This could set off a real feeding frenzy, should County Judge Robert Eckels resign from his position leading the Commissioners Court. For those not from Texas, that is not a judicial body, but the governing body for the state's largest county.

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said Wednesday he is mulling offers from the private sector and can't rule out walking away from the four-year term he just won in November.

An early resignation would create a political whirlwind in county government, where officials serve without term limits and open seats are rare.

"In the last 90 days I've had conversations with a New York firm and international investment banking firms," Eckels said, saying he often has been approached by lobbying and law firms interested in hiring him.

"I have had more serious discussions than in the past. They are more concrete."

He is contemplating those offers, he said, but it is premature to talk about who he is "visiting with."

"I don't have to decide today. But I don't rule out anything," said Eckels, who was in Los Angeles on business. "I wouldn't do anything until I knew the county was in good shape and I had a chance to visit with my colleagues. I'm not looking for something else to do."

Either way, Eckels said he will make a decision sooner rather than later. He has been county judge since 1995.

The article notes that Eckels has engaged in a number of conversations on the issue with Tax Collector/Assessor Paul Bettencourt. No doubt one of the major goals is getting Bettencourt into Eckels' job in the event he does decide to leave. That is a rather complicated task, given that without Eckels the Commissioners Court is divided 2-2 between the two major parties.

But wait -- the Chronicle has this little tidbit later in the article.

If Eckels stepped down, it could create a political standoff, since the commissioners, who would be charged with appointing someone to serve until the next general election, are split 2-2 along party lines.

"The constitution doesn't allow offices to be vacant. Eckels will still serve until his successor is appointed and qualified," County Attorney Mike Stafford said. That also means that Eckels, a Republican, potentially could break a partisan tie in appointing his successor.

Possible successors mentioned in political circles include Bettencourt, District Clerk Charles Bacarisse, Commissioner Jerry Eversole and businessman Ned Holmes, all Republicans.

That could be interesting -- permitting Eckels to essentially choose his successor before departing the position as County Judge.

Now I know all the potential successors from my activities as GOP precinct chair here in my part of the county. As a personal choice, I'd prefer Bettencourt or Bacarisse just in order to avoid another opening on the Commissioners Court and to have the senior position in the county filled by a candidate who has stood before all the voters of the county and won election to office. Both men are well-respected, though Bettencourt definitely has a higher profile and would be less vulnerable to a challenge in either the primary or general election (not that I think that Bacarisse would be a weak candidate). On the other hand, Bettencourt has been touted as a likely candidate for the CD22 seat in 2008 -- his selection as County Judge would undoubtedly remove him from consideration for that office.

I'll be keeping my ear tot he ground on this one, and probably be writing more on the matter in the very near future.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 4 kb.

That is the implicit position he takes in this little snippet of debate over tying the minimum wage increase to a tax cut for small businesses which will be adversely hit by this unfunded mandate by the federal government.

"How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?" the Massachusetts Democrat shouted. "How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful."

Let’s look real close at this statement about the proposed tax cut. It speaks volumes about how Jabba the Drunk (D-Chappaquidick) understands tax policy and the federal role in the economy.

“How much money do we have to give you?”

Implicit in this is that the money made by a business – or an individual, for that matter – does not really belong to them. Rather, in Kennedy’s eyes every red cent of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and the portion that remains in the hands of the taxpayer is nothing less than a gift from the all-powerful government to the serfs that work to feed its insatiable appetite for tax dollars. Under this view, a tax cut is nothing less than a gift of government money to a private interest. Indeed, Kennedy doesn’t seem to understand that, as a government mandate, the minimum wage is no less a tax on business that a straight tax on profits, and so the proposed “tax cut” is nothing less than a trade-of of one tax for another.

Kennedy’s view is antithetical to American thought. Government is supposed to be limited, a servant of the people. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, he was cribbing from John Locke, who argued that we had a right to life, liberty and property. Those who signed that document understood that the pursuit of happiness was, in fact, the pursuit of money and property. The Constitution of the United States concerns itself with limiting government power, and the Bill of Rights concerns itself with protecting the property rights of the people. Federal taxing and spending power were to be strictly limited, with the people entitled to the fruits of their labor with only a limited governmental claim upon their earnings.

Kennedy’s question is therefore grounded in a fundamental inversion of the founding principles of American government. There is therefore only one appropriate response in rebuttal to Kennedy’s cry of “How much money do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?” It is “No, Mr. Democrat – How much money must you take from the American people to feed the ravenous beasts of government spending and federal mandates?”

Will there be a Republican courageous enough to utter those words?

Oh, and as a side note, the tax breaks for small business (tax swaps, if you recognize the minimum wage as nothing less than a tax upon business) did pass.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 5 kb.

That is the implicit position he takes in this little snippet of debate over tying the minimum wage increase to a tax cut for small businesses which will be adversely hit by this unfunded mandate by the federal government.

"How many more billions of dollars do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?" the Massachusetts Democrat shouted. "How many more dollars do we have to give you to get an increase in the minimum wage? It is shocking. It is disgraceful."

LetÂ’s look real close at this statement about the proposed tax cut. It speaks volumes about how Jabba the Drunk (D-Chappaquidick) understands tax policy and the federal role in the economy.

“How much money do we have to give you?”

Implicit in this is that the money made by a business – or an individual, for that matter – does not really belong to them. Rather, in Kennedy’s eyes every red cent of that money rightfully belongs to the government, and the portion that remains in the hands of the taxpayer is nothing less than a gift from the all-powerful government to the serfs that work to feed its insatiable appetite for tax dollars. Under this view, a tax cut is nothing less than a gift of government money to a private interest. Indeed, Kennedy doesn’t seem to understand that, as a government mandate, the minimum wage is no less a tax on business that a straight tax on profits, and so the proposed “tax cut” is nothing less than a trade-of of one tax for another.

Kennedy’s view is antithetical to American thought. Government is supposed to be limited, a servant of the people. Indeed, when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, he was cribbing from John Locke, who argued that we had a right to life, liberty and property. Those who signed that document understood that the pursuit of happiness was, in fact, the pursuit of money and property. The Constitution of the United States concerns itself with limiting government power, and the Bill of Rights concerns itself with protecting the property rights of the people. Federal taxing and spending power were to be strictly limited, with the people entitled to the fruits of their labor with only a limited governmental claim upon their earnings.

Kennedy’s question is therefore grounded in a fundamental inversion of the founding principles of American government. There is therefore only one appropriate response in rebuttal to Kennedy’s cry of “How much money do we have to give you, Mr. Republican?” It is “No, Mr. Democrat – How much money must you take from the American people to feed the ravenous beasts of government spending and federal mandates?”

Will there be a Republican courageous enough to utter those words?

Oh, and as a side note, the tax breaks for small business (tax swaps, if you recognize the minimum wage as nothing less than a tax upon business) did pass.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 5 kb.

I’ve often railed against restrictions on political speech that masquerade as “campaign finance reform”. Personally, I don’t believe in ANY restrictions on political speech, save for bona fide application of laws on libel and slander.

Today the LA Times takes a half a step in the direction of supporting the ideal enshrined in the First Amendment by urging that the Supreme Court take the opportunity of a pending case to make speech a little more free than McCain-Feingold allows. It ultimately comes down to a case of how certain forms of speech are classified.

The speech-curtailing measure at issue is part of the broader McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The centerpiece of that law banned "soft money" contributions to political parties that were used to circumvent limits on how much donors could contribute to candidates for federal office. What is glaringly offensive to the 1st Amendment is an accompanying ban on "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organizations.

As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate.

Unfortunately, this means that there are vast chunks of the year when advocating grassroots action is illegal. After all, suggesting that a key senator or representative be contacted qualifies as “electioneering”, despite the fact that it clearly is not.

There are a lot of phoney "issue ads" out there ("Tell Sen. Smith you disagree with him about Iraq" can sound a lot like an endorsement for challenger Jones), but the court has to err on the side of preserving political speech. When it comes to speaking out about a candidate, opponents (and news outlets like ours) should not have a monopoly in the closing days of a campaign, especially if the outside organization weighing in is genuinely acting on its own.

The particular facts of the Wisconsin Right to Life ads are a compelling indictment of the law's overreach and should prod the high court to reconsider whether the law could be constitutional under any set of facts. The addition of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. may dictate a different outcome — retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote upholding the limits in 2003.

But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticizing a politician — even one seeking reelection — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts.

The "bright line" that needs to be drawn is the one between financing someone else's message and articulating your own.

But more to the point, so what if it is, in fact, electioneering? Is it not the right of American citizens to speak freely on the election of our political leaders? DonÂ’t Americans have the right to associate together for precisely that purpose? Such speech is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect!

But then again, I also believe in unlimited, unrestricted campaign donation – a system that worked for most of the history of the Republic, and which generated less corruption than the “reforms” designed to “clean up politics”.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

I guess I donÂ’t see a problem with this executive order which has driven the NY Times insane.

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the presidentÂ’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

Of course, this sort of goes along with such unreasonable power grabs as the one contained in this earlier document.

The President. . . may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. . . [and] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . . .”

In other words, the executive power of the United States is vested in the President of the United States. Sounds rather like the role that the executive order envisions, doesnÂ’t it?

Posted by: Greg at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Radio host turned State Senator Dan Patrick has introduced a bill related to his biggest issue -- rising property taxes. The bill would set a vote on an amendment to the Texas Constitution setting the annual growth in residential appraisals a 3%, ending the current 10% cap that can effectively result in a tax bill that doubles every seven to eight years.

It will be an uphill fight, but Houston Sen. Dan Patrick on Monday filed one of his longtime priorities, a constitutional amendment lowering the annual cap on homestead reappraisals from 10 percent to 3 percent.

He also filed a related proposal to limit appraisal increases on vacation homes and other nonhomestead residential properties to 10 percent a year. At present, there aren't any limits on how much those properties can be reappraised from year to year.

As a conservative talk show radio host, the Republican freshman senator has long advocated lower limits on appraisals, a key ingredient in rising property taxes.

But a lower statewide appraisal limit wasn't recommended by a task force appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to study the issue because the chairman, Dallas businessman Tom Pauken, didn't believe the amendment can muster the necessary two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate.

Now I agree with Pauken -- this bill is unlikely to get the 2/3 vote necessary for the amendment to go to the people. However, it is important that this bill be filed and voted upon by the legislature. There has been a growing discontent over property taxes the last several years, and legislative stonewalling on the issue has been the obstacle to meaningful reform that will allow Texans to keep their homes. We deserve to know which legislators are for the taxpayer, and which ones are for the right of local governments to take an ever-increasing portion of our paychecks.

And for those of you who wonder why this is a big issue down here, consider this example. My property taxes for my very modest home run around $2500. With the 10% annual appraisal cap, they could double to $5000 by 2014. Each year the increase eats up every penny of my annual pay raise under my school district's current salary schedule -- and by 2022 would outstrip the raises on the current salary schedule by a rate of $2 for every $1 in pay raise. And if you stop to think about it, for Texans on a fixed income such increases can drive them right out of the houses they have owned for decades and in which they have raised families.

We need this appraisal cap now -- and if we don't get it, we need to know which legislators to vote out in 2008, regardless of party label.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

If anyone wonders how folks got the idea that Barack Obama went to a madrassa, they might want to consider this little bit of information.

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” [Obama] wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

So just a quick point – while the school may not have been a madrassa, it was not a secular school in the fashion that we understand it. And given other evidence showing that Obama was enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he was raised, at least nominally, a Muslim – especially given Islamic law defining the children of male Muslims as Muslims. Saying that is not a smear, is not an attack, and is not a lie – it is a fair analysis of the facts as they exist, including the words of the Senator himself.

And frankly, I don’t really care about that upbringing – although I again note that it does raise interesting questions about his status under Islamic law and the effect of that status on his ability to conduct normal diplomatic relations with Muslim nations.

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

If anyone wonders how folks got the idea that Barack Obama went to a madrassa, they might want to consider this little bit of information.

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school,” [Obama] wrote in his first memoir, “Dreams from my Father.” “The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

So just a quick point – while the school may not have been a madrassa, it was not a secular school in the fashion that we understand it. And given other evidence showing that Obama was enrolled in a Catholic school as a Muslim student, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he was raised, at least nominally, a Muslim – especially given Islamic law defining the children of male Muslims as Muslims. Saying that is not a smear, is not an attack, and is not a lie – it is a fair analysis of the facts as they exist, including the words of the Senator himself.

And frankly, I don’t really care about that upbringing – although I again note that it does raise interesting questions about his status under Islamic law and the effect of that status on his ability to conduct normal diplomatic relations with Muslim nations.

Posted by: Greg at 12:42 PM | Comments (214) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

We can see what good ethics rules do for Democrats.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

I’ll take their commitment to ethics reform seriously after they start following the old rules that they considered too lax.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

We can see what good ethics rules do for Democrats.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

IÂ’ll take their commitment to ethics reform seriously after they start following the old rules that they considered too lax.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

He was a priest and a liberal Democrat politician -- until the Vatican enforced canonical restrictions on clergy in politics. Father Robert Drinan served his nation in one of the most interesting periods of American history, and left his mark as a scholar in the quarter century since leaving public office.

The Rev. Robert F. Drinan, a Jesuit who served in Congress for 10 years until stepping down in response to a papal order, died Sunday. He was 86 and lived here in housing for the Georgetown University Jesuit community.

A university statement Sunday night said Father Drinan had recently been ill with pneumonia and congestive heart failure.

An internationally known human rights advocate, Father Drinan represented Massachusetts in the House of Representatives for 10 years in the 1970s, stepping down only after a worldwide directive from Pope John Paul II barring priests from holding public office.

Interestingly enough, secularist groups had no objection to this clergyman serving in public office or commenting on political matters. Indeed, many of the same voices that today decry the participation of conservative Christians in politics were angry at the Vatican for interfering in the American political system by insisting that Drinan and other priests not hold elected office.

I didn't agree with all the conclusions reached by Robert Drinan, or the theological basis for them. Still, I admired him as a many who saw the importance of the intersection of faith and politics, and who was unashamed of allowing his political stands to be informed by the moral foundation of the Christian faith.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

I love this quote from Democrat Party press secretary Stacey Paxton.

"Mitt Romney should be held accountable for his contradictory record, as should all the Republican presidential candidates," Paxton says.

Translation: "Mitt Romney should be held accountable for learning and admitting his mistakes. Democrats are better for America because once they take a position on an issue they stick with it, no matter how demonstrably wrong or stupid that position is."

Posted by: Greg at 09:06 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

At least not with regards to abortion. That is what he had to say addressing the NRO conservative summit yesterday.

"On abortion, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative," Romney told a gathering of conservatives. "Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way. But like him, I learned from experience."

During his 2002 campaign for Massachusetts governor, Romney said that while he personally opposed abortion, he would leave the state's abortion laws intact.

In his speech Saturday, he said he had had a change of heart after a discussion with a stem cell researcher.

And Romney is exactly correct on this matter --it was Reagan who loosened California's abortion laws.

And for those of you who are concerned about the gay rights issue, you would do well to remember how this issue has changed. In 1994, the issue was one of non-discrimination in housing and employment, as well as laws criminalizing homosexual relationships. It has since metastasized into gay marriage. One can easily support the earlier agenda on conservative principles while being unconditionally opposed to the latter. Indeed, his 1994 position was very close to that of Barry Goldwater -- the grandfather of the contemporary conservative movement.

If you want to hear the entire speech, you can listen here, via MyManMitt.com.

Posted by: Greg at 08:49 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 2 kb.

1 tdegwja

Posted by: 25 reasons nivea lyrics at Wed Nov 5 01:12:29 2008 (XzLxh)

2 uqjhlfw niwjz sdhymri whtdqj

Posted by: mcquay air conditioning at Sat Nov 8 00:55:29 2008 (vjWt9)

3 qxkwz pvyfr jqfkzs vmzxd

Posted by: proheart heartworm at Sat Nov 8 11:39:43 2008 (1o4Xq)

4 zgtmbne

Posted by: home morgans photos.com at Mon Nov 10 01:33:18 2008 (YgjKA)

5 nmlj dzuayvp

Posted by: baby clothes rancho cucamonga at Tue Nov 11 00:38:24 2008 (+pEg9)

6 Nice site. Thanks:-)

Posted by: rhinestone earring brooch at Sun Nov 16 08:26:17 2008 (gBqO3)

7 apsdvn blkhayw jhlufbv

Posted by: free cryptogram puzzle at Mon Nov 17 07:37:37 2008 (BDpZa)

8 kyexr xkthnfl lpktn romkp

Posted by: mandibular tori at Wed Nov 19 18:40:07 2008 (1W8AA)

9 bxaqm

Posted by: pgh steelers at Thu Nov 27 08:57:53 2008 (dMj09)

10 Very nice site!

Posted by: John472 at Sat May 16 11:45:19 2009 (DAfDN)

11 Very nice site!

Posted by: John472 at Sat May 16 13:51:49 2009 (w2j5m)

12 Very nice site!

Posted by: John1195 at Sat May 16 17:19:50 2009 (gyEo5)

13 pa department of education, paris hilton naked, dozq, free kim kardashian sex tape, 8OOO, free kim kardashian sex tape, 9681, paris hilton sex, 25796, lucy pinder, =-DD, nude megan fox, >:-)),

Posted by: paris hilton sex tape at Mon Oct 5 14:26:22 2009 (LIrmO)

14 comment3, pictures of miley cyrus, > , lucy pinder, > , megan fox pictures, =], miley cyrus naked, %((, lucy pinder, cnjity,

Posted by: megan fox fhm at Thu Oct 8 12:28:07 2009 (TOAAe)

15 comment5, megan fox wallpaper, 8000, jennifer love hewitt barenaked, 040819, emma watson fake, cyfkn, carmen electra fucking, 7831, kim kardashian naked, :-[, miley cyrus pics, myec,

Posted by: adrienne bailon nude pics at Mon Oct 12 20:57:03 2009 (UxnNG)

16 adult education, miley cyrus pics, %OO, carmen electra gallery, 0675, carmen electra fucking, pse, adrienne bailon nude pics, 95652, kim kardashian ray j, =-[,

Posted by: miley cyrus pics at Tue Oct 13 06:51:49 2009 (Es74V)

17 box tops for education, lucy pinder, rzsb, shay johnson nude, 8], tila tequila nude, =D, megan fox naked, 2460, lindsay lohan nude, bukvm,

Posted by: megan fox wallpaper at Sun Oct 18 09:25:19 2009 (Qz++l)

18 texas department of education, jessica alba butt, 70341, gia angelina jolie, 70298, halle berry topless, 168112, jessica biel nude, %OO, lindsay lohan nude, uzz,

Posted by: britney spears nude at Sat Oct 24 06:44:50 2009 (kSTu2)

19 comment2, megan fox nude, ynbq, jessica simpson naked, 792111, jessica alba butt, nnx, paris hilton sex tape, >:-[, megan fox fhm, trmopn, lindsay lohan hot, %-(,

Posted by: ashley tisdale sex at Sun Oct 25 13:02:50 2009 (uL1Pu)

20 technology in education, emma watson sex, 4111, kim kardashian nude pics, 8-O, carmen electra gallery, , kim kardashian nude pics, hugxy, carmen electra fucking, rzvlg,

Posted by: jessica alba at Fri Nov 6 10:55:30 2009 (aQMmk)

21 comment5, ashley tisdale sex, 05320, emma watson fakes, >:-)), carmen electra gallery, ehllej, pictures of miley cyrus, =O, kim kardashian ass, =],

Posted by: megan fox fhm at Mon Nov 9 16:57:09 2009 (KLnMR)

22 continuing education for dentists, paris hilton sex, lmwdf, lindsay lohan hot, 54342, kim kardashian ray j, bysjfa, megan fox nude, cgdkz, katy perry sexy, nph,

Posted by: paris hilton video at Mon Nov 9 23:20:11 2009 (5bfny)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Well, John has always been a part of the "US military out of Iraq" crowd. Now he seems to have joined the "US military out of Houston" crowd.

Ellington AFB, home of the Texas Air National Guard 147th Fighter Wing, will soon be home to a $6 million Predator Operations Complex. The Predator, an unmanned surveillance plane would begin arriving in 2011. The complex will be used as a training ground for operations of the Predator and mostly for the surveillance of the border.

Local media as well as our politicians have put a positive spin on the loss of the 147th Fighter Wing as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, but few have questioned the safety of an unmanned 10,000 lbs aircraft flying over a densely populated area surround Ellington. The safe operations of these unmanned vehicles should be questioned as well as it's mission.

* * *

There has not been a public hearing for the communities that will be under the flight path of the Predators being flown by student pilots, but there should be. The loss of the 147th will be a large economical impact to the community, and the Predator has been offered as a way to offset this loss.

The Clear Lake community over the last 10 years have fought a number of issues such as a sludge farm, a train carrying toxic chemicals and a huge port. The community should be assured that an unmanned drone will not drop out of the sky like one did in Arizona.

John, of course, conveniently overlooks the fact that the F16s at Ellington, the trainer jets flown by astronauts, and the many commercial and private aircraft that fly over the area daily can "drop out of the sky" creating "a disaster for the community [which] should be of great concern." I don't see him proposing hearings on all aircraft, or the complete shutdown of all flight operations over populated areas of Houston (or even the Clear Lake area, where we both live). So I really don't believe this is about public safety.

No, I believe this is all about partisan politics. Congressman Tom DeLay and Congresswoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs were both supporters of keeping the 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has been very active in getting the Predators to Houston, along with other mission changes that revitalize Ellington Field as a military base. I suspect that John, who suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome has had his condition metastasize into Republican Derangement Syndrome, and is therefore willing to see CD22 and the Houston area suffer in an attempt to guarantee the reelection of his close buddy, Congressman Nick Lampson.

It is rather pathetic, really -- using scare tactics to frighten local residents and undermine national and homeland security for partisan advantage. But then again, why should we be surprised? He's a Democrat!

Then again, maybe he is just afraid that the Predators have monitoring devices that can pierce his Official Daily Kos/Democratic Underground Tinfoil Hat.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, 123 Beta, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 602 words, total size 6 kb.

After all, it isn’t that liberal talk radio is suppressed – it is that it isn’t commercially viable.

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Sam Seeder — articulate liberal pundits — don't sell well, even in Santa Cruz.

The trio are part of the nationally syndicated Air America, which was dropped from Santa Cruz radio station KOMY 1340 AM on Thursday and replaced with music from the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

The left-leaning radio network, aimed at taking on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk shows, debuted on Central Coast airwaves in July 2005, but local advertisers never bought in, station owner Michael Zwerling said.

"We didn't sell a single ad in a year and a half," Zwerling said Thursday. "I thought liberal radio would work as a viable advertising business in the most liberal town in America. I was wrong"

Santa Cruz isn't the only place Air America has problems. The network is struggling nationwide and filed for bankruptcy four months ago.

Zwerling put Air America on the air as an alternative to the Limbaugh program, which plays on KOMY's sister station KSCO 1080 AM every morning.

Limbaugh is a major moneymaker for the station, Zwerling said, and his show pulls the highest ratings of any program on KSCO or KOMY.

So let’s look at this. You’ve got a station owner offering both points of view, using different stations to do so. One format flops, while the other is hugely successful. Does it make any sort of sense to require that the station owner continue to broadcast what no one wants to listen to? And notice, please, that this is a very blue part of a blue state where liberal talk has failed – if they can’t make it there, can they make it anywhere?

What this shows is that the reason for the lack of diversity on talk radio is not that stations won’t book the format for political reasons – it is because they cannot find an audience for the format. Any attempt to require that viewpoint be aired is nothing short of suppression of the speech that people want to hear in favor of that they reject. How is that in the public interest?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, 123 Beta, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, it isn’t that liberal talk radio is suppressed – it is that it isn’t commercially viable.

Al Franken, Randi Rhodes and Sam Seeder — articulate liberal pundits — don't sell well, even in Santa Cruz.

The trio are part of the nationally syndicated Air America, which was dropped from Santa Cruz radio station KOMY 1340 AM on Thursday and replaced with music from the 1950s, '60s and '70s.

The left-leaning radio network, aimed at taking on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk shows, debuted on Central Coast airwaves in July 2005, but local advertisers never bought in, station owner Michael Zwerling said.

"We didn't sell a single ad in a year and a half," Zwerling said Thursday. "I thought liberal radio would work as a viable advertising business in the most liberal town in America. I was wrong"

Santa Cruz isn't the only place Air America has problems. The network is struggling nationwide and filed for bankruptcy four months ago.

Zwerling put Air America on the air as an alternative to the Limbaugh program, which plays on KOMY's sister station KSCO 1080 AM every morning.

Limbaugh is a major moneymaker for the station, Zwerling said, and his show pulls the highest ratings of any program on KSCO or KOMY.

So let’s look at this. You’ve got a station owner offering both points of view, using different stations to do so. One format flops, while the other is hugely successful. Does it make any sort of sense to require that the station owner continue to broadcast what no one wants to listen to? And notice, please, that this is a very blue part of a blue state where liberal talk has failed – if they can’t make it there, can they make it anywhere?

What this shows is that the reason for the lack of diversity on talk radio is not that stations won’t book the format for political reasons – it is because they cannot find an audience for the format. Any attempt to require that viewpoint be aired is nothing short of suppression of the speech that people want to hear in favor of that they reject. How is that in the public interest?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, 123 Beta, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 5 kb.

The stats are clear – fewer Americans are members of labor unions.

The number of wage and salary workers who were union members dropped to 12 percent of the work force last year, the lowest percentage since the government started tracking that number over two decades ago.

The number of workers in a union was 20.1 percent in 1983, when Bureau of Labor Statistics first provided such comparable numbers, and that number has been declining steadily. More than a third of American workers, about 35 percent, were union members in the mid-1950s.

The question, of course, is what this means. Is it a question of the growth of the workforce in areas of the country with right to work laws? Is it related to the increase in professional, white collar jobs over the more commonly unionized blue collar fields? Or is it a question of unions having ceased to meet the needs of workers as perceived by workers?

Unions, of course, are using this statistic to bolster the case for legislation that they claim would make it easier to for workers to unionize.

The continuing decline in union membership, documented in the BLS report released Thursday, comes as organized labor is pushing for legislation in the Democratic-controlled Congress making it easier for workers to form unions.

That proposal, called the Employee Free Choice Act, would let workers form unions more readily by simply signing a card or petition, impose stronger penalties on employers who violate labor laws, and allow for arbitration to settle first contract disputes.

Advocates of the legislation say they doubt that it will get signed into law by President Bush, but that they think passage in Congress would make eventual signing of the law more likely.

Supporters say the law is more fair to workers because employers can't mount a campaign to prevent formation of a union. Opponents say it deprives workers of the right to vote privately on their union preferences, and can lead to union intimidation of workers.

The union membership rate for government workers, 36.2 percent, was substantially higher than for private industry workers, 7.4 percent.

The problem with this legislation should be obvious. Given the history of thuggish union tactics to coerce membership, the “card check” method opens workers up to harassment and coercion that a secret ballot does not. And as recent Supreme Court arguments show, unions are all about coercing workers – even those who act affirmatively to opt out of membership – into supporting political activity and paying for services that they do not want to be involved in.

Quite bluntly, this country does, in fact, need an Employee Free Choice Act. But rather than the current legislation that seeks to deny workers choices, such legislation should start with the presumption that workers do not want to be members of a union, and which abolishes both the compulsory union shop and the agency fee for non-members. Let workers have a truly free choice on whether or not they join a union – and recognize that over 90% of private sector workers have chosen not to join. I suspect that the membership figure would be far lower in the public sector were it not for the compulsory union membership required by many school districts and other government entities. Indeed, the free choice most needed is for workers to be permitted to say "no" to having their paychecks pilfered by corrupt union bosses.

UPDATE: Want a good reason for ending the constitutional abomination of forced unionism, especially in the public sector? Look at this case from Ohio, involving the Ohio Education Association.

Told by a union official to pay forced dues or "change religions," a teacher in southern Ohio is challenging a state law that allows only those public employees who belong to certain denominations the right to claim religious objection to paying union dues.

Carol Katter, a mathematics and language arts instructor in the St. Marys district, filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court in Columbus this week over an Ohio law that prevents the lifelong Catholic from diverting her dues from a union she refuses to fund because it supports abortion on demand.

Katter filed the complaint against top officials of the State Employment Relations Board (SERB) for religious discrimination in enforcing Ohio Revised Code section 4117.09(C), which states:

"Any public employee who is a member of and adheres to established and traditional tenets or teachings of a bona fide religion or religious body which has historically held conscientious objections to joining or financially supporting an employee organization and which is exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code shall not be required to join or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment." (emphasis added)

In other words, the law in Ohio is that a public employee is required to fund religiously repugnant speech unless their church also opposes union membership in all instances. I guess they haven't heard of the First Amendment up there, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also are ignoring a federal court ruling from last year in a nearly identical case which held that public employees with religious objections to union affiliation could not be forced to pay union dues.

But as far as I am concerned, there is an even more basic issue -- upon what legitimate grounds can government require payments to a private organization as a requirement for holding a public-sector, taxpayer funded job? What next -- a return to the days when government employees were expected to make contributions to the "correct" political candidates as a condition of keeping their jobs? That practice is no more repugnant to the First Amendment than the situation found in Ms. Katter's case.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, basil's blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Thought Alarm, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The HILL Chronicles, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1043 words, total size 9 kb.

If certain senators want to pass resolutions undercutting the war effort in Iraq, then it is only appropriate that those of us who believe that effort has the effect of aiding the enemy have an obligation to speak out. A coalition of bloggers, spearheaded by Hugh Hewitt and NZ Bear have put together a coalition of bloggers to speak out on the matter.

Hewitt explains the effort this way.

Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.

What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"

It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.

With that additional strength and will the enemy redoubles and retriples efforts to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

In short, it means that more Americans will die.

If there is ever an issue for which a filibuster is obviously called, it is such a resolution, especially in the aftermath of such testimony.

Either the Republicans believe General Petraeus, or they don't. These are not a "non-binding" resolutions in the sense that they have no consequences. Either of them will have terrible consequences.

Don't believe me. Believe General Petraeus.

And act accordingly. next week should mark an epic and important debate in the United States Senate. I hope that 39 Republicans will join at least Senator Joseph Lieberman is standing by the troops and their commander in iraq, as well as the president.

In my lifetime America has walked away from one set of allies, to its eternal disgrace. We must not do so again, lest we repeat April, 1975 all over again.

The resolution that this coalition proposes can be found over at Truth Laid Bear.

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

I believe this is key -- there is no room for those in the GOP who would abandon the troops in the field in this manner, and we must say so clearly. I therefore urge you to sign the pledge, refer like-minded friends to the pledge, and contact your Senators and the Senate leadership to insist that they oppose any resolution that undercuts the war effort.

This is a defining issue of our time -- we must not fail in this effort, or history will judge this nation harshly. Assuming, of course, that failure does not leave our enemies writing that history.

The following are also blogging on the issue.

KickingOverMyTraces
Reverse Spin
The Wide Awake Cafe
Say Anything.
Bear To The Right
ThreeSources
MangledCat
Captain's Quarters

UPDATE: Hewitt wrote his column today about the Pledge.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

Buh-bye, John. Not that you ever stood a chance in 2008.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who narrowly lost the presidency to George Bush in 2004, announced today that he would not proceed with a second bid for the White House because he preferred to use his position in the new Senate majority to press for an end to American involvement in Iraq.

“We came close, certainly close enough to be tempted to try again, there are powerful reasons to want to follow that fight now,” Mr. Kerry said, invoking his 2004 race, at the conclusion of a 30-minute speech attacking Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy on the floor of the United States Senate. “I’ve concluded that this isn’t the time for me to mount a presidential campaign. It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority of he Senate and do all I can to end the war.”

Mr. KerryÂ’s announcement of his political plans, if unveiled in an unorthodox place, was not a surprise, notwithstanding his early statements that he would run again for the White House. He was in effect bowing to a Democratic Party that was clearly unreceptive and that had turned its attention to new candidates, in particular Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who got into the race over the past week. Many Democrats had said they expected Mr. Kerry would ultimately decide not to run after assessing how much strength he had in his party; as it is, most of his aides from the 2004 campaign have moved on.

So Kerry will forgo another run for Commander-in-Chief so he can stay in the Senate and undercut the troops and the war effort from there. Looks like he wants to be at the very heart of the effort to lose a war for the second time -- and he knows from experience that he can help do so much more effectively with irresponsible words in the Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

From Jimmy CarterÂ’s speech at Brandeis University.

"This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist." Carter paused and squinted at the audience. "This has hurt me."

Experts have demonstrated that your assertions are wrong. Participants in events have noted how you misrepresent them. Materials from another book have been used without attribution. And your claims of a Jewish conspiracy clearly echo the anti-Semitic canards of earlier generations and hate-filled ideologies.

But I will give you credit for stepping back from the most dangerous thing you wrote in your false, disgusting, and despicable book.

In particular, some students challenged Carter on a sentence that has brought him much grief. On Page 213 of his book, Carter wrote: "It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

This sentence, the students noted, suggests that suicide bombings are a tactic of war, to be suspended only when peace is achieved. Carter agreed -- and apologized -- and said this sentence was a great mistake on his part.

"The sentence was worded in an absolutely improper and stupid way," Carter said. "I apologize to you and to everyone here . . . it was a mistake on my part."
He added that Palestinians who embrace terrorism draw no support from him.
Calls for the destruction of Israel, he said, "are completely obnoxious to me. I would have no brief for them and no sympathy for them."

But you still stand against the security fence, which has been the most successful means of preventing terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Maybe you donÂ’t mean to support terrorism, Jimmy, but your advocacy for tearing down that anti-terrorist barrier does provide the terrorists with aid and comfort.

And you are still a disgrace to this country, Jimmy – as well as “a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist."

Posted by: Greg at 12:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

If, as this quote indicates, he does, then perhaps we local GOP activists need to work to get rid of him. This exchange occurred on the Alex Jones radio show. (MP3 here)

CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I'm tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?

HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.

JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it's fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.

Now maybe he was humoring the moonbat caller. Maybe he was lacking in his normal grace with the English language. Or maybe he was revealing a side to his views that places him so far outside the mainstream as to require people with common decency and common sense to take action against him.

Needless to say, I'm disturbed -- and I hope the good congressman will clarify his views and explain (if he can) these comments.

H/T Right Wing News

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

That is the question that columnist and blogger Daniel Friedman asks in this piece, “Can I Be President?”

Forget Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Obama, and Clinton. There is only one candidate that every American envisions in the White House: oneself. Which American, at least as a child, never once daydreamed of sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office Â… leader of the free world Â… fighting evil and protecting freedom?

And I was no different. Well, slightly different. I was born and raised in London, spoke the Queen's English, and never heard the date 1776 mentioned in school. But as an American citizen — born to an American mother and a British father — I too dreamed of being president. Sure being prime minister was cool, my friends certainly thought so, but who dreams of being Robin when you can be Batman?

A high school teacher shattered these dreams (don't they always?) by telling me that "natural born citizen means born in America." Sidekick it was from then on. But while living in Brussels a few years ago, an American colleague pointed out — after I told him that he was doing his children a disservice by not having them in America — that it's unclear whether children born to American citizens overseas really can't be president.

Friedman notes that many people argue that he cannot. On the other hand, my answer has always been quite the opposite – that natural born, rather than native born, would certainly be inclusive of those born American citizens regardless of their place of birth. That would include those Americans born abroad to American citizens, such as military dependents, the children of diplomats, and other expats. After all, if they are not naturalized citizens, they must be natural born citizens.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve always supported legislation like this – it proves that those who claim that they are not taxed enough either really don’t believe it or are just plain hypocritical.

Mainers could contribute to their favorite state government programs through the state Web site under legislation a Sabattus lawmaker proposed.

Republican Rep. Scott Lansley said his is a serious proposal — even as he smiled at its name, the Tax Me More Fund.

"I got a lot of people who laughed about it at first and then said that’s a good idea and signed on as co-sponsors," Lansley said last week. He said the name makes a broader political point.

"People are either going to be hypocrites about it and not do it, or they are going to be out there saying, ‘I should pay more taxes for this or that program,’" he said. "Well, if you think that a program needs more money, here you go, pay more in taxes through this fund."

Lansley said the measure would make it easy for Mainers to pay additional "taxes" by making contributions through the state government Web site.

So I hope all you folks in Maine will get behind this proposal – and that every person who argues that taxes are too low will simply cut a check to the Tax Me More fund in their own state (if they have one). After all, if you REALLY believe that you are keeping money that should not be yours, this is the perfect way to divest yourself of it without imposing your personal morality on the rest of us!

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ve always supported legislation like this – it proves that those who claim that they are not taxed enough either really don’t believe it or are just plain hypocritical.

Mainers could contribute to their favorite state government programs through the state Web site under legislation a Sabattus lawmaker proposed.

Republican Rep. Scott Lansley said his is a serious proposal — even as he smiled at its name, the Tax Me More Fund.

"I got a lot of people who laughed about it at first and then said thatÂ’s a good idea and signed on as co-sponsors," Lansley said last week. He said the name makes a broader political point.

"People are either going to be hypocrites about it and not do it, or they are going to be out there saying, ‘I should pay more taxes for this or that program,’" he said. "Well, if you think that a program needs more money, here you go, pay more in taxes through this fund."

Lansley said the measure would make it easy for Mainers to pay additional "taxes" by making contributions through the state government Web site.

So I hope all you folks in Maine will get behind this proposal – and that every person who argues that taxes are too low will simply cut a check to the Tax Me More fund in their own state (if they have one). After all, if you REALLY believe that you are keeping money that should not be yours, this is the perfect way to divest yourself of it without imposing your personal morality on the rest of us!

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a rather interesting notion, isn't it? The liberal Democratic solution to the so-called 'corruption" caused by campaign donations may be about to be killed -- by Senator Hillary Clinton!

The public financing system designed to clean up presidential campaigns in the wake of the Watergate scandal may have died on Saturday when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced her bid for the White House.

Little noticed amid the announcement rollout was a page on her Web site in which she asked potential contributors to give her campaign checks of up to $4,200. That figure signaled not only that she plans to forgo public funds for primary season but also that, if she becomes the nominee, she will not take public money for the general election.

By opting out of the system, Clinton will be able to spend as much money as she can raise, both for the primaries and for the general election, rather than being forced to abide by strict spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Commission on candidates who accept public financing.

Others have opted out of public financing for the nomination campaigns, but Clinton is the first since the current structure was created in 1974 to declare she will forgo public financing in the general election as well.

Clinton's decision will put pressure on other candidates in both parties to follow suit, and if they do, the 2008 campaign will complete what has been the rapid disintegration of a system designed to rein in unlimited spending in presidential campaigns.

I have to ask -- does Hillary's decision make her the candidate of corruption and special interests? Or does it make her a free speech heroine? Or, more realistically, does it put her somewhere in the middle?

From my standpoint, this is a good thing. The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, established a system which allowed for unlimited speech on political matters -- provided you could afford it. What Clinton is doing is simply departing from the constitutional monstrosity that was established over three decades ago, and returning to the originalist paradigm.

Now if we can only do away with the other part of this abomination -- the contribution limit. After all, if a candidate has the right to spend as much as he or she wants for purposes of engaging in political speech, there is no legitimate argument for preventing a candidate's supporters from donating as much as possible to that cause. After all, Americans associating for purposes of engaging in political speech is not a crime -- it is a right under the US Constitution.

And by the way, I'd like to encourage my readers to help kill this offense agains free and full participation in the electoral system -- DO NOT check the box on your tax return directing your money to public financing of presidential campaigns!

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

A quick news flash about state Senator Mario Gallegos of Houston -- the recently elected president pro tem of the Texas Senate.

State Sen. Mario Gallegos underwent liver transplant surgery late Friday night and is recovering at the Texas Medical Center, according to his family.

Gallegos, a Houston Democrat, had cirrhosis of the liver, which necessitated the transplant.

Gallegos had said earlier that his doctors estimated he will need 18 days of recovery time after his surgery before he can return to work.

I don't like the man's politics, and I'll work against him in 2008 -- but in 2007, I wish him only the best of health and the smoothest of recoveries.

Because, as I have said so often, some things are simply more important than mere politics.

Posted by: Greg at 12:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Gov Bill Richardson of New Mexico has declared his candidacy for the Democrat nomination for president. And sad to say, he doesn't really have a chance of getting the nomination, despite being the best qualified of the bunch.

Democrat Bill Richardson took the first step Sunday toward a bid to become the first Hispanic president, saying the country needs his extensive experience as a governor, cabinet secretary and ambassador.

The 59-year-old New Mexico governor announced in a video posted on his Web site that he would set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.

His candidacy would make history as the field of Democratic candidates would be the most diverse ever. On Saturday, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she wanted to be the first female president. Last week, Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois jumped in, a formidable contender who would be the first black commander in chief.

Richardson, whose father was an international banker from Boston and whose mother was Mexican, said he believes the country "has changed enough" that voters are ready for a woman or minority president.

And I've dealt with that issue in the past -- I'm more interested in a qualified president than I am in one who can check off boxes on an affirmative action form. With his resume, Richardson should not be playing the ethnicity card -- he should be touting his qualifications and the relatively weak credentials of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. Bill Richardson is a substantive candidate, unlike the rest of the Democrat field. And while I tend to disagree with his policy positions, I find him to be presidential timber in a way the rest are not.

Oh, and one other note on the ethnicity thing. Not long ago, I was talking presidential politics with one of my classes when we finished up a bit early. When I mentioned Richardson as a Hispanic candidate, they dismissed him -- on the basis that his Anglo name doesn't connect with the average Hispanic. Now I wouldn't make much of that observation by a group of tenth graders, except for the fact that the class was 2/3 Hispanic and many of the students are first generation Americans. I wonder if that reflects a wider sentiment, or merely a limited vision based upon age and lack of political sophistication.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has two good analyses at Captain's Quarters -- one about Richardson as Hillary's worst nightmare, and the other noting that he is the most well-rounded of the Dem candidates so far.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 442 words, total size 3 kb.

Don't think about it, don't talk about it. Just rule it out completely right now. You are not what the GOP and the nation need in 2008, Mr. Gingrich.

First, Newt Gingrich said he would run for president in 2008 only if no other Republican emerged as a clear front-runner. Now, the former House speaker says he will run only as a "last resort."

His assessment came in response to a question by Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday."

"You sound as if you think about running for president as a last resort, not as a first resort?" Wallace asked.

"Exactly," Gingrich answered. "I mean, nobody's ever said it quite that way, but you're right."

Gingrich said he first hoped to influence the presidential race by providing candidates in both parties with his "solutions" to problems such as health care, energy, education, national security and immigration.

I'm sorry Newt, but while you may be one of the brightest idea people in the conservative movement, you've got some pretty high negatives among the general public. And given that your love life is almost as sordid as Bill Clinton's, do you really think that you can serve as a credible standard-bearer for a party that still considers family values to be one of its cornerstone issues?

There's simply no place for you in the 2008 race -- or any other year, either.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 1 kb.

This is apparently what passes for "free speech" and "political dialogue" when you are a Democrat.

Invoking Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Hankey from the television series "South Park," the lawyer for an ex-professor accused of leaving dog feces at a congresswoman's office said her client's actions qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Kathleen Ensz faces a misdemeanor charge of "use of a noxious substance." She is accused of taking dog feces from her backyard, wrapping it in a political mailer from Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, and leaving it at the Republican's office, according to court documents.

Ensz, a Democrat, was angered by repeatedly receiving mailings from Musgrave, the documents said.

That's odd -- I simply trash the mailers I get from Democrat candidates and supporters of al-Qaeda.

And as a supposedly educated woman, I would have thought she might have found some more mature, creative way of expressing her political beliefs. Oh, that's right -- expecting maturity out of a Democrat activist is usually wasted effort (although I'm blessed with a wonderful one who serves as my alternate election judge -- she is the second best Democrat I know). And lest you think she is just some run of the mill registered Dem or occasional volunteer, please realize that she is (or was) the vice chair of the Democrat organization for Colorado Senate District 13 -- an elected position voted upon by her fellow Democrats.

And then there is this inane argument from her lawyer.

"What she did was probably crude and boorish," Patricia Bangert, one of Ensz's attorneys, argued during a hearing Tuesday, when she likened the conduct to a form of political protest such as Jefferson's criticism of the King of England.

Bangert held up Mr. Hankey, an animated, talking piece of human excrement from "South Park," as evidence of how commonplace feces is for expressing disdain.

"Etiquette and propriety aside, it is commonplace in today's society to equate a distasteful or disliked person, situation or thing, to feces," Bangert said.

Yeah, the comparison is one that is often used, but the analogy breaks down there. If I say you are full of sh!t or that you are a piece of sh!t, that is one thing. If I throw sh!t at you, that crosses a line that takes my actions out of the realm of free speech and into the realm of assault. Similarly, Enz committed a violation of the law when she shoved sh!t in the congresswoman's mail box. Jefferson, whose name is taken in vain by the shyster in question, would quickly acknowledge the difference.

On the other hand, if Enz really believes that she was just giving the congresswoman a piece of her mind, perhaps that is evidence that the professor has sh!t for brains.

H/T Gateway Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:51 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 7 kb.

This got my hopes up.

Hillary returns to Antartic for final time

Unfortunately, it was the wrong Hillary. I should have known that the Hildebeast wouldn't retreat to the South Pole -- but I could hope.

We get the joys of this headline instead.

Sen. Clinton Launches 2008 Campaign

Yeah -- the anti-climax has arrived.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) today announced she will establish a presidential exploratory committee, launching a 2008 campaign that could make her the first female president in history and the only former first lady to succeed her husband in the White House.

In a posting on her campaign Web site, Clinton announced her decision with a headline that read, "I'm In."

I'm surprised that she put that on her website -- that is usually Billzebubba's line.

Her big money quote?

"The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008," Clinton said in the written statement. "As a senator, I will spend [the next] two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism."

Odd -- when conservatives acted to limit the damage done by her husband, she labelled it a "vast right wing conspiracy." When she does the same thing, it is patriotic and grounds for electing her president despite her lack of substantive accomplishments as a Senator -- or in life.

Now the race for money is on -- and speaking of money, will she have lost the support of many of her husband's former supporters? After all, Barack Obama is this year's Howard Dean-style rock star candidate.

Her entrance into the race followed Mr. ObamaÂ’s by less than a week, and highlighted the urgency for her of not falling behind in the competition for money, especially in New York, where the battle has already reached a fever pitch.

George Soros, the billionaire New York philanthropist, has made maximum donations in the past to both candidates, for instance, and last week he faced a choice: support Mr. Obama, who created his committee on Tuesday, or stay neutral and see what Mrs. Clinton and others had to say. In his case, the upstart won. Mr. Soros sent the maximum contribution, $2,100, to Mr. Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois, just hours after he declared his plans to run.

“Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader,” said Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Mr. Soros.

Mrs. ClintonÂ’s presidential operation is only one day old, but she already finds herself in a breakneck competition against Mr. Obama for fund-raising supremacy in two towns that she and her husband have mined heavily for political gold: New York and Hollywood. Mr. ObamaÂ’s entrance into the race has also put up for grabs other groups that are primary targets for Mrs. Clinton, including African-Americans and women.

At this early stage in the nomination fight, securing donations and signing up fund-raisers are among the best ways of showing political strength in a crowded field (seven Democrats and counting). And Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are looking to raise at least $75 million this year alone.

Advisers said yesterday that they had begun corralling donors to build quickly on the formidable $14 million that Mrs. Clinton already had in the bank. They predicted that they would outpace Mr. Obama, though they acknowledged that he is moving impressively to try to match Mrs. ClintonÂ’s national fund-raising network, which has been in the making far longer than his.

Mrs. Clinton faces some fatigue among donors after more than 15 years of Clinton fund-raising, Democratic contributors and strategists said, and some skepticism about whether she can win. Yet she has the DemocratsÂ’ most popular rainmaker at her full disposal, former President Bill Clinton, and she has influential friends like the lawyer and power broker Vernon E. Jordan Jr. to help keep African-American donors and others by her side.

On the bright side, I've kept all my "Impeach Clinton" paraphernalia, so I am set for the horrific possibility of another Clinton Presidency.

And maybe she'll bring back that missing silverware.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Thought Alarm, Pursuing Holiness, 123 Beta, Rightwing Guy, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, Renaissance Blogger, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Diggers Realm, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:33 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 823 words, total size 9 kb.

How else can you interpret this “warning” – to George W. Bush, not the mad mullahs or the Holocaust-denying president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad., not Jimmy Carter).

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

So when the Iranians test their first nuclear weapon, Harry Reid says Bush cannot respond.

When the Iranians drop a nuke on downtown Tel Aviv, Harry Reid says George Bush is merely permitted to click his tongue.

And when the Iranians begin to terrorize the rest of the world following that attack, Harry Reid insists that the President cannot use our military to deal with the threat.

I wonder – does Harry Reid believe that American troops are allowed to respond to a direct attack by Iranian troops that have crossed the border into Iraq? Or do the troops have to flee in the face of the invasion, since military action is not authorized against Iran?

But then again, I wonder if Harry Reid is part of the 22% (see question #19) who need their asses kicked?

Posted by: Greg at 02:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like trouble on the John Edwards front.

When former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards finally succeeded last month in selling his imposing Georgetown mansion for $5.2 million after it had languished on the market, the names of the buyers were not publicly disclosed.

At the time, Edwards's spokeswoman told reporters that the house had been sold to an unidentified corporation. In reality, the buyers were Paul and Terry Klaassen, according to several sources and confirmed by Edwards's spokeswoman yesterday.

The wealthy founders of the nation's largest assisted-living housing chain for seniors, the Klaassens are currently cooperating with a government inquiry in connection with accounting practices and stock options exercised by them and other company insiders. They are also the focus of legal complaints by some of the same labor unions whose support Edwards has been assiduously courting for his presidential bid.

The grand 18th-century house had lingered on Washington's slowing real estate market for more than 18 months. The Edwardses paid $3.8 million in 2002 for the six-bedroom Federal-style house once owned by socialite Polly Fritchey, and they did substantial renovations. The final sale price was half a million dollars below the asking price but still $1.4 million more than the Edwardses paid four years earlier.

This looks bad, both in terms of the high-dollar profit from a seemingly corrupt source and what looks like a cover-up of the purchasers' identity by Edwards. What would the Dems say if this were a GOP candidate?

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

I didn't have a conversation this afternoon. I listened, politely, but chose not to engage.

Because there was simply no point.

The other part didn't want a dialogue -- they wanted a concession and/or an abject surrender.

"If three thousand dead Americans haven't convinced you that this war is wrong, then you are either stupid, immoral, or insane."

Good grief! How does one even begin to respond to that comment as if it deserves to be dignified at all? how does one pretend that there is any intellectual or logical rigor to it?And when the speaker brought up the possibility, of friends, former students, or family members dying in Iraq, how could I even pretend it was anything but pathetic emotional blathering?

But I do have a response -- one I could have given if I thought that an argument might have had any chance of producing a meeting of the minds, or even mutual respect.

You see, I'm willing to concede that much of the premise for this war was wrong -- though not that Saddam Hussein was uninvolved with terrorism. And I'll concede that knowing what I know today, I would oppose beginning the war. However, both of those points are irrelevant.

The reality is that we are at war, and the criteria for determining whether or not US involvement is warranted does not revolve around why the war began or even the raw number of Americans and/or Iraqis killed to date.

No, the correct measure is whether we have the ability to improve the situation, the means to do so, and a plan for doing so. Indeed, if the answer to the first two is yes, then there is something of an obligation to develop the third.

You see, our actions created the reality that now exists in Iraq. Our obligation is to help the Iraqi people attain stability. If that means making an additional commitment of troops to do so -- as was the position of the Democrats for most of the last two years -- then we should do so. Indeed, withdrawal should only be an option if it can be shown that it will lead to an improvement in the status quo. That is one of the lessons that needs to be drawn from the debacle in Southeast Asia thirty years ago -- the situation that followed America's withdrawal was infinitely worse than what preceded it. Our departure from Iraq would similarly lead to sectarian and ethnic strife being rachetted up, unless the paramilitary groups are neutralized and the terror groups defeated by securing Baghdad and Anbar OR unless the country is peacefully partitioned. The former is the President's goal, and it is attainable.

Now there is the focus on casualties. Iraq has been a relatively low-casualty conflict for American troops. During WW II, there were single days that saw more dead. Vietnam saw years with more casualties than the American military has sustained in nearly four. And while every death is an unspeakable tragedy, that does not mean it is a useless or senseless tragedy. I learned that lesson at my father's knee growing up, listening to him explain that the job of a soldier or sailor is to be prepared to die for something greater than himself. The only unacceptable death is one that does not come in the furtherance of a necessary objective in the conflict at hand. As such, the notion of "too many deaths" is almost a nonsensical one, provided that those lives are not being pissed away with no objective, or after it becomes clear that the objective cannot be attained. I do not yet believe that we are at such a point.

Does this mean I am evil? No, it means that I view the death toll as a gut-wrenching but unavoidable by-product of the nation's decision to go to war.

Does this mean I am insane? I think not, for my position is based upon facts and reality, not upon a spasmodic emotional reaction.

Does mean I m stupid? I do not believe so, as my position is one based upon an analysis of the facts.

On the other hand, I will concede one point quite willingly -- it is quite possible that my analysis of the situation is somehow flawed. Error, how ever, is not the same as immorality, insanity, or stupidity. I remain prepared to be convinced that I am wrong by a fact-based logical analysis of the consequences of withdrawal and/or our ability to improve the situation by staying.

Emotional attacks and ad hominem argument, on the other hand, will not even be acknowledged.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 783 words, total size 4 kb.

Now please understand -- I fully believe the administration had the AUTHORITY to act as it did by ordering warrantless wiretaps in national security cases -- the Supreme Court determined that a quarter century ago in a case involving the Carter Administration. However, as a matter of politics, it would have been preferable to use the FISA court -- in order to avoid giving dishonest critics of the Administration and the War on Terror the ammunition they so desperately desired.

Now the Bush Administration is doing what it out to have done -- but it looks like a move made out of weakness.

The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security AgencyÂ’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists.

The Justice Department said it had worked out an “innovative” arrangement with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that provided the “necessary speed and agility” to provide court approval to monitor international communications of people inside the United States without jeopardizing national security.

The decision capped 13 months of bruising national debate over the reach of the presidentÂ’s wartime authorities and his claims of executive power, and it came as the administration faced legal and political hurdles in its effort to continue the surveillance program.

None of this is going to mollify Administration critics -- but it is going to look like the Administration is conceding their arguments. Wrong move at the wrong time -- which seems to be the story of the Bush Administration over the last year or so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

It was bound to happen, given Obama’s rock star status.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, whose best-selling books and political travels generated huge pressure to run for the White House, joined a crowded Democratic field yesterday, vowing to advance "a different kind of politics" in a campaign that could make him the nation's first African American president.

Obama, a state legislator just three years ago, announced that he has formed a presidential exploratory committee, accelerating his already rapid emergence in national politics and establishing him as his party's most formidable rival to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Democratic front-runner. He will formally announce his candidacy on Feb. 10.

The problem is, though, that his career includes no significant accomplishments. Indeed, he was elected to the US Senate only two years ago, after his Republican opponent’s campaign imploded in a sex scandal and the GOP could not find a credible replacement. During his time in the Senate he has been a big draw on the campaign trail, but is an absolute cipher as a legislator. Even his state legislative career is painted in only the most general terms in this article.

In 1996, he was elected to the Illinois state Senate, where he earned a reputation as a consensus-building Democrat who was strongly liberal on social and economic issues, backing gay rights, abortion rights, gun control, universal health care and tax breaks for the poor.

Indeed, the only two things that Obama has going for him as a candidate are his unquestioned skill as an orator and the color of his skin. This was illustrated yesterday when a representative of Young Democrats for America appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio show to speak about his announcement was unable to name a single substantive thing Obama has done during his time in Washington – or at any other point during his career.

What is going to happen to Obama’s candidacy? It will ultimately fail – and he will in all likelihood end up in the VP slot of a Clinton-Obama ticket. And if he does beat the odds and get the nomination? Expect him to crash and burn.

Oh, by the way, if you want to know about Obama’s record as a state legislator, you can find that information here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 3 kb.

It was bound to happen, given ObamaÂ’s rock star status.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, whose best-selling books and political travels generated huge pressure to run for the White House, joined a crowded Democratic field yesterday, vowing to advance "a different kind of politics" in a campaign that could make him the nation's first African American president.

Obama, a state legislator just three years ago, announced that he has formed a presidential exploratory committee, accelerating his already rapid emergence in national politics and establishing him as his party's most formidable rival to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Democratic front-runner. He will formally announce his candidacy on Feb. 10.

The problem is, though, that his career includes no significant accomplishments. Indeed, he was elected to the US Senate only two years ago, after his Republican opponentÂ’s campaign imploded in a sex scandal and the GOP could not find a credible replacement. During his time in the Senate he has been a big draw on the campaign trail, but is an absolute cipher as a legislator. Even his state legislative career is painted in only the most general terms in this article.

In 1996, he was elected to the Illinois state Senate, where he earned a reputation as a consensus-building Democrat who was strongly liberal on social and economic issues, backing gay rights, abortion rights, gun control, universal health care and tax breaks for the poor.

Indeed, the only two things that Obama has going for him as a candidate are his unquestioned skill as an orator and the color of his skin. This was illustrated yesterday when a representative of Young Democrats for America appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio show to speak about his announcement was unable to name a single substantive thing Obama has done during his time in Washington – or at any other point during his career.

What is going to happen to Obama’s candidacy? It will ultimately fail – and he will in all likelihood end up in the VP slot of a Clinton-Obama ticket. And if he does beat the odds and get the nomination? Expect him to crash and burn.

Oh, by the way, if you want to know about ObamaÂ’s record as a state legislator, you can find that information here.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

May I say “Who cares?”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that he hopes to patch things up with conservative Christian leader James Dobson, who said last week that he would not support the lawmaker's presidential bid "under any circumstances."

In an interview last Thursday with a Christian radio station in Dallas, Dobson argued that McCain did not support traditional marriage values "and I pray that we will not get stuck with him."

"Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family.

"I'm obviously disappointed," McCain said during a stop in Columbia.
McCain has said gay marriage should not be legal, but he has angered some conservatives with his opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. He said the issue should be left to the states.

Frankly, I donÂ’t care about this. IÂ’m opposed to John McCain and his candidacy, and that opposition is irrevocable. And the reason is not the gay marriage amendment, which I support but on which I believe people of goodwill can disagree. Rather, it is McCainÂ’s flagrant opposition to an amendment already part of the Constitution, the First Amendment with its guarantee of freedom of speech, that leads me to reject him for any office.

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

At least that's how it appears if current population trends continue.

Texas is on track to be the biggest winner when all 435 House seats are reallocated after the 2010 Census, getting as many as four new districts and Electoral College votes because of population gains.

And that, in turn, will translate into more federal dollars and increased political clout for Texas.

The growth assures Texas a gain of at least two seats, according to recent analyses of Census data by two redistricting-consulting and data-analysis firms.

If population increase continues in similar fashion through the end of the decade, as expected, Texas will definitely add a third and possibly a fourth seat, said Clark Bensen, a Virginia analyst who counsels Republicans on redistricting strategy through his firm, Polidata.

Kimball Brace, who typically advises Democrats through his Election Data Services, also projects that Texas will pick up three seats during the once-a-decade rebalancing in the House. Texas gained two seats after the 2000 decennial count and now has 32 House members.

How these districts are allocated will be the key. Houston suburbs are growing, and that could translate to an additional district or two here. Similarly, Dallas/Fort Worth will likely see at least one seat added. Assuming they are drawn by a GOP controlled legislature, I would anticipate at least a two seat pick-up for Republicans. That puts me at odds with the analysts -- but I base my projection upon what areas are growing and the fact that much of that growing Hispanic population is non-citizen (in fact, illegal alien) growth. And sorry, but every new Democrat Hispanic district will require cannibalizing Hispanics from other districts -- making the other districts more white, more affluent, and more Republican. The only area where redistricting would not have that impact would be down in the Valley.

I would even suggest that this growth could mean that my own district, CD22, could be split. What that would mean for my representation could be just about anything, depending upon what parts of neighboring districts are brought into the newly created districts.

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 2 kb.

If those who know him best will not vote for him, why should other Americans?

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter's long-shot bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination got a boost over the weekend when he emerged on top in a straw poll of Republican precinct committeemen in Arizona's most-populated county.

Hunter, R-El Cajon, got 96 votes among the 458 ballots in the non-binding poll of Maricopa County party officials asked to list their first choice for president.
Hunter easily beat Arizona's own U.S. Sen. John McCain, considered a front-runner in the GOP presidential race, who drew a comparatively paltry 50 votes. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second in Saturday's poll with 82 first-place votes.

The total for Hunter is interesting, but I don’t believe it is significant in the long term. Hunter is not well-known nationally, and therefore is not likely to duplicate his feat elsewhere in the country. This even was shown in the straw poll when he placed seventh overall among the candidates when the same group was asked to rank who they considered “acceptable”, not just their first choice.

Here are the full results of the straw poll.

458 Ballots cast

As you can see, McCain is unacceptable to 65% of those voting! On the other hand, Romney is the only declared candidate among the top three finishers in the poll of acceptable candidates -- and for reasons I've pointed out before, Gingrich really is not a viable candidate for the general election. Add to that the reality that the Secretary of State has repeatedly indicated a lack of interest in running for the top job, and I believe this shows Gov. Mitt Romney to be the real front-runner among these party activists.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 5 kb.

Not only are the two consistent, the right to keep and bear arms is vested in the individual rather than in the government. Early American practice bears this out.

Precisely because an armed populace can serve as an effective backup for law enforcement, the ownership of firearms was widely mandated during Colonial times, and the second Congress passed a statute in 1792 requiring adult male citizens to own guns.

The twin purposes of self and community defense may very well lie behind the Second AmendmentÂ’s language encompassing both the importance of a well-regulated militia and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. As the constitutional and criminal law scholar Don Kates has noted in the journal Constitutional Commentary, thinkers at the time when the Constitution was written drew no real distinction between resisting burglars, foreign invaders or domestic tyrants: All were wrongdoers that good citizens had the right, and the duty, to oppose with force.

Now i personally don't have a problem with those who choose not to own guns -- but do not dare to impose your petty fears on my right to defend myself, my family, and my community. Your decision not to exercise your right to secure your safety and fear of those who do does not give you license to abrogate the Second Amendment, any more than your decision not to engage in speech or journalism or religious exercise constitutes a legitimate basis for ignoring the First.

Good job, Glenn!

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.