said to have outed Valerie Plame, via Drudge. Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State and his comments critical of Administration foreign policy are thought to be Colin Powell's. Somehow I doubt we will hear cries from the antique media for Armitage to do the "perp walk" like we did when the leak was attibuted to Rove.

Politburo Diktat notes this response.

So far, the Leftie blogs are not calling for the cuffs and orange jump suits.

I won't hold my breath until I turn blue.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

Sen. Russ Feingrold -- who helped John McCain rape the First Amendment -- is now seeking to make an end-run around the Constitution again.

Congress should censure President George W. Bush for ordering domestic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.

Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin told ABC's "This Week" that he intends to push for a resolution that would censure the president for what he considers an unlawful wiretapping program authorized by the White House after the September 11 attacks.

Now there is no provision for the censure of the President in the Constitution, so I would hope that any attempt would be ruled out of order.

On what basis does Feingold want there to be a censure?

"The president has broken the law and, in some way, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press in an interview.

* * *

The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush claims that his authority as commander in chief as well as a September 2001 congressional authorization to use force in the fight against terrorism gave him the power to authorize the surveillance.

The White House had no immediate response on Sunday.

The resolution says the president "repeatedly misled the public" before the disclosure of the NSA program last December when he indicated the administration was relying on court orders to wiretap terror suspects inside the U.S.

"Congress has to reassert our system of government, and the cleanest and the most efficient way to do that is to censure the president," Feingold said. "And, hopefully, he will acknowledge that he did something wrong."

The Wisconsin Democrat, considered a presidential contender for 2008, said he had not discussed censure with other senators but that, based on criticism leveled at Bush by both Democrats and Republicans, the resolution makes sense.

The president's action were "in the strike zone" in terms of being an impeachable offense, Feingold said. The senator questioned whether impeaching Bush and removing him from office would be good for the country.

Russ, if you really believe that there is something impeachable here, censure is unacceptable (it is cowardly, in addition to being extra-constitutional). Why don't you just sign on with the House Moonbat Caucus and led your prestige to this proposal.

30 US House Representatives have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President BushÂ’s impeachment, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

“There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power,” US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said in a statement prepared for Atlanta Progressive News.

* * *

Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; almost 7% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.

The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Massachusetts (3), Georgia (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).

The current 30 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Wouldn't you be in fine company, Russ -- and it would really help you to get the support of the far-left moonbat wing of the Democrat Party -- the KOSsaks and DUmmies and all the rest of the extreme Lleft who haven't met an enemy of the United States tehy haven't embraced.

So have the courage of your convictions Russ -- and stand by the Constitution, if you really believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemenaors.

Or is this all a publicity stunt, designed to make you look good but accomplish nothing?

MORE AT: Decision '08, Political Pitbull, Blogs for Bush (twice), Sister Toldjah, Those Bastards!

Posted by: Greg at 08:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

Ed Rendell and his staff think this behavior is acceptable. I want to know why no criminal charges have been filed.

An angry Gov. Ed Rendell took a tape recorder away from a newspaper reporter during an impromptu interview this week, refusing to give it back for several minutes, according to the paper.

According to an article Thursday in the Patriot-News of Harrisburg, reporter Brett Lieberman asked the governor Wednesday in Washington, D.C., how Rendell had asked former U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel to withdraw from the race for lieutenant governor.

Rendell on Tuesday told a radio reporter that he wished Hoeffel would withdraw from the race. Hoeffel had told Rendell three weeks earlier that he planned to run against the sitting lieutenant governor, Catherine Baker Knoll. Rendell told Hoeffel that he would support Knoll but did not ask Hoeffel not to run.

Lieberman's article said Rendell "angrily denied suggestions" that his word could not be trusted. He then said, "It's all B.S. You know it's B.S. It's politics," and shortly thereafter took Lieberman's tape recorder, refusing to return it for several minutes, according to the article.

Rendell called Lieberman several hours later and apologized for his remarks, saying he was frustrated by politics and insisting that he is a "straight shooter," according to the newspaper.

Rendell, who appeared with Hoeffel on Wednesday before he spoke with Lieberman, said he changed his mind after Democratic officials in southwestern Pennsylvania warned that Knoll, a Pittsburgh-area native, would offer his re-election campaign more geographic balance than Hoeffel, who, like Rendell, is from southeastern Pennsylvania.

"The governor is clearly a passionate person, and he's spent every day for the last 20 years being hounded by members of the media and being attacked by Republicans, and the question for people who live their life like that is not how come it happened, but how come it doesn't happen more often," said Dan Fee, Rendell's campaign spokesman.

Now let me get this straight -- the governor didn't like the question, so he ripped the tape recorder from the hands of a member of the working press. Could you imagine if this were done by a Republican -- someone like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or even Karl Rove? We'd be hearing about theft, assualt, violation of civil rights, etc. But when a left-wing hack like Ed Rendell -- a union thug with a history of coordinating and instigating violence against his opponents -- engages in such behavior, it barely makes a blip on the press radar screen.

And you have to love the response of the campaign spokesman -- "the question. . . is not how come it happened, but how come it doesn't happen more often." You must be kidding! He's trying to turn this failure by a public official to restrain himself from attacking a reporter into a virtue because it happens so rarely!

But you see, this is not the first time something like this has happened.

Rendell has been involved in other confrontations with reporters, including grabbing the neck of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in May 1994 when he was the city's mayor. Philadelphia Daily News columnist Gar Joseph, in a Friday item entitled "Rendell 6, reporters 0," cites five other alleged physical confrontations with reporters from the Inquirer or Daily News.

In February 1999, the Daily News also reported that Rendell grasped a reporter's notebook after becoming angry during an interview.

If you or I had a record like this, we would be doing hard time in jail. Why is Ed Rendell above the law?

Pennsylvania, your choice is clear.

Vote for Lynn Swann -- a man of honor, decency, integrity, and self-control.

Posted by: Greg at 08:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 620 words, total size 4 kb.

Loredana Vuoto reviews Michael Deaver's new anthology, Why I Am a Reagan Conservative.

In Why I Am a Reagan Conservative, Deaver compiles personal accounts by conservative icons on how Reagan shaped their conservative beliefs. This fun, easy-to read book gives great insight into the thought of some prominent conservatives such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, former GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole, ReaganÂ’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Rick Santorum, as well as columnist Robert Novak and film critic Michael Medved.

Many of these conservatives were drawn to the simple, pragmatic truths of conservatism. They perceived the harm of big government, which corroded individual responsibility and stifled initiative. The ever-expanding welfare state of the 1970s proved detrimental to the economy and was responsible for many social ills such as high unemployment, increased teen pregnancy and the decline of marriage. They realized that government was not the solution to societyÂ’s woes, but the overarching problem.

* * *

Reagan’s greatest contribution to modern conservatism is that he helped to redefine a movement that had become ideologically and politically bankrupt following the Great Depression and World War II. Many of the conservative leaders of that era—for example, Robert Taft and Herbert Hoover—championed isolationism, protectionism and a xenophobic nationalism that no longer resonated with the public. Reagan (along with other key figures before him such as William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater) modernized conservatism, thereby making it appealing to broad swaths of the electorate.

Today, conservatism has become the dominant political and cultural force in the country. This was shown in November 2004, when George W. Bush won re-election to a second term, making him the first two-term Republican president since Reagan. Moreover, the GOP controls both houses of Congress. Conservative thought pervades the marketplace. Think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation continue to thrive and produce ground-breaking work. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, The Weekly Standard and National Review produce some of the finest and most influential political commentary in the country. And conservative radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Schlessinger dominate the airwaves. The same holds true for the Fox News Channel, which has leapfrogged both CNN and MSNBC in the number of television viewers and overall media clout.

Conservatism is on the march. Whether it will ultimately triumph is anyoneÂ’s guess. But one thing is for certain: ReaganÂ’s leadership and charisma were primarily responsible for the movementÂ’s current success. For this, he deserves the gratitude of conservatives everywhere.

One of the questions I hope is dealt with is that of the nexus between Reagan conservatism and neo-conservatism. Are they, ultimately, compatible? Given the continuing expansion of government (much of it in the name of national security), how much influence does Reagan conservatism have today, and how can it again become ascendant?

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Dan Patrick stomped his competition in SD 7.

Calling his victory the start of a revolution, radio talk-show host Dan Patrick on Tuesday won the Republican nomination to succeed state Sen. Jon Lindsay, trouncing three politically experienced opponents.

Patrick, in his first bid for elected office, used his name identification from more than 20 years as a local TV and radio personality to win the District 7 nomination without a runoff.

With most precincts reporting, Patrick had 68 percent of the vote. State Rep. Peggy Hamric claimed a distant second at 17 percent.

"The revolution started tonight," Patrick said. "The people of SD7 want their party to stand up and take action on the issues that are important to them. I hope Republicans in Austin realize this is not isolated to SD7."

Two of his opponents, Hamric and state Rep. Joe Nixon, conceded in phone calls to Patrick. The third, former Houston City Councilman Mark Ellis, said he would support Patrick as the GOP nominee.

Hamric and Nixon will give up what had been safe House seats.

The District 7 race was closely watched and became the most competitive and expensive state legislative battle. The four contenders spent a combined $1.5 million in the heated race. The district is solidly Republican, so Patrick will be the favorite in November against Democrat F. Michael Kubosh.

Patrick said he will focus on property tax relief, overall spending and immigration.

The retiring incumbent, a major league RINO, is already attacking his probable successor.

Lindsay, who endorsed Hamric as his successor, has said that Patrick will "have to change his ways" to succeed in the Senate.

For example, Patrick has argued that the Senate should do away with the rule that requires a two-thirds vote for a bill to be brought up for debate.

"That's how we keep composure on that side of the rotunda. It's a good rule. It causes everyone to think through what they are attempting to do," Lindsay said.

John -- this vote is a stunning repudiation of the "business as usual" approach that you practiced for years. The notion that the majority should act like a majority may stun you, but it is common sense to your average Texan.

The Lindsay-loving Houston Chronicle is already out to get Dan, though. Look at this column in today's paper.

It will be fascinating to watch how Patrick strives to make an impact in Austin. Will he roll up his sleeves in committee work and find all the "fat" he claims is in the budget?

Occasionally a freshman demagogue has come along who declined to do that but who made a grand stand for cutting taxes when the day for the final budget vote came.

They don't last long. Their colleagues tend to find a convenient place to cut the budget: in the demagogue's district.

At least as fascinating will be how Patrick meshes his radio station with his political career.

He has used the station brilliantly in his campaign. How would he use it to govern?

Would he offer air time to Senate colleagues to gain favor? Would he attempt to get them on the air so that listeners can press them for pet measures?

One senator already expressed concern that with Patrick as part of a caucus, now-private discussions may become talk-show fodder.

Patrick is a self-proclaimed Christian, so he is presumably aware of two types of leadership in the Church.

There are prophets and bishops.

Prophets — and false prophets — prosper on the airwaves.

But bishops do better in conclaves.

But then again, Rick Casey and the Chronicle despise all things conservative.

Too bad for them that Texans don't.

Give 'em hell, Dan!

Posted by: Greg at 05:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

Looks like all the folks who said support was weak for Tom DeLay didn't know what they were talking about. He won 62% of the vote in a four-way race for the GOP nomination, handily defeating his opponents.

Still facing legal battles, U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay won a pivotal political fight Tuesday by defeating three challengers in the Republican primary for his Houston-area seat.

Opponent Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, fell short of forcing the former House majority leader into a runoff.

DeLay won 62 percent of the vote in the 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties, according to the totals from 97 percent of precincts.

"I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today's vote shows they have placed their full faith in me," DeLay said in a written victory statement. "This race was about who can effectively represent the values and the priorities of the people in this district, and I'm proud to have earned, and overwhelmingly kept, that trust among Republican voters."

"Not only did they reject the politics of personal destruction, but they strongly rejected the candidates who used those Democrat tactics as their platform," he added.

In second place with 30 percent of the vote was Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Lawyer Mike Fjetland and former teacher and oil industry credit manager Pat Baig each took less than 5 percent.

"I'm kind of shocked," Fjetland said at the Fort Bend County Republican Party's Primary Night soiree at the Ragin Cajun restaurant in Sugar Land. "I'm very concerned about the future of the Republican Party."

Yes, Tom DeLay ran behind his traditional 82-86% of the primary vote -- but he has never had three opponents before.

One political scientist has this to say.

DeLay's totals show that "nearly 40 percent of an ideologically committed (Republican) vote has decided to bail on him," said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. "He still has a hell of a fight in the general election."

I'm going to disagree with this assessment.

Delay has always had about 15% of the district Republicans opposing him. That is how a non-entity like Fjetland did as well as he did in his earlier races against DeLay. We also had a heavy cross-over vote this time around -- I recognized about 10% of those at my precinct as partisan Democrats. After all, when you ask someone if they are coming to vote in the Republican primary and get a response like "Never before, never again, but this time yes," you can be pretty sure that they are not a part of the GOP base.

But I do think there is 20% of the GOP base that opposed Tom DeLay because of his legal troubles, wanting a solid GOP candidate like Campbell to ensure that the seat will be held by a Republican in the event that DeLay's legal troubles continue or get worse. Most of this last group will support Tom DeLay in November.

And the remaining 62%? We don't want outsiders picking our Congressman for us. We don't care if it is Ronnie Earle, the Democrat National Committee, or these guys.

Coming to churches, bowling alleys and living rooms near you: The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress.

As former House Majority Leader DeLay readied himself Tuesday to accept his party's nomination for another congressional term in Washington, D.C., two Texas filmmakers announced plans to release a scathing documentary in DeLay's Sugar Land district, criticizing the popular politician. Tentative plans also call for a screening in Houston, they said.

Numerous liberal groups stepped up to sponsor the film's expected release in early May, including Houston's Pacifica radio station, KPFT-FM (90.1). The film will rely heavily upon releases in small venues and at a few select theaters.

Filmmakers Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck spent three years following the path of Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle's criminal investigation, which resulted in indictments against DeLay and two political associates.

And I hope every penny spent to produce and show this film is counted as a contribution to Nick Lampson and the Democrats -- making most of the expenditures illegal under federal and state campaign laws.

And, of course, i think this is exhibit #1 in Delay's case for dismissal of the charges against him AND the disbarrment proceedings against Ronnie Earle.

Let me say this -- We, the Constituents of Texas Congressional District 22, will pick our Congressman.

The rest of you can go to hell.

UPDATE: Tom DeLay has this to say, emphasizing the point I made above.

"I'm honored . . . to defend this district from the funding and activism of America's most radical Democrats," he said. "Liberal activists like Barbra Streisand, George Soros and Nancy Pelosi all have a dog in this fight, and his name is Nick Lampson."

Especially if you think back to how the Democrats aced out a popular local minority politician who actually lives in the 22nd District.

OPEN TRACKBACKS/LINKFESTS: Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch USA, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Cao's Blog, Right Wing Nation, Basil's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 882 words, total size 6 kb.

In a continuation of the scandal at Houston's city hall, Mayor Pro Tem Carol Alvarado has stepped aside from that position (but not her City Council seat).

"I intend to temporarily Â… step aside from the office of the mayor pro tem pending the outcome of the grand jury investigation," said Alvarado at MondayÂ’s news conference. "I did nothing improper and IÂ’ve accepted responsibility."

Hopefully the people of of Houston will end Alvarado's career at the first opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white candidate ever told a white audience that his political oponents "don't look like us"?

Well, the racist buffoon who runs New Orleans, Ray Nagin -- the guy who left school buses to flood and residents to drown -- is being much more specific about his vision for a "chocolate city".

In a speech organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People civil rights group, Nagin discussed the recovery of New Orleans and explained the complicated absentee voting procedures for those who have not returned to the city.

Nagin, who sparked controversy recently by saying New Orleans would become a "chocolate city" again, told the mostly black audience of about 50 people that the election could bring a sea change to New Orleans politics, which has been dominated by blacks for more than two decades.

"There are 23 candidates running for mayor. Very few of them look like us," he said. "There's a potential to be a major change in the political structure in New Orleans."

Nagin is trailing Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu (son of a former mayor of New Orleans and brother of a current US Senator from Louisiana) and , who is white, so he needs to flog the race card at every opportunity.

And I guess I must be deaf -- I haven't heard a single complaint from the NAACP or any major black leader about this blatantly racist appeal for votes. Surely such condemnations have been made. Haven't they? Or perhaps the words of Martin Luther King have been repudiated by the black establisment, and are we now to judge people based upon the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Sister Toldjah, The World According To Carl

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.

You see, it really comes down to a question of following the Constitution.

And this proposal doesn't.

President Bush plans to send proposed legislation to Congress on Monday that would allow him to control spending by vetoing specific items in larger bills, a Bush administration official said.

The president, who has not vetoed any legislation during five years in office, asked Congress in his State of the Union address to give him line-item veto power.

Bush plans to announce that the proposed bill is headed to Congress during his remarks at the morning swearing-in ceremony for the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have sought the power to eliminate a single item in a spending or tax bill without killing the entire measure.

And I fully support giving the line-item veto to the president. But it cannot be done via legislation.

Afte all, as this article itself points out, the SUpreme Court has spoken on the matter.

President Clinton got that wish in 1996, when the new reform-minded Republican majority in the House helped pass a line-item veto law.

Two years later, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse.

Sorry folks, you need to do this via an amendment, not via statute. It really is that simple.

Follow the Constitution.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Kip, Esq., SCOTUSBlog, Uncooperative Blogger, Jurist, Blogs for Bush (again), Hugh Hewitt, A Certain Slant Of Light, Marginal Revolution, Say Anything, World Magazine, MoxieGrrrrl, Dohiyi Mir, Middle Earth Journal, Suburban Guerrilla, The News Blog, The Next Left, The Blue Voice

Posted by: Greg at 04:17 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 3 kb.