Texas Democrats plumbed the depths to reach a new low with the nomination of Barbara Radnofsky, a precinct chair who could not even carry her own county in the primary, to challenge Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Senate race.

If you need evidence that they scraped the bottom of the barrel, just look at this response in a recent interview over at MyDD.

Singer: Final question. If there's one message that you could send out to the progressive blogosphere, to the Netroots, what would that message be?

Radnofsky: I guess the bottom line that God's gift to the Senate is sitting in Houston right now having won 60 percent of the vote in the runoff and raised more than a million dollars and spent less than that to win two statewide races, her first two statewide races.

Yeah, you read that right -- "God's gift to the Senate"! Is it just me, or is that not a bit much?

I'm curious -- when will the demands start that Ms. Radnofsky quit injecting religion into the race? When will the condemnations of her exclusion of atheists, Satanists, and other unGodly members of the Democrat coalition begin? Will Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU sue to get her removed from the ballot over the church/state conflict implicit in having "God's gift" in the race? And what of the dangers of allowing theolibs to grasp the reins of political power to impose their religious will on the rest of us?

Enquiring minds want to know!

(Hat Tip: Texas Safety Forum)

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, Woman Honor Thyself

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 3 kb.

Republican precinct chairs from the Harris County protion of CD22 met to pick our representative to the Congressional District Executive Committee that wil (hopefully) meet to select a candidate to replace Tom DeLay on the November ballot. As one of the participants in the meeting, I have got to comment on the Chronicle's coverage of the meeting.

Despite a continuing legal dispute over the process, Harris County Republicans chose on Thursday their representative on the committee that will select a nominee to replace former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

"Why wouldn't we proceed if time is of the essence?" asked Harris County Republican Party Chair Jared Woodfill. "Given the fact that the election is approaching, it's important we do everything as quickly as possible within the confines of the law."

And the reality is that there is absolutely noting in the law which prevented us from acting tonight. The TRO the Democrats obtained a couple of weeks ago expired last week, and so we were legally free to act. Yes, there are still questions about what the federal court will do (and what will happen regarding the appeals that will no doubt follow), but no one is adversely impacted by this gathering. At worst, it was all wasted motion on our part.

We all began gathering at about 6:00 at the courthouse in Webster, not far from the Johnson Space Center. By the time we began the meeting, we actually had an amazing 41 our of 45 precinct chairs in attendance -- a phenomenal rate that will likely never be duplicated for any gathering of precinct chairs in the county. After a little tussle over the agenda -- some of us wanted to include a straw poll to publicly express the sense of the body on who the candidate should be even though it would be binding, but were defeated -- we headed straight into the election of our representative.

We had two candidates seeking the position, Kathy Haigler and Steve Williams. While Kathy is a charming lady and has been my friend for as long as i have been active in the Harris County GOP, I was backing Steve. Why? Not just because I consider him to be a man of great integrity and keen insight, but because I preferred more of a grassroots candidate and felt that having an SREC member as our delegate smacked of insider politics and created the appearance of a conflict-of-interest since the SREC will pick the candidate if the District Executive Committee should fail to do so (which is quite unlikely, I'll concede).

Votes were cast, and I was appointed by Steve to serve as his observer as teh votes were counted. I was. . . disappointed by the margin of victory, as i expected it to be relatively close.

Harris County Republicans selected Kathy Haigler, a precinct chair in Deer Park who is on the State Republican Executive Committee, as their committee representative.

She has not stated a preference among at least nine Republicans seeking the nomination.

Or at least not publicly -- Kathy has not really made a secret of her personal preference, but I will respect her decision not to divulge it and refrain from posting it here. Besides, she voluntarily made a public committment to accept the guidance of the precinct chairs on the matter. After the meeting adjourned, Kathy distributed ballots for an unofficial straw poll which allowed us to rank the declared candidates. The ballots will be tabulated at a later date, after the absent chairs have been given the chance to vote as well. We will see what the results will be after the other counties have selected their representatives next week.

Democrats, of course, are spinning away on this one.

Cris Feldman, an attorney for the Democrats, questioned the Harris County party's decision to go forward.

"It would appear not to be the wisest to do, in light of the court's statements," he said. "The court seemed pretty clear that the process wasn't to go forward until a ruling was handed down."

Where I grew up, that is called a lie. By allowing the TRO to expire, Judge Sparks made it pretty clear that it was accptable for the process to go forward. If it wasn't, he would have continued the restraining order until after he had ruled on the case. He didn't, so it was OK. And after all, with Fort Bend not meeting until July 6 and Galveston and Brazoria not doing so until the following night, the earliest a candidate could be selected by the District Executive Committee would be be around July 15 -- a date that almost certainly falls after the date that Judge Slade will decide the case.

One thing which should be noted about the meeting was the level of grassroots support shown by one candidate for the congressional nomination, Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, a local physician. There is strong support for her among the precinct chairs in Harris County, and at least half of the members of the public who came to observe the proceedings were wearing Shelley stickers or shirts. I endorsed her back in April, and I still believe that Shelley has the best chance of winning in November. I just have to hope that the District Executive Committee listens to the voice of the people in this regard.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT: Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, Woman Honor Thyself

Posted by: Greg at 07:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 932 words, total size 6 kb.

What can I say -- when the Democrats want the US military to cut-&-run faster than the terrorists do, that should say something about their level of concern for US security.

Eleven Sunni insurgent groups have offered to halt attacks on the U.S.-led military if the Iraqi government and President Bush set a two-year timetable for withdrawing all foreign troops from the country, insurgent and government officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The demand is part of a broad offer from the groups, who operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni Arab provinces of Salahuddin and Diyala. Although much of the fighting has been to the west, those provinces have become increasingly violent and the attacks there have regularly crippled oil and commerce routes.

The groups do not include the powerful Islamic Army in Iraq, Muhammad Army and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, the umbrella label for eight militant groups including al-Qaida in Iraq. But the new offer comes at a time when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is reaching out to militant Sunnis, including a new amnesty plan for insurgent fighters.

Now what this means is that the terrorists killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will give the US until mid 2008 to get out -- but every Democrat plan has American forces leaving Iraq (without completing the mission) by Secember 2007 or sooner.

That is certainly some contrast -- the enemy supports a longer period for withdrawal than the (dis)loyal opposition in our own Congress.

MORE AT Decision '08, Independent Sources

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

And I do call it a victory for Texas, despite the 5-4 majority deciding against the boundaries of CD23. It affirms that the 2003 redistricting was legal and that the use of partisan criteria in redistricting is not invalid. Even with regard to the CD23 boundaries, the slim majority had to engage in the unusual tactic of overturning a finding of fact when a simple analysis of the district based upon law and precedent failed to find a violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

And for those of you who cannot read, that means that the redistricting plan met every CONSTITUTIONAL challenge, and the loss came on questions of statutory interpretation, not bad intent.

The result of this is likely to be the redrawing of district lines in two or three districts in the largely empty southwestern part of the state. Indeed, this may well be seen as a net-loss for minorities, given that the likely result will be a reduction in the number of seats over which Hispanics have control of the outcome. So congratulations, amigos, you just shot yourselves in the huevos!

Not that LULAC sees it that way.

"We see this as a very major victory for the Latino community, which is the main reason we were in this case," said attorney Rolando Rios, who represented the League of United Latin American Citizens. "Latinos are responsible for the fastest growth in Texas and the state of Texas refused to give us another district."

But that raises an interesting question – how do we deal with the fact that drawing lines with an eye towards partisan advantage has racial/ethnic implications? The majority effectively conceded that the goal was not racial or ethnic discrimination, but bringing electoral outcomes into line with the partisan preferences of voters. In seeking to preserve the seat of a (Hispanic) GOP incumbent, lines were drawn for partisan advantage – but the result was the removal of Democrats of a particular ethnic group (the region is overwhelmingly Hispanic) and their replacement with white Republicans. Must every change now be made in a race-conscious manner, even if the goal has nothing to do with race?

The exact impact and the timetable are still up in the air.

Experts were still poring over the 130-page opinion to determine how Texas will have to remedy the deficiencies. But each party in the litigation is expected to return to the original panel of three federal judges in Texas with their suggested solutions. And new primaries could be ordered for any district that is substantially altered.

Nina Perales, the lawyer for Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which challenged the map, pronounced the decision historic for Latino voters in particular. She said the decision confirms that lawmakers cannot "roll over minority voting rights" to protect incumbents or promote partisan gains.

She said there is no way to predict how many districts might be affected by the ripple effect of fixing District 23.

I think that Ms. Perales' statement is a bit overblown. Having found the boundaries of 31 districts to be acceptable (well, 30, given the implications of the statements about CD25), the solution should not involve major surgery to the map. In all probability, the solution will involve putting Laredo back into CD23 and shifting a number of low-population counties into neighboring districts to compensate. After all, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot makes a crucial point.

"Today, the United States Supreme Court conclusively rejected broad challenges to the Texas congressional redistricting plan," he said in a written statement. "Although one district must be partially redrawn, the overall contours of the map adopted by the Texas Legislature were affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

The immediate impact here in Texas is important. I agree with this unfriendly commentator from Dallas.

However, the bottom line in Wednesday's decision is that virtually all of the districts drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature will remain in place until the next census. That virtually guarantees the GOP will be able to retain close to the 21-11 margin it gained when they were implemented two years ago.

It also means that those GOP-controlled districts would be the starting point when the post-2010 Legislature considers the issue after the next census. Barring an unexpected Democratic capture of at least one legislative house and the governorship, or both legislative houses, the GOP will be able to keep its majority for the ensuing decade.

Ultimately, of course, Democrats hope that changing population trends, mainly the rising Hispanic population, will translate at the polls into the votes that will enable them to reduce or eliminate Republican majorities.

But just as Democrats were able to maintain their hold on many congressional districts after the state started to trend Republican, the GOP probably will be able to do so until its veteran incumbents retire and a transformed population elects different representatives.

While those demographic changes trend Democrat, that may not even help them. After all, if the growth of Hispanic population is primarily in urban areas, it may serve to create districts which, like majority black districts in many parts of the country, are 70% or more minority due to population density. It also presumes that these ethnic groups will remain serfs on the Democrat manor-- and I do not believe that the competing interests of Hispanic and Affrican-American communities will allow for the sort of long-term political alliance necessary for Democrat hegemony to permanently reassert itself in this state.

UPDATE: I got a nasty email from someone about -- *yawn* -- "racist neo-klan rethugs" disenfranchising minorities and violating the Constitution. However I suggest those who hold such beliefs to go back and re-read (or probably read for the first time) the Kennedy opinion. It seems pretty clear that the division of Laredo to preserve a Republicn incumbent would have been perfectly acceptable had the residents of Laredo been white Democrats and not Hispanic ones. It is only the statutory scheme set up in the VRA that gave special consideration to these Democrats based upon their race, even if race was not the major factor in the drawing of the line. Would you like to talk about equal protection of the law -- or is that an outmoded concept for you?

Posted by: Greg at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1115 words, total size 8 kb.

Signing statements issued by presidents have been around for a long time, indicating the how a president understands a particular piece of legislation and dictating how he will have his subordinates in the Executive Branch enforce a new law. President Bush has made great use of them, in an attempt to mold both current practice and future court decisions to conform with his view of the statute and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the use of this power irritates ersatz Republican Arlen Specter (RINO-PA).

Senators on the Judiciary Committee accused President Bush of an "unprecedented" and "astonishing" power grab on Tuesday for making use of a device that gave him the authority to revise or ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president.

By using what are known as signing statements, memorandums issued with legislation as he signs it, the president has reserved the right to not enforce any laws he thinks violate the Constitution or national security, or that impair foreign relations.

A lawyer for the White House said that Mr. Bush was only doing his duty to uphold the Constitution. But Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the president's actions as a declaration that he "will do as he pleases," without regard to the laws passed by Congress.

So I guess that Specter wants the president to enforce laws he believes to be unconstitutional, thereby violating his oath to uphold that grand document? I suppose that also means that the senator wants the president to accept illegitimate restrictions on his constitutional authority passed by an over-reaching Congress, thereby forfeiting the Executive Branch's role as a co-equal branch of government.

I like the explanation put forward by the administration in support of the signing statements.

Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were "not an abuse of power."

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill," Ms. Boardman said.

Now persoanlly, I would prefer that the president have made use of the veto pen in many of these cases -- but in doing so, he would have been forced to veto bills that were clearly in the national interest with minor provisions that extend too far. By giving creating an Executive history to go witht he Legislative history, it may be that the Judiciary will interpret such provisions in a manner that saves them from being found constitutionally infirm.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.

I am quite gratified to see that the Senate stepped back from sending this silly amendment to the states.

A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

Now that has to be among the dumbest arguments ever made -- because that "national monumnent in cloth" is a piece of private property. As I said in my piece over at Homeland Stupidity, there is a fundamental problem with prohibitting an individual from destroying/desecrating an item that they own.

Yes, I know that men and women have fought and died under that flag — but that flag was not what they were defending. They were defending this soil, this people, and the freedoms enshrined in our founding documents. At best, the flag serves only as a representation of those things. And so while flag-burning may be offensive and enraging — I’d personally like to beat the crap out of anyone who does it within my reach — banning it protects nothing of significance but does undermine very basic freedoms.

After all, if they can prevent you from disrespecting the flag you bought for $9.95 at Wal-Mart, what other items of personal property do they wish to make you hold sacred?

Now I tend to suport most of the rest of the "American Values Agnda" being promoted by the GOP this summer, but find this particular item to be ill-conceived and based upon an emotional response to an act which has less significance than some would give it. And besides, as John over at Whatever pointed out last year, enforcing such a ban would be pretty near impossible.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | Comments (168) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

YesterdayÂ’s proceedings in the court of Judge Sam Slade raise some interesting questions in the ongoing saga of the CD22 race. There are also some intriguing possibilities.

First, there is the question of DeLayÂ’s residence.

DeLay testified in federal court that he has registered to vote in Virginia and that he cast a ballot in that state's recent primary. He said he has a Virginia driver's license, has state tax withheld in Virginia and lives in a condominium in Alexandria, Va.

DeLay acknowledged that he spent the weekend at his home in Sugar Land, near Houston, but testified that his wife is devoted to helping abused and neglected children and that she is continuing that work in the Houston area.

By any legitimate standard, it is clear that DeLay has made himself a resident of the state of Texas. He lives there, votes there, pays taxes there, and has declared his official residence to be there on several official documents, including a driverÂ’s license. He has now stated that he is a resident of Virginia under oath in a court of law. That should establish his ineligibility to the satisfaction of the court.

However, there is this statement from the judge yesterday.

A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.
"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who did not issue an official ruling after a daylong trial regarding DeLay's status as the GOP nominee for the 22nd Congressional District.

If this is a withdrawal, then theoretically there can be no replacement candidate on the ballot. But left unanswered is the possibility that DeLay has withdrawn AND rendered himself ineligible. If that is the case, what provision of state law applies?

The second issue is what happens if this ruling goes against the GOP. I see three possibilities. The first, of course, would be that Tom DeLay could reestablish residency between now and Election Day, reentering the race as a candidate. This would be one logical outcome of the Democrat argument that DeLay cannot be determined to be ineligible before Election Day.
But the other option is more interesting, and contained in one of the GOP arguments in court yesterday.

Attorneys for the Republican Party of Texas say GOP voters would be hurt if his name appears on the ballot because DeLay wouldn't be the guy filling the seat if he won. A special election would have to be called if that scenario played out.

In such a scenario, the GOP would urge voters to select DeLay, with a view towards defeating Lampson and creating the need for a special election to fill the seat. But would enough voters be willing to go along with such a plan?

The third, and least likely, option would be to throw GOP support to Libertarian candidate Bob Smither, with the goal of making him the first Libertarian Congressman – and of making him the first Libertarian ex-Congressman after the 2008 election.

And we won't even get into the implications of the upcoming Supreme Court decision (most likely to be handed down on Thursday morning) regarding the challenge to the off-year redistricting plan here in Texas.

As you can see, this means that even after the Harris County precinct chairs from CD22 meet on Thursday, there is still a lot of interesting stuff that could happen.

Posted by: Greg at 09:08 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

I really didn't need this image of Senator Joe Biden in my head.

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.

But I would have to agree with you, Senator.

I would rather have you home -- *shudder* -- making love to your wife -- *shudder* -- than being President of the United States.

Though I don't care where your kids are or what they are doing at the time.

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

While I could not attend tonight's Executive Committee meeting due to a last minute family emergency, I am reliably informed of the that the two open ballot positions have been filled.

Replacing the late Jack Cato on the ballot for County Treasurer will be Orlando Sanchez, who took handily won the balloting among the precinct chairs. This was despite heavy last-minute campaigning by Harris County GOP Treasurer Larry Hicks, who seemed to have the support of a lot of the party leadership types. Orlando, on the other hand, was definitely the favorite of the grassroots.

The race for the nomination for judge of the 80th District Court had a number of nominees, and required a run-off to fill. It ultimately came down to a contest between Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull and former HISD School Board President Jeff Shadwick. The nomination went to Bradshaw-Hull, despite heavy support from the party leadership, including Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill, Shadwick's employer at the law firm of Woodfill & Pressler. I'm disappointed that my choice, former 80th District Court Judge Scott Link (who left the bench four years ago due to a pair of serious illnesses in his immediate family) did not get the nomination, as he was clearly the candidate in the best position to take the reins of the court.

The striking thing in both cases is that there seems to be a disconnect between the precinct chairs and the county leadership. Given that we are rapidly approaching Thursday's meeting of Harris County precinct chairs from CD22, I would not be surprised to see the leadership's candidate for elector (and, implicitly, the leadership's preferred congressional candidate, another member of the law firm of Woodfill & Pressler) face a stiffer than expected challenge from the grassroots element of the party that has become tired of being told to "follow the leaders".

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

Bribes, acts of violence, and threats to cut off access to government programs -- all of those have reappeared in this year's Mexican election.

Half of the 4,400 voters interviewed by Alianza Civica said social programs in their areas were being used to benefit supporters of political parties. The study's findings indicate that vote-buying and coercion are likely to increase this week, in the final days before the election.

There has been almost no effort to prosecute public officials for vote-buying or coercion. The Center for Higher Study of Social Anthropology, which last week re-released a report it first presented in April, recommended increasing voter education and referring cases of vote-buying to law enforcement authorities.

"In a democracy," Aguayo said, "you have to fight for democracy every day."

Actually, the same problem exists in this country. There is a long history of one party using acts of violence and intimidation, vote-buying, and access to government programs to coerce voters. In Mexico it is the socialist/communits inspired PRI -- in the US it is the Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

That is, after all, what it comes down to in this editorial -- the Administration used legislation passed by a Democrat Congress and Signed By Democrat Jimmy Carter, as well as the Patriot Act, to monitor financial transactions by terrorists.

Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts.

The problem with this statement is that there is a coherent set of rules in place. As the LA Times reluctantly conceded yesterday, the subpoenas are authorized under long-standing federal law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So it seems that authority that everyone felt was acceptable in the hands of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton is somehow dangerous and a threat to American society when used by George W. Bush -- because he is actually using that power to track down enemies of America, not mere criminals.

It is still September 10 in the world of the NY Times. Perhaps they can schedule a breakfast meeting tomorrow at Windows on the World, to gain some perspective on the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Also -- an excellent discussion of SWIFT can be found at SCSU Scholars. Gay Patriot has a superb exposition of the willingness of the NY Times to undercut American security in order to attack George W. Bush. NewsBusters notes this Mort Kondracke gem.

it's as though the New York Times thinks that somehow if the government, if the Bush administration is doing it, it's worse than something al-Qaeda might do to the United States, that we've got more to fear from our own government than we do from terrorist attacks.

Go back and read my excerpt from today's NY Times editorial and tell me that Kondracke didn't peg it exactly.

I also recommend the following superb posts to my readers:

Captain's Quarters -- ACLU, Right On Schedule, in which Ed points out"

anyone operating within the US banking system -- at least at those facilities insured by the FDIC and FSLIC -- the government has access to data on individual banking customers whenever it wants to access it. Any institution insured by the federal government has to give federal regulators access to their records during any extensive examination. Not only that, but since most accounts pay interest, the IRS also gets all of the information on these accounts, including taxpayer numbers and other private information.

However, in this case, the Swift project targeted only those people already indentified as terrorists or terrorist financiers, and the focus was on international transactions. The government brought in outside auditors to ensure that the information requested remained within the boundaries of their power. Most of all, George Bush told us on a number of occasions that the United States would track these transactions around the world to find terrorists and their enablers. The project itself has never been a secret; only the methods used remained clandestine.

Instapundit, who opines as follows:

When big companies dump toxic waste into rivers to enrich themselves, they're criticized by the press. But this is the same kind of thing -- self-serving profiteering at the public's expense.

Stop the ACLU -- ACLU Says Government Spying on Bank Records is Further Abuse of Power. which notes the ACLU's rejection of its own historic respect for national security.

There is probably no other time that a proper balance between civil liberties and national security becomes more important than in wartime. During times of war, sometimes unusual responses are implemented, often requiring suspension of certain liberties. Of course war opens the opportunity for abuse by governments, and the ACLU are right to watch for them. However, the ACLU in its absolutist perception of freedom, only worries about one side of the equation, civil liberties. It pays no attention to the national security side of things, not only ignoring it, but working against it.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.” SOURCE

UPDATE: Even the Washington Post> agrees this is legal and proper.

For one thing, it appears to be legal. The government is receiving large volumes of data detailing financial transfers from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a Belgium-based consortium that acts as a kind of messenger service for banks around the world, electronically notifying banks of transactions other banks are attempting to complete. The government, if it develops suspicions about a person, can search the system for any transactions that person may have engaged in. While customer banking data are generally private under federal law, the statute does not appear to cover the society, which isn't a bank and doesn't have individual customers. What's more, a different law gives the president broad powers in a national emergency situation to investigate, or even prohibit, certain financial transactions.

It is also the sort of information the government should be examining in any effort to frustrate terrorist financing and develop leads about who is funding whom. While such data can certainly be misused, records of overseas financial transfers are less sensitive from a privacy point of view than, say, the contents of phone calls or e-mails. And some safeguards appear to be in place to make sure the information is not misused. The department receives the material under a subpoena, Treasury officials emphasized yesterday. SWIFT's representatives audit all searches, as does an outside auditing firm. Unlike a data-mining operation, where analysts try to identify high-risk individuals using patterns and trends embedded in huge data sets, analysts here are searching for transactions involving individuals about whom they already have suspicions.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Jo's Cafe, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Third World County, Dumb Ox, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Chaotic Synaptic Activity, Selective Amnesia, Stuck On Stupid, Dan Mancini, Stop The ACLU, Right Wing Nation, Wizbang, Basil's Blog, Uncooperative blogger, GM's Corner, The Amboy Times, Woman Honor Thyself, Leaning Straight Up, Assorted Babble

Posted by: Greg at 02:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1218 words, total size 11 kb.

After the Democrats followed a policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" during her husband's scandal-filled administration, I don't see where Lady Macbeth has any room criticizing her political opponents for supporting the policies of the President.

One day after suffering a pair of defeats on the Senate floor, Democratic leaders argued yesterday that their internal divisions over Iraq will help push the country toward a change in policy and accused Republicans of blindly following President Bush on a path that has been disastrous for the nation.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said Democrats emerged from this week's Senate debate more united than critics contend around a policy aimed at forcing the new Iraqi government to take responsibility for suppressing the insurgency. Party unity is important, she said, but not as valuable as an open debate about how best to change course.

"We're not blindly united like the other side is, where they are like the three monkeys -- 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,' " she told reporters after a speech to the Democratic group NDN. "They're not going to say anything negative about the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense or anybody else. I think that's irresponsible. It's negligent."

Perjury. Rape. Sexual harassment Abuse of FBI files. Firing civil service employees on trumped up charges to give contracts to family members. Abuse of the Justice Department to file false criminal charges. Cattle futures. Illegal fundraising. Illegal technology transfers. The list could continue for pages, but somehow the Democrats managed to ignore every single one of these crimes in their lockstep celebration of the most corrupt President in American history.

And now his wife dares criticize her political opponents for supporting George W. Bush in his efforts to wipe out jihadi terrorism. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven!

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

In light of the expiration of the TRO preventing the selection of a replacement for Tom DeLay for the November ballot, the process is moving forward. Harris County precinct chairs in CD22 received this tonight.

DATE: Friday, June 23, 2006

TO: Precinct Chairmen in Harris County

Whose Precincts Lie Within TX Congressional District 22

FROM: Jared Woodfill, County Chairman

RE: URGENT

NOTICE OF MEETING

TO ELECT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

RELATED TO NOMINEE FOR TEXAS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 22

As you know, Congressman Tom DeLay is no longer eligible to be the Republican nominee for Texas Congressional District 22 in the November 2006 General Election. Thus, this will serve as notice of a meeting to be held as follows:

Date: Thursday, June 29, 2006

Time: 7:00 p.m. (Registration will begin at 6:00 p.m.)

Location: Judge Louie Ditta's Courtroom @ 16603 Buccaneer, Houston TX 77062

(2nd Floor, Rm. 20

For the purpose of electing one (1) member to the district executive committee that, in turn, will elect a new Republican nominee for Texas Congressional District 22 for the November 2006 General Election ballot.

As you may also know, the district executive committee is comprised of one (1) member from each of the four (4) counties that are within Texas Congressional District 22, specifically Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris counties. The precinct chairmen within each of those counties whose precinct is also within Texas Congressional District 22 will meet to elect one of their own to represent them on the district executive committee. For our county, this meeting will be held as set forth in this notice. Once elected, the district executive committee will then meet to elect our new Republican nominee for this congressional district.

The Harris County Republican Party states that an emergency exists by reason of the delays on the process caused by recent litigation, thus requiring the timing of this meeting. Given the importance of this matter, I look forward to your attendance at the meeting.

(End of Call)

This means that we will select someone next week, barring a new restraining order. That should also mean the selection of a new candidate within two weeks of the meetings in the four counties involved.

Posted by: Greg at 01:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

And so they are seeking to increase the taxes of everyone making over $45,000 a year – what most of us would still define as middle class.

Memo to Minnesota: Some of our wealthiest residents think state government needs more money and say they're willing to pay the bill.

More than 200 wealthy Minnesotans signed a full-page ad that appears in the Star Tribune today asking the state to raise $2 billion for various initiatives by increasing the state's tax burden for high-salary earners.

"We need to invest more in our future," said Joel Kramer, former publisher of the Star Tribune and founder of think tank Growth and Justice that organized the "Invest for Real Prosperity" fiscal strategy.

The new money should be used to improve educational opportunities, provide affordable health care and fund transportation needs, Kramer said. His group has argued for several years that the state's wealthiest residents should pay higher taxes to fund needed government programs.

Business leaders Jim Pohlad of Marquette Financial Company, Richard McFarland, retired CEO of Dain Rauscher, and Lee Lynch, former CEO of Carmichael Lynch, were also key contributors to the current proposal that would make those earning more than $275,000 pay the state an additional 2 cents in taxes for every dollar earned. That would be an additional $6,000 in taxes for someone earning $300,000.

State taxes for anyone making less than $45,000 would not increase and the rates would vary for everyone in between. Kramer said he hopes the ad will create public interest and discussion, perhaps leading to legislative action. He also acknowledged that even if the tax increase was approved, it would take "some faith in government" to trust that the money would be appropriated according to the group's requests.

I’ll tell you what needs to happen – Minnesota needs to follow a number of other states in enacting a “Tax Me More” fund for those who feel like they need to be taxed more. But if Minnesota does so, it will likely experience the same thing as those other states – those who claim to be under-taxed won’t put their money where their mouth is by ponying up the “excess personal wealth” that they think rightly belongs to the government and not themselves. Apparently they believe that it is everyone else – but not themselves – who is undertaxed.

Posted by: Greg at 11:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

What other word would you apply to a congressman who pressured government officials to award contracts to clients of a family memberÂ’s lobbying firm when there were other competitors better for the job, and pushed deals that would be financially beneficial to family members of his political allies?

Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.

In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle.

As Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, has said, "If there is a potential pattern where Congressman Murtha has helped other Democrats secure appropriations that also benefited relatives of those members, I believe this would be something that merits further review by the ethics committee."

Remember, this is the same Jack Murtha who was up to his ears in the Abscam scandal but managed to skate after being named an unindicted co-conspirator by the Carter Justice Department. So questions about Jack Murtha being dirty are not new – they are long-standing and substantive. Heck, if he had an (R) after his name, he would be a daily target for Democrats – consider what was done to my former congressman (Tom DeLay) with substantially less evidence of wrong-doing.

Posted by: Greg at 08:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

Presidents have become the most important fundraisers for their parties, so it should be no surprise that President Bush is in demand as a fundraiser for the GOP. Take this example.

At a gala dinner on Monday, Republicans raised a whopping $27 million for candidates in the November midterm election in a bid to fend off a strong challenge by Democrats for control of the U.S. Congress.

President George W. Bush was the headliner at the 2006 President's Dinner gala, typically one of the biggest fund-raising events of the election cycle.

"We're going to keep the House and we're going to keep the Senate thanks to you all," Bush told a crowd of about 6,000 people at the Washington convention center.

The $27 million included $15 million for candidates for the House of Representatives and $12 million for Senate candidates. Bush acknowledged it was an "incredibly successful dinner."

But, of course, the Democrats ave found a way to bash the Bresident over this.

"President Bush's big money fundraiser tonight proves once again that he puts the needs of his special interest corporate friends ahead of the priorities of the American people," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney.

Really, Ms. Finney? You mean there are no fundraising galas by Democrats? I recall many during Clinton years, and during both the Gore and Kerrrey campaigns -- star-studded events in which millions were raised. Is this criticism a sign tha the Democrats have sworn off large fundraisers and donations from millionaires? Or simply that you consider YOUR mega-rich donors to be "just plain folks" while GOP donors are evil? Don't answer, because we all know that what you would say would not be what you mean -- and that your criticism of the president won't be valid until your party voluntarily caps donations at $500 per donor. Otherwise, you are just hypocritically condemning the president for the same sort of fundraising done by Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm glad this guy is headed to prison. That is where corrupt government officials belong.

And while the Left is making hay over the conviction of a Bush Administration official, I'd like to remind them of who is responsible for this prosecution -- the Bush Justice Department.

David H. Safavian, a former Bush administration official with close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, was found guilty today in federal court of four of five felony charges against him in connection with the Abramoff corruption and influence-peddling scandal.

The verdict was announced shortly after the jury of two men and 10 women began their fifth day of deliberations in Washington following the trial of Safavian on charges of making false statements to federal officials and obstruction of justice.

Safavian, 38, a former chief of staff of the General Services Administration and top federal procurement officer, was accused of lying about a 2002 golfing trip to Scotland with Abramoff and obstructing an investigation by the GSA inspector general and other investigators. He was also charged with concealing his efforts to help Abramoff acquire control of two federally managed properties in the Washington area.

He became the first person to be put on trial in connection with Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to fraud and conspiracy charges. Four other former Abramoff associates also have pleaded guilty so far. As part of their plea deals, they have agreed to cooperate in an investigation of Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and other lawmakers allegedly embroiled in a broad public corruption scandal involving the acceptance of various inducements in return for official acts. Ney denies any wrongdoing.

The jury found Safavian guilty of three counts of making false statements -- to the GSA Office of Inspector General, a GSA ethics official and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee -- and one count of obstructing the GSA inspector general's investigation. He was acquitted of another charge of obstructing an investigation by the Indian Affairs Committee.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Safavian thus faces up to 20 years in prison for the four counts. He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 12 by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman.

So let's remember this very simple point -- the Bush Justice Department has prosecuted a Bush official and obtained a conviction. On the other hand, how many Clinton officials were pursued by the Clinton Justice Department -- as opposed to special prosecutors. My point? Which administration was willing to deal with its own problems, and which had to be policed from outside due to the gross amounts of corruption manifested from Day One?

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

We've heard a lot of liberal outrage over certain comments made by Ann Coulter about the Jersey Girls -- comments that I wish she had not made. However, I don't recall liberal (or media) outrage over this Michael Moore letter to Elian Gonzalez.

In 2000 Michael Moore wrote a famous letter to Elian Gonzalez. Among the highlights: “your mother decided to kidnap you … in Cuba, you were in jeopardy of receiving free health care whenever you needed it, an excellent education in one of the few countries that has 100% literacy … your mother snatched you and put you on that death boat because she simply wanted to make more money. Your mother placed you in a situation where you were certain to die on the open seas and that is unconscionable. It was the ultimate form of child abuse.”

Attacking a dead mother for trying to free her child from Castro's gulag -- especially when combined with his history of anti-Cuban bigotry -- should rate a condemnation from the Left.

But I guess not -- after all, freedom-loving Cubans vote Republican, so they are entitled to neithyer respect nor decency, even when they die to free their children.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week they voted against a timetable to leave Iraq. This week, they are trying to craft one. When will the Senate Democrats make up their minds?

Trying to bridge party divisions on the eve of a Senate debate, leading Democrats called Monday for American troops to begin pulling out of Iraq this year. They avoided setting a firm timetable for withdrawal but argued that the Bush administration's open-ended commitment to the war would only prevent Iraqis from moving forward on their own.

Coming the week after partisan and often angry House debate over the war, the Senate proposal, a nonbinding resolution, was carefully worded to deflect any accusations that the Democrats were "cutting and running," as their position has been depicted by Republicans. The Democrats behind the measure did not even use the word "withdrawal," and talked about how to guarantee "success" for Iraq, not about any failures of the war.

"The administration's policy to date — that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us — will result in Iraq's depending upon us longer," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, who has been designated by the Democratic leadership to present the party's strategy on Iraq. "Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

In other words, this is a resolution that looks good to the hard Left base of the Democrat Party, but does nothing so as not to alienate the rest of America.

I like Mitch McConnell's characterization of the proposal -- "cut & jog". And he is absolutely correct when he notes that the ehtire Democrat plan is poorly thought out.

"The last thing you want to do when you have the terrorists on the run is give them notice that you're going to leave," said Mr. McConnell, the Senate's No. 2 Republican.

When at war, you stay until you utterly defeat your enemy -- and you certainly don't give tell him that you are going to give up and walk away after a certain date. This isn't boxing with a set number of 3-minute rounds -- this is a fight for civilization against the enemies of all mankind.

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like Americans have a number of candidates they oppose in 2008 -- but not any who they particulalry support.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely vote against" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004. (Poll)

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president.

Among the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better than the Democrats, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush fared worse.

Only 30 percent said they would "definitely vote against" Giuliani; 34 percent said that of McCain.

As for Bush, brother of the current president, 63 percent said there was no way he would get their vote. The younger Bush has denied interest in running for president in 2008.

One would think that means smooth sailing for McCain or Giuliani -- but that isn't the case.

Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her.

Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent.

This telephone poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive for CNN. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

So waht I'm seeing is a bunch of leading candidates with high negatives and little in the way of positive support. That means there is plenty of room for a candidate to arise from outside the group that conventional wisdom seems to lean towards as "leading candidates".

However, Captain's Quarters makes an important point about this poll.

It certainly has some interest, but at this stage of the process this poll is hardly determinative. The race will not begin even preliminarily until next summer, and the upcoming midterms may have a tremendous impact on these numbers, especially for Hillary. I would be interested to see the same poll twelve months from now. In the meantime, the poll is notable for who has apparently been left out: Mark Warner and Barack Obama for the Democrats (as well as John Edwards, who has slipped through all the cracks), and Mitt Romney, George Allen, and Condi Rice for the GOP, the latter just for the fun of seeing how those numbers would look.

There are real and potential candidates out there besides those included in this poll. Furthermore, there is still time for a surprise or two to emerge -- perhaps Newt Gingrich? -- and take the nomination orf one or both parties by storm. Could 2008 be another 1968 or 1988?

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

Just got this in the mail a few minutes ago.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2006
Contact: Gretchen Essell
(512) 477-9821

CD 22 Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court

AUSTIN — In response to the frivolous lawsuit filed last week by Democrats regarding the Texas Congressional District 22 race, the Republican Party of Texas has removed the case to federal court.

“Democrats cannot have their cake and eat it too,” said Republican Party of Texas Chairman Tina Benkiser. “If Democrat plaintiff trial lawyers want to raise federal issues under the U.S. Constitution, they cannot then seek to have them decided in the liberal state court of their choice.”

Last week upon receiving public records of Congressman Tom DeLayÂ’s recent move to Virginia, Chairman Benkiser declared DeLay ineligible to run for reelection in Texas on the November general ballot. Two days later, Democrats, as usual, ran to court attempting to win there what they cannot win at the ballot box.

Rather than filing in the correct court, Democrats conveniently chose to file in the liberal 201st District Court in Austin. The state judge granted a temporary restraining order to keep Republicans from following the legal process set forth in the Texas Election Code to replace Congressman DeLay on the November general election ballot.

“Republicans want to ensure that voters in Congressional District 22 are given a choice of candidates in the fall,” said Benkiser. “They deserve a chance for a conservative voice in Congress, and we are confident that they will have one.”

###

Paid for by the Republican Party of Texas
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78701.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

My only question is why the one-week delay?

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

Left-winnger Larry Johnson tends to be wrong about . . . well, damn near everything. You know, the potential threat of al-Queda to America, the certainty of a Rove indictment, the heroism and electablity of John Kerry. You know, the utterly erroneous nature of every word from his mouth or his keyboard.

Well, he really went off the deep end in this post.

Karl is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out. It would be one thing if his vile tactics were simply mere smears of politicians like Kerry and Murtha. They are big boys and should be able to defend themselves quite ably against this turd.

Johnson has since sent the original words into blogospheric oblivion, but enough others have taken them down that the unexpurgated original will live in infamy.

To Mr. Johnson, I offer this simple message.

Have you no decency, Mr. Johnson? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

We know you have no honesty, based upon your stuffing your initial, even more despicible words down the memory-hole. At least Ann Coulter has the integrity to stand by hers, while you seek to cover up your vile utterances.

Mr. Johnson's evil and cowardice are utterly beyond belief.

(H/T Protein Wisdom)

Posted by: Greg at 06:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Last night we all heard that the House Democrats had voted to remove Rep. William Jefferson from the powerful House Ways and means Committee. However, that is not the case. The media may present it that way, but are forced to acknowledge the truth once they get into the heart of the story.

Democrats voted last night to strip Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.) of a plum committee assignment while he is embroiled in a federal bribery investigation.

The 99 to 58 vote followed weeks of public and private wrangling, as Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought to take a strong election-year stance on ethics, while Jefferson's allies -- mainly fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- protested that he was being singled out for unfair treatment.

Jefferson left immediately after voting and said he would spend the evening considering his next move.

"I'm just going to go to my office," Jefferson said. "I'm just going to wait and see."

Now it sounds like the Democrat Caucus has actually done something about corruption in their midst. But surprise, surprise -- look at the next paragraph.

If he refuses to step aside from the Ways and Means Committee, as urged by the Democratic Caucus, the next step would be a vote on the House floor to remove him from the prestigious committee. Even his allies want to avoid that.

Hold on just one minute. I thought they had stripped Jefferson of the committee assignment. But this clearly indicates that they have done no such thing. Instead, the Democrat Caucus has voted to ASK Jefferson, pretty please with sugar, whipped cream, and a cherry on top, to quit the committee. Jefferson can refuse -- and then it goes to a vote of the whole House, not just the Democrats. It would require the cooperation of the GOP to remove jefferson.

And I hope that they refuse to go along with this attempt by Pelosi & Co. to cover their asses. The Republican leadership should refuse to act on the measure until such time as the House Democrats get their act in order and write some rules that deal with disqualification of members from committee assignements. After all, Rep. Alan Mollohan left the Ethics Committee under a cloud -- but still remains on the even more powerful Appropriations Committee, a position which he has been accused of using to enrich himself and business associates. What standards are the Democrats using to determine which members will be forced off of committees, and which will be permitted to stay? Also, which committees do the Democrats consider exempt from ethical scrutiny, and which require removal?

UPDATE: Well, the full House removed Jefferson from Ways & Means. Shows how much influence I have.

Posted by: Greg at 04:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

If the legislature won't give us appraisal caps and spending limits, then I guess it is up to private citizens to ask the courts to enforce a proision of the Texas Constitution that has lain dormant ever since it was passed 28 years ago.

A Houston taxpayer group said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that legislative leaders have repeatedly violated a state spending limit in the Texas Constitution.

Edd Hendee, executive director of Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes, sued Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Tom Craddick, Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and the Legislative Budget Board.

"The limitations in the constitution need to be defended against Republican leadership that has fallen intoxicatingly into this habit of spending more money than the constitution allows," said Hendee, a restaurant owner and a KSEV radio talk-show host.

He is asking the court to enforce a provision approved by Texas voters in 1978. The section states that the growth in appropriations shall not exceed the growth in the state's economy.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County state district court, alleges the Legislative Budget Board has used artificially robust estimates of economic growth to justify high spending limits. The board, made up of Dewhurst, Craddick and other legislative leaders, develops recommendations for state agency appropriations.

Hendee wants a judge to declare the recently passed school finance appropriations unconstitutional. The Legislature spent nearly half of the state's $8.2 billion surplus to cover initial property tax cuts, a teacher pay raise and new high school spending.

CLOUT has been critical of a new state business tax enacted to help pay for property tax cuts.

Now the attack on the school funding plan concerns me, as it could lead to the closure of Texas schools if granted. But I do believe that the proper outcome would be some sort of constraints upon the state spending, in accordance with the state Constitution.

A copy of the suit may be found here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Call it a sign of the leftward drift of the Democrats -- 2000 Donk Veep Candidate Joe Lieberman is locked in a tight primary race and may run for reelection as an independent.

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, warily watching his primary challenger advance in the polls, must soon decide whether to start collecting signatures for a possible independent bid this November.

Lieberman's campaign contends that it's focused only on winning the Aug. 8 primary, but the Democrat has not ruled out petitioning his way onto the November ballot as part of a backup plan to secure a fourth term in the Senate.

"I am not going to close out any options," the senator recently told reporters.

Lieberman has until Aug. 9 — the day after the Democratic primary — to collect 7,500 signatures from registered voters to gain a spot on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate.

But any effort to gather signatures before the primary would be a sign of weakness, indicating that Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, fears that he could lose to businessman Ned Lamont. The effort also would rile Democrats who already question Lieberman's party loyalty and his perceived closeness to President Bush.

The senator has been a strong backer of the Iraq war.

Lieberman's opponent is closing in the polls -- liberal bloggers cite a poll that shows the race to be down to a six-point margin between the two candidates. At the same time, polls of general election voters show huge support for Lieberman, with nearly 60% of all voters in Connecticutt backing the incumbent.

What does this development mean for the future of both parties? Are we looking at a fluke, at a realignment of the electorate, or a fluke? Only time will tell.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Remember George Soros? Well, a French Court has upheld his conviction on insider trading charges.

George Soros's bid to overturn an insider-trading conviction has been rejected by France's highest appeals court, ending the billionaire's fight to erase a legal stain on his 40-year investing career.

The Court of Cassation, the tribunal of last resort in France, ended its review of a March 2005 judgment that Soros broke insider-trading laws when he bought Societe Generale SA shares in 1988 with the knowledge that the bank might be a takeover target. The Hungary-born financier has been fighting the case for 17 years.

``The court did not respond to one of our key arguments concerning the fact that the length of the proceedings didn't allow Mr. Soros to have a fair trial,'' said Ron Soffer, one of Soros's lawyers.

The verdict came as the 75-year-old former financier turned his attention from his investing career to political and charitable activities. Soros had been ordered to pay back 2.2 million euros ($2.8 million) in gains. That amount will now be reviewed, Soffer said.

The 2005 Paris appeals court ruling upheld a 2002 conviction by a first-instance tribunal. The judges rejected Soros's contention that he didn't consider the information that led him to buy Societe Generale shares to be confidential. The French government sold Societe Generale in June 1987 at 407 French francs a share. A year later, after a stock market crash, the shares had fallen to 260 francs.

I wonder – will the final adjudication of this financial scandal lead Democrats and other American Leftists to return donations from Soros and organizations under his control? Or will such disassociation from financial corruption be considered inappropriate by Democrats – though they would scream from it if the case involved a Republican donor?

Posted by: Greg at 10:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

How else can you respond to an assertion of omniscience like this?

'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America'...

So, unless Dean is admitting to receiving illegally leaked grand jury testimony, we can only conclude that he is claiming to be divinely omniscient. After all, how can Dean know what indictments might have been handed down? How can he know the state of Karl Rove’s souls and what sins he has committed?

And in light of this, I’d like to know when the “separation of church and state” folks will be filing suit to have this deity removed from any position of influence in the Democrat Party?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

How else can you respond to an assertion of omniscience like this?

'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America'...

So, unless Dean is admitting to receiving illegally leaked grand jury testimony, we can only conclude that he is claiming to be divinely omniscient. After all, how can Dean know what indictments might have been handed down? How can he know the state of Karl RoveÂ’s souls and what sins he has committed?

And in light of this, I’d like to know when the “separation of church and state” folks will be filing suit to have this deity removed from any position of influence in the Democrat Party?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

One more indicator of the extent of the Democrat culture of corruption.

The embattled securities class-action law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman received some political backing last week with the release of a statement signed by four Democrats from the House of Representatives condemning last month's indictment in Los Angeles of the firm on criminal charges.

"The Justice Department's crusade against trial lawyers, the first line in the average citizen's protection against corporate greed, has taken a new low in the indictment of an entire leading law firm in the plaintiffs' bar," said the statement.

The statement was signed by three representatives from New York - Charles Rangel, Carolyn McCarthy and Gary Ackerman - and Robert Wexler from Florida. One of the founders of the law firm, Melvyn Weiss, is a high-profile fund-raiser for the Democratic Party.

The Dems are are clearly behind these class-action crooks. And it is, of course, the usual liberal suspects.

Posted by: Greg at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Just last week, the Democrats beat back the repeal of the death tax by claiming that we needed the revenue. They like to tell us that the economy is weak – and that the weakness is due to GOP policies.

If that is true, explain these statistics.

The CBO forecast in May that the 2006 deficit could fall as low as $300 billion. Michael Englund, chief economist of Action Economics, has long expected a deficit of about $270 billion this year. Now he thinks there's a chance the "remarkable strength in receipts" will push the deficit even lower.

With the economy topping $13 trillion this year, a $270 billion deficit would equal less than 2.1% of GDP, easily beating the president's 2.25% goal. Bush made his vow when the White House had a dour 2004 deficit forecast of 4.5% of GDP, or $521 billion. The actual '04 deficit came in at $412 billion, or 3.5% of GDP, before falling to $318 billion, or 2.6% of GDP, in 2005.

A CBO analysis last week noted that withheld individual income and payroll taxes are up 7.6% from a year ago, with the gains picking up in recent months.

Not only that, but the richest Americans are paying an ever-increasing share of taxes.

Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.

The result is that President Bush may meet the goal of reducing the post-9/11 budget deficit to $150 billion this year – ahead of his promised FY 2009 target.

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Personally, I oppose the passage of an amendment to the Constitution banning flag-burning. I consider it to be a case of using a Trident missle to kill a mosquito. But that said, I am not at all troubled by the possibility that it may finally get enough votes to go to the states for possible ratification.

Sometime between now and the Fourth of July, the Senate plans to revisit what over the course of 17 years has become a seasonal rite of patriotism on Capitol Hill: a vote on whether to amend the Constitution to ban protesters from burning the American flag.

Each time, the arguments on both sides are passionate. Each time, the support needed to move ahead with an amendment falls short.

But this year could be different, as two important trends cross paths.

For one, proponents of the amendment appear to have more support than ever in the Senate. They say they are within one vote of the two-thirds majority they need. The House already has backed the amendment. A majority of Americans say they support a flag amendment, and over time all 50 states have passed some form of resolution urging Congress to act.

"We believe once the amendment moves off of Capitol Hill it will be the swiftest-ratified amendment in the history of the nation," said Marty Justis of Indianapolis, a Navy veteran and executive director of the Citizens' Flag Alliance, which for years has led the campaign. He and other supporters will be back on Capitol Hill on Wednesday -- Flag Day -- trying to round up and lock in support.

At the same time, some polling indicates Americans' once-robust support for a flag amendment is waning and could be tough to recapture for many years if it slips below 50 percent. That has amendment opponents -- a mix of liberals, free-speech activists and conservatives who believe the Constitution should never or almost never be amended -- determined to stave off Senate passage.

"This is very generational -- basically, if this doesn't pass the next Congress or two, it's a dying issue," said Terri Ann Schroeder, a senior lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment as an infringement on free speech.

There has been a call for this amendment for many years. It has strong support. Let's see what the states do with it, in response to the will of the people. I'll be out campaigning against it. But if it passes, it will be in response to the will of the American people -- and that is not a bad thing, in my book.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Fitzmas hasw bee cancelled, Lefties!

The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.

For months Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation appeared to threaten Mr. Rove's standing as Mr. Bush's closest political adviser as the prosecutor riveted his focus on whether Mr. Rove tried to intentionally conceal a conversation he had with a Time magazine reporter in the week before the name of intelligence officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, became public.

The decision not to pursue any charges removes a potential political stumbling block for a White House that is heading into a long and difficult election season for Republicans in Congress.

In other words, all this investigation and only one peripheral indictment that does not deal with the actual leak of information. And you morons complained about the Clinton investigations by Ken Starr, which produced many indictments and saw Clinton cutting a deal to avoid prosecution.

So tell me -- when will we get an investigation and prosecution of Joe Wilson for his lies about his trip to Niger and his perjury before Congress?

Click these for more on the scandal that wasn't.

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm hearing a lot -- especially, though not exclusively, from pundits opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment -- that religious conservatives are not merely disappointed in the failure of the FMA to pass, but are angry at the White House and the GOP leadership for not placing a higher priority on promoting the amendment.

Take this example.

Last week's Senate vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage—along with President Bush's televised endorsement of the measure—were seen as part of a Republican campaign to mollify its restive conservative base before the midterm elections. But for many conservative Christian activists, the White House did not do enough to build support for the Marriage Protection Amendment, either in the Senate or in the public, before it ultimately failed last week.

Some conservatives say they're puzzled by Bush, who appears genuinely enthusiastic about the issue in his public statements but has nonetheless treated it as a low priority in his second term. "The president gave great comments the other day," says Tom McClusky, chief lobbyist for the Family Research Council, a top conservative advocacy group. "Yet if he truly believed the [gay marriage] threat is there, we are disappointed that he did not do more or even equal to what he did last time."

That is all true, but not very realistic, from where I sit. The reality is that the situation today is very different from two years ago, and the president simply lacks the political capital to spend on an amendment that was doomed to fail in Congress. Scandal, dissension, Katrina, gas prices and the prolonged War on Terror have sapped the popularity of George W. Bush, and there are simply more pressing issues to fight. What's more, I believe that religious conservatives (I'm not one, though I am both conservative and religious) are implicitly aware of this situation, even if some of their leaders have a tunnel vision focussed on social issues.

Take James Dobson as an example.

While publicly praising Bush for supporting the amendment, conservative evangelical activists have also vented frustrations. In a radio interview last week with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson asked what the president was doing to win support for the amendment, which required a two-thirds majority to pass the Senate. "Is he working the hill?" Dobson inquired. "Is he calling?"

When Snow responded that he didn't know, Dobson cut him off. "That's unfortunate," he snapped. "Because when Lyndon Johnson wanted the civil rights legislation, he didn't have the votes...and he made it happen.... He used the bully pulpit to make it happen. President Bush has not done that yet."

What Dobson overlooks is that Johnson had something that Bush does not -- a loyal opposition that was, in fact, more supportive of his position on civil rights than Johnson's Democrat Party. In addition, Johnson needed merely a majority to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and other legislation of that era, while Bush needs a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to pass the FMA. Why waste political capital reaching for an unreachable goal? It does not matter that every marriage-related proposition put before the people in the last few years has passed by landslide proportions when the Democrats are committed to acting contrary to the will of the people as expressed by the people at the ballot box.

There are those who talk of social conservatives walking away from the GOP. But I must ask where they would go. To the Democrats, who label them bigoted, hate-filled, and unAmerican for their support of traditional marriage? To a third party that lacks the critical mass to play more than the spoiler's role on the national stage? Or back into the wilderness of pious apoliticism, with the clear understanding that secularist America will go to Hell in it own red, white, and blue handbasket?

Like it or not, the last three decades have seen the fortunes of the GOP and the Religious Right bound more and more tightly together. In a number of states, it is that faction of the party that is ascendant. To surrender that influence over the agenda of the GOP would be to consigne the Federal Marriage Amendment -- and much of the rest of the social conservative platform -- to irrelevancy and oblivion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 739 words, total size 5 kb.

One of the candidates I find attractive at this early stage of the race for the 2008 GOP nomination is Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. And it looks like he has devised a strategy to line up a lot of early money behind him in advance of formally announcing his campaign -- and well in advance of the primaries.

Governor Mitt Romney is financing the early stages of his potential presidential campaign with a novel, multistate fund-raising operation that is allowing him to maximize legal donations, outflank top Republican competitors, and minimize public scrutiny.

Since July 2004, Romney has set up affiliates of his political action committee, the Commonwealth PAC, in five states. By having donors spread their contributions across the various affiliates, Romney has been able to effectively evade the $5,000-per-donor annual contribution limit that applies only to federal committees, which most presidential aspirants set up to build initial support for their candidacies.

The multistate system is helping Romney raise money quickly from relatively few contributors, and foster valuable political relationships around the country. It also is a strategy several potential opponents for the Republican nomination cannot use: Federal office-holders, under new campaign finance rules, are barred from operating such state affiliates.

That means possible 2008 competitors such as Senators John McCain of Arizona and George Allen of Virginia have to rely solely on their federal PACs and thus cannot accept more than $5,000 from any contributor each year.

``I think it's a brilliant strategy," said Rich Bond, a former Republican National Committee chairman and a McCain supporter. ``It's fully compliant with the law, yet allows Romney to deploy political assets in a comprehensive fashion."

While the methods are different, the tactic of getting large infusions of early money is reminescent of another governor who sought the presidential nod of the GOP a few years back -- then-Gov. george W. Bush of Texas.

And let's be honest -- Romney needs to become more familiar to voters nationwide very quickly. Of particular concern to a segment of the GOP voters is Romney's religion, and this strategy might allow him to become more well-known among the GOP base, defusing the issue if Romney can be seen as "one of us" by groups that are suspicious of his LDS Church connections even as they share a host of values with the overwhelming majority of Mormons. I believe that the gulf can be overcome -- it hasn't been long since Evangelicals were suspicious of Catholic candidates based upon theology, not values.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Stuck on Stupid, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Passionate America, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, 7 Deadly Sins, Free Constitution, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop The ACLU, Wizbang, Cao's Blog, Euphoric Reality

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 5 kb.

You filed suit to prevent the Texas GOP from acting under the Texas Election Code to replace an ineligible candidate for office, former Congressman Tom DeLay. You argue that he is not a resident of Virginia, but is instead a resident of Texas.

Under the Texas Election Code, DeLay must "conclusively" establish by public record that he is a resident of another state, said Chad Dunn, an attorney for the state Democratic Party. Democrats contend he hasn't done so because he still has a Texas driver's license, was registered to vote in Fort Bend County, Texas, as of Thursday and gets a Texas homestead exemption.

How, then, do you deal with this?

DeLay told reporters Thursday he is a Virginia resident and planned to vote next week. [DeLay spokesperson Shannon] Flaherty said he obtained a Virginia driver's license and registered to vote in Virginia in late April or early May. She said he voted absentee because he will be traveling Tuesday, the state's primary day.

Delay has voted in Virginia. We all know that counties within Texas don't always notify each other of new registrations in a timely fashion -- what makes you think another state would be any better?

He has a driver's license in Virginia. How quickly do states notify each other of such things?

And as for the homestead exemption, that house is community property and Christine DeLay (who is staying here to work with the Rio Bend forster community) has not changed her residency -- which entitles the house to the homestead exemption, as I recall the requirements from when I applied for mine.

Is there ANY evidence you will accept of his having abandoned his Texas residency and becomeing a Virginia resident?

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

You have to love the Washington PostÂ’s article on the upcoming elections in Maryland. Much to the paperÂ’s surprise, candidates are trying to garner a share of the black vote by visiting black churches.

The early morning breakfast gathering at the First Baptist Church of Glenarden was intended to promote economic empowerment for African Americans.

But the long roster of prominent politicians packing the small church meeting room last week signaled that the coming election season could bring parishioners something else they've been seeking: political clout.

The candidates for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, in particular, have turned the state's predominately black churches into a key battleground for both the primary and general elections.

"This is where you've got to be," said the Rev. Jerome Stephens, a Baltimore minister who is helping execute an outreach strategy to black churches for U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, one of a half-dozen Democrats seeking the Senate seat. "Everybody who wants statewide office knows they have to be seen in church."

Attracting the support of black voters has always been pivotal to Democratic candidates because African Americans make up roughly 40 percent of the party's primary voters. This year, these voters have also become a crucial target for the best-known Republican contender, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

Steele recently predicted he needs 25 percent of the black vote to prevail in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly two to one.

Aware that the best place to reach black voters is in church, Steele, Cardin and Democratic contender Kweisi Mfume have been a steady presence in the pews over the past year.

"All politicians seeking African American votes know they have to go through the churches," said Mark Clack, Mfume's communications director. "That's where the black community first received its political inspiration, and it's where the center of the community still remains."

I realize the strict-separationists don’t like it, but there are a great many American citizens whose religious beliefs under-gird their political philosophies. And not only that, but many religious Americans live lives that revolve around their place of worship – whether we are talking Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, or Muslims. Even at my church – a small congregation affiliated with the mainline Disciples of Christ – you find activities going most nights of the week that involve a substantial percentage of the congregation. Candidates who want to meet the people where they are have to make contact with these believers – who are citizens and voters – where they are. And “where they are” is at church.

And when it comes to the African-American community, the pull of the faith –community is even stronger. The church is the bedrock of society in most black communities. It is no accident that the civil rights movement was led by men whose title was often “Reverend” rather than “Doctor” or “Esquire” – and that the premiere organization for many years was the Southern Christian Leadership Council.

So don’t be surprised, outraged, or disturbed. Such campaigning is not unusual or even new, dating back to the very beginning of American political life – and tax-code prohibitions against church involvement in politics date back less than half a century.

Posted by: Greg at 04:10 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah, it sure sounds like the quip by Will Rogers still applies to the Dems today.

Look at these messes among the Donks.

Fighting the Democrat culture of corruption is divisive.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi juggled competing political goals on Friday, seeking to drain racial tension from her attempt to strip embattled Rep. William Jefferson of his committee seat.

Facing a showdown next week that he is likely to lose, Jefferson, D-La., signaled anew he will not step aside voluntarily, and some fellow members of the
Congressional Black Caucus spoke out on his behalf.

"The Black Caucus takes exception when we become the exception to the rule. We want the same standards," said Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J. He noted that the Louisianan has denied wrongdoing in a federal bribery probe and has not been indicted.

At the same time, several officials said that Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who is black, was the lawmaker who formally proposed at a closed-door meeting Thursday night that Jefferson be stripped of his committee assignment. Lewis, who first gained fame as a civil rights pioneer in the 1960s, declined to comment.

And then there is the new leadership fight brewing.

Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), one of the Democrats' leading antiwar voices, startled his political colleagues yesterday by announcing he would seek a senior leadership position if the Democrats win control of the House in November.

In a letter that he circulated on the floor during a series of votes, Murtha said he is eyeing the No. 2 position. "If we prevail as I hope and know we will and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the Majority Leader," Murtha wrote.

The presumed favorite for that job had been the current No. 2 House Democrat, Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), with whom Murtha has long had testy relations. Hoyer, like many of his political colleagues, greeted Murtha's announcement with annoyance and exasperation, given that the election remains five months off and a Democratic victory is by no means assured.

"Mr. Hoyer has worked extraordinarily hard to unify the caucus and take back the House for Democrats, and that is his first focus," said Stacey Bernards, his press secretary. "As a result of that unity, he's confident that we will be successful in November, and intends to run for majority leader."

There is, of course, long-standing bad-blood between Murtha and Hoyer, and this appears based as much on peronalities as principle.

And we ahve already heard that failure to win the House this fall will cost Pelosi her job, possibly in favor of Hoyer -- or could it be Murtha now?

Posted by: Greg at 03:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

While Texas Democrats are trying to prevent an ineligible candidate from being replaced on the ballot, Alabama Democrats are trying to force one of their own off the ballot against his will within days of the primary because they find his candidacy embarassing.

teacher fired for showing profane videos to his students won a seat on the State Democratic Executive Committee. But party members say Steve White won't serve out his term.

White won the race for State Democratic Executive Committee District 4 Tuesday night.

* * *

White is also running in a separate election. White is a democratic candidate for the District 4 seat on the House of Representatives.

He ran unopposed in Tuesday's primary election.

Because of allegations that White showed videos with sex acts, nudity, and obscene material in school, White may never hold that political office.

Brian Oakes, chairman of the Democratic Party, says White has been asked to step down.

"The Democratic party has asked him to withdraw his name. There's not been a response by him in relation to that request," says Oakes.

A subcommittee of the Democratic Executive Committee will decide how to handle the race if White does not resign.

One option is to remove White's name from November's general election ballot and appoint another candidate.

In other words, the Alabama Democrats want to remove and replace their own candidate because they think he cannot win.

I do wish the Donks would make up their mind about replacing candidates.

Torricelli out, Lautenberg in -- fine, even though the statutory deadline had passed.

DeLay out, someone else in -- go to court to stop it, even though it complies with all aspects of state law.

Steve White not willing to drop out -- throw him off the ballot anyway because he is an embarassment who will lose the election.

There is no principle at work among the Democrats -- simply raw political calculation.

Oh, by the way -- did you folks notice that the Holocaust-denying atheist church-state separationist got 46% of the vote for Attorney General in the Democrat primary?

(Hat Tip: Southern Appeal)

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

***WELCOME MICHELLE MALKIN READERS***

Less than 24 hours after Texas GOP Chair Tina Benkiser declared Congressman Tom DeLay to be ineligible to run for or serve as Congressman for Texas CD22, Texas Democrats have filed suit to prevent his being replaced on the ballot.

What's more, they have received a temporary restraining order to prevent any action being taken to fill the slot declared vacant yesterday until after a hearing on June 22.

The following is reported at FortBendNow.com, a local online news source.

In a surprise twist to the Tom DeLay saga, the Texas Democratic Party filed suit Thursday in an attempt to keep the resigning Republican CongressmanÂ’s name on the November ballot.

The suit, filed in Travis County 126th District Court, seeks to undo an hours-old declaration by Republican Party Chair Tina Benkiser that DeLay is ineligible to run in the general election.

If DeLay doesnÂ’t serve as the partyÂ’s candidate for Congressional District 22, then according to the Texas Election Code, no other candidate is allowed to replace him, the suit says.

Lawyers for HoustonÂ’s Riddle & Brazil law firm, which filed the action, obtained a temporary restraining order at about 5:10 p.m. from Judge Darlene Byrne. Sources familiar with the case said the order prevents Benkiser from calling a meeting of the so-called District Executive Committee or taking other measures to replace DeLay as the Republican Party nominee for CD-22.

That is not entirely correct. DeLay can be replaced if declared ineligible, but not if he withdraws. The Democrats are trying to muddy the water regarding which he has done in an attempt to keep DeLay on the ballot, effectively leaving Lampson without a challenger because Tom DeLay HAS established residency in Virginia.

At bare minimum, the goal is to prevent there from being a candidate actively raising campaign funds and campaigning against Lampson. After all, despite their rhetoric, the Democrats and their lawyers know that the Texas Election Code DOES allow for DeLay to be removed from the ballot.

The lawsuit says that DeLayÂ’s attempt to be declared ineligible goes against state Election Code and the U.S. Constitution.

The election code says ineligibility can be declared if public records conclusively establish a candidate’s ineligibility, the lawsuit states. The Constitution says eligibility criteria for serving as a U.S. Rep. include being at least 25 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and “an inhabitant ‘when elected’ of the state he or she will represent.

Thus, “nothing in the public record conclusively establishes that DeLay fails to satisfy any of these criteria,” the lawsuit says.

Well, except for Tom DeLay having gotten a Virginia driver's license and registering to vote in Virginia, both of which require establishing residence in that state.

And to my buddy Liberty, I will make the following vow -- in the event the Democrats DO succeed in preventing the voters of CD22 from having a Republican candidate, I will devote my efforts to see to it that your party's candidate becomes the first declared Libertarian to serve in Congress. I will never, ever, vote for Nick Lampson.

UPDATE: There is a great article in the San Antonio Express-News. It shows the Democrat plan for what it really is -- an attempt to deny the people of CD22 a choice.

The Democrats sued the GOP in state court in Austin, arguing that Republican officials can't replace the Sugar Land Republican because he technically is still in the race.

And if the courts agree that DeLay withdrew, party officials contend, state Republican officials couldn't select a replacement candidate to take on Democrat Nick Lampson in the fall.

“The election would continue on — they just wouldn't have a dog in the hunt,” said Boyd Richie, the state Democratic Party's interim chairman.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, DeLay is out of the race, having established residency in Virginia and been declared ineligible by the GOP, as dictated by the US Constitution and the Texas Election Code.

GOP officials have commented on the situation.

“The Democrats have resorted to their usual method of turning to the courthouse if they can't win at the ballot box,” said Gretchen Essell, communications director for the Republican Party of Texas. “We have followed the process that is delineated in the Texas Election Code. We are confident of the outcome.”

Jared Woodfill, Harris County Republican Party Chairman, called it a desperate move on Democrats' part and said he is confident the GOP will prevail.

“I'm surprised they did it this early. We figured it was coming,” he said, adding that the GOP's position is solid.

“Election law is very clear on this. He's clearly ineligible. It's a pretty open-and-shut case,” he said. “I know we're going to prevail. The law and facts are on our side.”

Noting that Democrats have lost every statewide office to Republicans and that the GOP holds a legislative majority, Woodfill said, “They're desperate. ..... Desperate people turn to desperate measures, and that's what they've done. They're not going to be successful, though.”

Gary Gillen, the new Republican Party chairman for Fort Bend County, described the efforts to obtain a restraining order as a “political play to keep voters from having the opportunity to elect their congressman. It's politics,” he said.

This is a desperate ploy on the part of the Democrats to win the only way they caqn -- by making sure that no other choice is permitted. I guess it they miss the day when Democrat nominees in most parts of Texas were relevant.

MORE AT Riehl World View, Burnt Orange Report, Eye on Williamson, Off The Kuff and Texas Rainmaker.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 943 words, total size 7 kb.

Well, I think so -- if we are going to demand equitable use the definition that the Left uses when talking about these women.

Commentator Ann Coulter's incendiary words about outspoken 9/11 widows have led two state lawmakers to calls for a boycott of her book in the widows' home state of New Jersey.

Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley, D-Hudson, and Linda Stender, D-Union, on Thursday called on New Jerseyans to stop buying the book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and for retailers in the state to stop selling it.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proved herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify - she is a leach trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others," the two assemblywomen said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Crown Forum, the publisher of Coulter's book, did not immediately return calls for comment Thursday.

Interestingly enough, this case actually involves government officials seeking to silence someone "courageously engaging in free speech," rather than private entities and individuals acting on their own. I would think that this should therefore be much more disturbing to those who defend and lionize the Dixie Chicks (whose tour is likely to be postponed or cancelled due to poor ticket sales), and they should run right out and buy a copy of Ann's book to show their solidarity, just like they did with the Chick's CD.

Oh, that's right.

Only liberals spouting hate-America, hate-Bush rhetoric need to apply for free-speech-martyr status.

And before you ask -- I wish she had toned down her criticism of this small minority of 9/11 family members. It strikes me as a bit harsh.

But then again, if she had done so she wouldn't be Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.