From Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL)

"...the majority would have us consider a resolution that puts us one day closer to handing militant Islamists a safe haven the size of California. And when ideological militants achieve their objectives, history tells us that they don't settle; that they only attempt to expand their reach even further. And that means following us home."

We can fight the jihadi terrorists in Iraq, or we can fight them in California. You decide.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

In a move to restore democracy to the state of Texas, the Texas House is considering a bill to overturn Rick PerryÂ’s power-grab on the Gardasil vaccine.

The Texas House will take its first step Monday to overturn Gov. Rick Perry's mandate that schoolgirls be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer.

The House Public Health Committee posted notice Tuesday that it will hold a public hearing on a bill that would pre-empt Perry's order and prevent the human papillomavirus vaccine from being required for admission to any elementary or secondary school.

"The governor has accomplished his goal of bringing attention to this issue," said Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, author of the bill. "All citizens of Texas will have an opportunity to come to Austin to give an opinion."

Bonnen has signed up more than 60 members as co-authors of House Bill 1098.
If the committee votes out the bill, it could be the first major piece of legislation heard on the House floor this session.

IÂ’m all for girls getting the vaccine, but not for a government mandate or a gubernatorial decree dictating it. IÂ’m therefore pleased to see over 40% of the Texas House sponsoring this legislation, for that bodes well for making the bill veto-proof.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

HereÂ’s hoping we can get Bill OÂ’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh into congressional or senatorial races somewhere in the country to counter-balance this likely win eventual win in Minnesota.

Comedian Al Franken announced Wednesday that he will run for the Senate in 2008, seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

Franken's announcement came on the final day of his show on the liberal radio network Air America. The decision by the former "Saturday Night Live" performer instantly makes him a serious contender and brings national attention to the race.

Well, for the sake of his ego letÂ’s hope that he is a more serious contender in the senatorial race than he was as a talk radio host.

And let me make this observation – if hosting a talk radio show constitutes credential that qualifies someone for public office, perhaps the GOP ought to run former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett for the presidency in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Detroit News on the issue of the anti-surge resolutions pending in the House and Senate.

C ongress is in the middle of three days of debate on a nonbinding resolution that would express to President George W. Bush its opposition to sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. But why settle for a symbolic gesture of discontent when the representatives have the authority to do something concrete?

If Congress feels the troop surge is the wrong idea, it should vote to cut off funding.

It doesn't do that because the Democratic leadership loves to protest and complain about the Iraq War, but doesn't want to be held accountable for the consequences of an alternative strategy.

It is easy to bitch and moan about the war, and to try to make political hay over it. That has been the strategy of the Democrats of late. However, they should be willing to act on that sentiment if they REALLY believe what they are saying. Otherwise, they are at best engaged in a cynical political ploy, if not outright cowardice and hypocrisy. After all, the current course of action would allow them to be on record as opposing this course of action to avoid blame in the event of failure, while still claiming credit when the surge succeeds because they didn’t cut off funds.

Such triangulation would be nothing short of a sick joke, if it didn’t involve opponents of the war intentionally allowing troops to be placed in harm’s way for a mission that Congress does not believe can be a success. That makes it a criminal abrogation of their constitutional responsibility, for they are knowingly and intentionally allowing soldiers to die for a policy/strategy they believe should not be followed? How can they reconcile respect for the troops with allowing them to be the next to die for a policy that a majority of Congress believes is wrong and a mission they view as unattainable?

So let me say for the record – if the DemocratICK majority in the House and Senate really believes that funding the troop surge is wrong, they should vote to cut off funds in order to force a change in direction in Iraq. But if the legislative branch lacks the integrity to do so, they need to stand aside in silence while the president pursues the strategy he believes provides the best chance for success. And at this moment, George W. Bush appears to be the only elected leader in Washington with a plan for success and the will to implement it – which makes him the only real leader in government today, despite DemocratICK rhetoric about charting a new course in the Middle East.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Detroit News on the issue of the anti-surge resolutions pending in the House and Senate.

C ongress is in the middle of three days of debate on a nonbinding resolution that would express to President George W. Bush its opposition to sending 20,000 troops to Iraq. But why settle for a symbolic gesture of discontent when the representatives have the authority to do something concrete?

If Congress feels the troop surge is the wrong idea, it should vote to cut off funding.

It doesn't do that because the Democratic leadership loves to protest and complain about the Iraq War, but doesn't want to be held accountable for the consequences of an alternative strategy.

It is easy to bitch and moan about the war, and to try to make political hay over it. That has been the strategy of the Democrats of late. However, they should be willing to act on that sentiment if they REALLY believe what they are saying. Otherwise, they are at best engaged in a cynical political ploy, if not outright cowardice and hypocrisy. After all, the current course of action would allow them to be on record as opposing this course of action to avoid blame in the event of failure, while still claiming credit when the surge succeeds because they didnÂ’t cut off funds.

Such triangulation would be nothing short of a sick joke, if it didnÂ’t involve opponents of the war intentionally allowing troops to be placed in harmÂ’s way for a mission that Congress does not believe can be a success. That makes it a criminal abrogation of their constitutional responsibility, for they are knowingly and intentionally allowing soldiers to die for a policy/strategy they believe should not be followed? How can they reconcile respect for the troops with allowing them to be the next to die for a policy that a majority of Congress believes is wrong and a mission they view as unattainable?

So let me say for the record – if the DemocratICK majority in the House and Senate really believes that funding the troop surge is wrong, they should vote to cut off funds in order to force a change in direction in Iraq. But if the legislative branch lacks the integrity to do so, they need to stand aside in silence while the president pursues the strategy he believes provides the best chance for success. And at this moment, George W. Bush appears to be the only elected leader in Washington with a plan for success and the will to implement it – which makes him the only real leader in government today, despite DemocratICK rhetoric about charting a new course in the Middle East.

Posted by: Greg at 12:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.

I defended his right to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in, but I won’t cut him any slack here.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn’t believe it’s Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.

Ellison’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.

Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.”

And let’s face it. Calling the cops on a colleague takes the cake for the nerviest behavior so far among members of this year’s freshman class of Congress.

* * *

Tancredo said he would not stop smoking in his office. “Heck, no!” he said. “If he [Ellison] would have [had] the courtesy to say something I’m sure I would have been more accommodating to his wishes.”

To help keep his office free of impurities, Tancredo has three air purifiers. And he has no plans to meet Ellison anytime soon. “I’m sure we will, but I’m not going to make a point [of it],” the presidential hopeful said, adding that he supported Ellison’s right to be sworn in with the Quran.

Ellison’s press secretary, Rick Jauert, made the call to the Superintendent’s office when he noticed the smoke. “I called because the smoke was coming through the walls,” Jauert said, adding that the Superintendent’s office referred him to the Capitol Police.

Jauert said he then informed his boss what he had done. He said “fine,” Jauert said. “He’s complained of the smoke before.”

What next? Will Ellison and his staff demand that Capitol Hill offices go dry in accordance with Islamic teachings? Will he act to have ham sandwiches banned from Capitol Hill? Will he insist that Speaker Pelosi wear a burqa (not that it wouldn’t be an improvement)? At the risk for giving offense to the Muslim Congressman by using a Yiddish work, Ellison showed a lot of chutzpah here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

I defended his right to use the Quran at his ceremonial swearing-in, but I wonÂ’t cut him any slack here.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesnÂ’t believe itÂ’s Rep. Tom TancredoÂ’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.

EllisonÂ’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.

Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.”

And letÂ’s face it. Calling the cops on a colleague takes the cake for the nerviest behavior so far among members of this yearÂ’s freshman class of Congress.

* * *

Tancredo said he would not stop smoking in his office. “Heck, no!” he said. “If he [Ellison] would have [had] the courtesy to say something I’m sure I would have been more accommodating to his wishes.”

To help keep his office free of impurities, Tancredo has three air purifiers. And he has no plans to meet Ellison anytime soon. “I’m sure we will, but I’m not going to make a point [of it],” the presidential hopeful said, adding that he supported Ellison’s right to be sworn in with the Quran.

Ellison’s press secretary, Rick Jauert, made the call to the Superintendent’s office when he noticed the smoke. “I called because the smoke was coming through the walls,” Jauert said, adding that the Superintendent’s office referred him to the Capitol Police.

Jauert said he then informed his boss what he had done. He said “fine,” Jauert said. “He’s complained of the smoke before.”

What next? Will Ellison and his staff demand that Capitol Hill offices go dry in accordance with Islamic teachings? Will he act to have ham sandwiches banned from Capitol Hill? Will he insist that Speaker Pelosi wear a burqa (not that it wouldnÂ’t be an improvement)? At the risk for giving offense to the Muslim Congressman by using a Yiddish work, Ellison showed a lot of chutzpah here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

I guess it is more than just $90K in the freezer, commandeering rescue workers to remove evidence from his home during Katrina and obstruction of justice in his Capitol office. Now a shareholder in the firm from which he solicited bribes is suing him.

A former stockholder in a technology company sued a beleaguered congressman and a former business associate Tuesday, claiming they bilked stockholders by using business funds to pay bribes.

The lawsuit alleges that Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., his wife and Vernon Jackson, former chief executive of the telecommunications firm iGate, schemed to funnel money to Jefferson, his family and foreign officials.

The allegations mirror those in an ongoing federal investigation of Jefferson and his business dealings. Jefferson has not been charged, but the FBI has said in court records that agents found $90,000 in a freezer in his New Orleans home.

As part of that investigation, Jackson, 54, of Louisville, pleaded guilty to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson to gain the congressman's help in obtaining business deals in Africa. Jackson was sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

The corrupt practices engaged in by Jefferson and his inside co-conspirator have caused the company to all but cease operations.

Will the Democrats act against this criminal in their midst? Nope – which shows the hollow nature of their “ethics reform”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess it is more than just $90K in the freezer, commandeering rescue workers to remove evidence from his home during Katrina and obstruction of justice in his Capitol office. Now a shareholder in the firm from which he solicited bribes is suing him.

A former stockholder in a technology company sued a beleaguered congressman and a former business associate Tuesday, claiming they bilked stockholders by using business funds to pay bribes.

The lawsuit alleges that Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., his wife and Vernon Jackson, former chief executive of the telecommunications firm iGate, schemed to funnel money to Jefferson, his family and foreign officials.

The allegations mirror those in an ongoing federal investigation of Jefferson and his business dealings. Jefferson has not been charged, but the FBI has said in court records that agents found $90,000 in a freezer in his New Orleans home.

As part of that investigation, Jackson, 54, of Louisville, pleaded guilty to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson to gain the congressman's help in obtaining business deals in Africa. Jackson was sentenced to seven years in federal prison.

The corrupt practices engaged in by Jefferson and his inside co-conspirator have caused the company to all but cease operations.

Will the Democrats act against this criminal in their midst? Nope – which shows the hollow nature of their “ethics reform”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Barack Obama has already made two major blunders (that is one more than Joe Biden, for those keeping track), and he only declared his candidacy on Saturday.

HereÂ’s the first.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said Monday that he had misspoken when he suggested that the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq had been “wasted.”

As he arrived in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama said he would “absolutely apologize” to military families if they were offended by a remark he made in Iowa while criticizing the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.

“What I would say — and meant to say — is that their service hasn’t been honored,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Nashua, N.H., “because our civilian strategy has not honored their courage and bravery, and we have put them in a situation in which it is hard for them to succeed.”

No, Senator, your words were pretty clear – you believe that the lives of soldiers fighting for this country are wasted – hardly a fitting sentiment for a potential commander-in-chief.

And then there indication of ObamaÂ’s lack of preparation to conduct foreign affairs in his verbal jousting with AustraliaÂ’s John Howard.

No, Senator Obama may be a superb public speaker and a charismatic man, but he is not quite ready for prime time. We elect him at our peril.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

Congressman Norwood has, sadly, succumbed to the cancer he has been battling.

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) died Tuesday morning, a week after returning home to Augusta for hospice care.

Norwood, 65, waged a long battle with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a chronic lung disease. He underwent a single lung transplant in 2004, then developed lung cancer in his other lung while taking immune-response-suppression drugs to prevent his body from rejecting the new organ. The cancer spread to his liver late last year.

Norwood announced he was forgoing further treatment last week. One of his last acts as a congressman was to reintroduce the Norwood-Dingell Patient's Bill of Rights, legislation that put him at odds with the Bush administration and his own congressional leadership. Among other things, the bill would have allowed patients to sue HMOs that overruled doctors and refused to pay for recommended treatments.

Survivors include his wife of 42 years, the former Gloria Wilkinson ; two grown sons, Charles and Carlton; and four grandchildren.

Norwood's office will announce memorial plans later.

Under Georgia law, the governor must, within 10 days of the death of a member of Congress, send a writ to the Secretary of State's office asking for a non-partisan special election to choose a replacement. The election can be held no earlier than 30 days later.

May his family be comforted in this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Congressman Norwood has, sadly, succumbed to the cancer he has been battling.

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) died Tuesday morning, a week after returning home to Augusta for hospice care.

Norwood, 65, waged a long battle with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a chronic lung disease. He underwent a single lung transplant in 2004, then developed lung cancer in his other lung while taking immune-response-suppression drugs to prevent his body from rejecting the new organ. The cancer spread to his liver late last year.

Norwood announced he was forgoing further treatment last week. One of his last acts as a congressman was to reintroduce the Norwood-Dingell Patient's Bill of Rights, legislation that put him at odds with the Bush administration and his own congressional leadership. Among other things, the bill would have allowed patients to sue HMOs that overruled doctors and refused to pay for recommended treatments.

Survivors include his wife of 42 years, the former Gloria Wilkinson ; two grown sons, Charles and Carlton; and four grandchildren.

Norwood's office will announce memorial plans later.

Under Georgia law, the governor must, within 10 days of the death of a member of Congress, send a writ to the Secretary of State's office asking for a non-partisan special election to choose a replacement. The election can be held no earlier than 30 days later.

May his family be comforted in this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Mitt Romney has formally declared his candidacy for president in 2008.

Mitt Romney officially entered the 2008 presidential race Tuesday, a former one-term Republican governor of Massachusetts suggesting that his record of leadership inside and outside government uniquely positions him to tackle the countryÂ’s challenges.

”I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician,” Romney said, seeking to turn a potential liability, his limited political experience, into an asset. ”There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements - and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading.”

His speech placed great emphasis upon the American family, and made special reference to the importance of his own family , as he presented himself to the people of this country not just as a politician, not just as a businessman, but first as a family man.

"This Christmas, Ann and I gathered my five sons and five daughters-in-law to ask them whether I should run for President.

* * *

"And so, with them behind us, with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States.

And I would have to describe the speech itself as Reaganesque in its lyrical celebration of this country of ours and its deep expression of hope..

"It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams.

"I love America and I believe in the people of America.

"I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God. We are all sisters and brothers.

"I believe the family is the foundation of America – and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it.

"I believe in the sanctity of human life.

"I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges.

"I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed. Washington is spending too much money.

"I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders.

"I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us, becauseÂ…

"I believe in America!

I urge all who still believe in America to consider Mitt RomneyÂ’s candidacy seriously, for his vision of America is one consistent with conservative values and which sees AmericaÂ’s best days as being in the future, not the past.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Common Folk Using Common Sense, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, and Dumb Ox Daily News, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 5 kb.

It sounds to me like this may already be a done deal, with the resignation of County Judge Robert Eckels to come on Thursday.

Transportation consultant and former state Rep. Ed Emmett has emerged as the Republican consensus candidate to succeed County Judge Robert Eckels if he resigns to take a private sector job.

The two Republican county commissioners and Eckels, also a Republican, say they could back Emmett, which would give him the job even if the Commissioners Court's two Democrats disagreed.

Eckels said he hopes to make a decision within a week on whether to take a new job. He just began his fourth, four-year term.

Eckels described Emmett as "the kind of guy who I would love to see come behind me."

"He's a guy who understands politics and he has stayed active in transportation," Eckels said.

Frankly, I'm disturbed by this development. That Eckels just ran for reelection last November but may resign just weeks into his new term is troubling, and feels like a fraud upon the voters of Harris County. That his potential replacement for a nearly four year term will come not from among those county-wide officeholders who have received the consent of the governed but will instead be an individual out of elective office for two decades bothers me even more.

Frankly, this situation stinks. If Eckels is to leave the office to which he was just reelected, the position needs to be filled by someone who clearly has the confidence of the voters, not Robert Eckels' buddy. Otherwise we have, at bare minimum, an appearance of impropriety, if not an actual one.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Mission:

Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress.

Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus.

Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on AmericaÂ’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military.

Beliefs:

We support victory in the war against radical Islamists.

We supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and we believe victory is necessary in both countries for AmericaÂ’s self-defense.

We believe that the radical regime in Iran, while not representative of the Iranian people, is a menace and that it cannot be allowed to obtain or build nuclear weapons.

We believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Americans and which waged war against Israel in violation of every law of war this past summer, and will do so again in the future.

We believe Israel is our ally and friend and deserves the full assistance of the United States in its battle with radical Islamists.

We believe that Israel has repeatedly shown its willingness to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but that its enemies do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel.

We believe that the American military is the finest in the world and indeed in history, well led and superbly trained, and populated at every level by AmericaÂ’s best and brightest.

We support the troops, and those organizations which assist the wounded in their recoveries and support the families of those who sacrificed everything.

We support leaders who support victory.

Visit the
Victory Caucus

Posted by: Greg at 05:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

I simply cannot imagine any way that such a tax would not be passed on by the oil companies, at least indirectly, as a part of the “cost of doing business” that goes into the calculation of prices.

Gov. Jim Doyle will unveil a tax on oil companies on Tuesday but will bar the firms from passing it on to consumers.

The tax would mark the first cash infusion into the state's transportation account since an annual automatic increase in the gas tax ended in April.
But some question whether the state can legally prevent companies from passing taxes on to consumers.

In my eyes, it isnÂ’t even a question of legality. Prices are set, in any situation, in light of the full cost of doing business. Taxes are a part of that cost, so when prices are set in the state of Wisconsin that additional margin will simply be factored in. Indeed, short of limiting the legal amount of profit the companies make (a virtual impossibility when we are dealing with a multi-national industry), there is no way to impose such limits.

And, of course, if they do try to impose such limits and penalties upon the oil companies doing business in the state of Wisconsin, there is always one other option available to the oil companies – they can withdraw from the market, and the state of Wisconsin can become a pre-industrial society on a par with Amish country. Maybe Gov. Doyle needs to learn the same lessons as Hugo Chavez about the limits of the government’s control over the economy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

For all that 60 Minutes and other folks on the Left want to argue that Barack Obama is in danger of assassination, Neil Steinberg offers a different take.

Would-be assassins shoot at presidents and presidential candidates either because the assailants are crazy or because they hate their targets, or both. With that in mind, Hillary Clinton is at far greater risk than Obama, because every nut case in America seems to hate her. She's the one we should worry about.

Personally, I think one would need to be a nut case NOT to hate (or, more accurately, fear) Hillary.

And interestingly enough, an Obama fan urged the murder of Senator Clinton on his campaign website – which should tell you it is not a vast right-wing conspiracy that these people need to fear, but their own leftist confreres.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

For all that 60 Minutes and other folks on the Left want to argue that Barack Obama is in danger of assassination, Neil Steinberg offers a different take.

Would-be assassins shoot at presidents and presidential candidates either because the assailants are crazy or because they hate their targets, or both. With that in mind, Hillary Clinton is at far greater risk than Obama, because every nut case in America seems to hate her. She's the one we should worry about.

Personally, I think one would need to be a nut case NOT to hate (or, more accurately, fear) Hillary.

And interestingly enough, an Obama fan urged the murder of Senator Clinton on his campaign website – which should tell you it is not a vast right-wing conspiracy that these people need to fear, but their own leftist confreres.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

And that is not necessarily to say that the Democrats are on the side of al Qaeda – merely that their positions on Iraq and the War on Terror coincide with the best interest of that terrorist organization.

THE one thing no one is saying about Prime Minister John Howard's remarks is they are obviously right. Asked about US Senator Barack Hussein Obama's plan to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, Howard replied: "If I were running al-Qa'ida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Certainly al-Qa'ida agrees. After the November 2006 elections handed control of the US Congress to the anti-war Democrats, al-Qa'ida's leader in Iraq gloated in an audio-taped message: "The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament, they voted for a level of reason."

Abu Omar al-Baghdad, who heads an al-Qa'ida umbrella group, made the terror group's latest demand for allied withdrawal on February 2: "We order you to withdraw your forces immediately. But the withdrawal must be via troop transport trucks and passenger planes whereby each soldier is allowed to carry his own weapon only. They may not withdraw any of the heavy military equipment, and the military bases must be handed over to the mujahidin of the Islamic state, and the duration of the withdrawal may not exceed a month."

So Obama's position and that of al-Qa'ida's are virtually identical, except for the departure date.

I know many in the DemocratICK Party take offense at the notion that they encourage the terrorists by calling for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The reality is, however, that such rhetoric DOES encourage our enemies. And if you have a presidential candidate whose platform on Iraq is substantively identical to that of the terrorists, then it is not unreasonable to state, as the Australian Prime Minister did, that his election (and that of his supporters) would be welcomed by and hoped for by those terrorists. Whether Howard should have stated it in the way he did is an entirely different question.

Now IÂ’ll let you decide whether such the convergence of the platforms of al-Qaeda and Barack Obama constitutes sufficient reason to oppose his candidacy for office. But I would hope that it does give my fellow citizens pause.

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Frankly, I don't see what else you can call this proposal by Rochelle Riley.

How long would it take to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney? A day?

It could be the day after impeachment hearings ended in the conviction of President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. It would take only one courageous member of the House of Representatives to propose an article of impeachment against Cheney. Then it would take a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate to send Cheney packing -- almost as quickly as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

* * *

I've called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush twice before and had correspondents tell me that their greater fear was a President Cheney. Get rid of them both for "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the American people. The best definition of that came from our own President Gerald Ford in 1970: "An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at any given moment."

When the GOP impeached and sought to remove a sitting president, Bill Clinton, for undeniable violations of the law (to which he later admitted and accepted punishment), we were accused of trying to "overturn the results of an election" despite the fact that the new president would have been Al Gore, the elected vice president who had been Clinton's running mate. No election would have been overturned -- and such a course of action would have undoubtedly led to a landslide victory by President Al Gore in 2000 -- and his likely reelection in 2004.

What Ms. Riley proposes here is the removal of a president and vice president over policy differences and interpretations of the data from our nation's intelligence agencies -- in order to place the government into the hands of a different party, and a new president who had never stood for national office nor been subject to the sort of review that Ms. Riley's new-found hero, President Ford, faced when he assumed the vice presidency under trying circumstances in 1973.

Indeed, her proposal is nothing short of a coup d'etat by the DemocratICK Party -- a group which is is no more loyal to the United States and its Constitution than it was 145 years ago.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, Pentimento, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Renaissance Blogger, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123 Beta, Adam's Blog, basil's blog, Maggie's Notebook, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, The Florida Masochist, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Wake Up America, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:17 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 7 kb.

Why should we not be surprised by this naked threat against the Defense Department by corrupt DemocratICK Congressman John Murtha?

February 10, 2007 -- Perhaps the flap over Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plane wouldn't be so bad - had she and her trusty sidekick, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), not reacted so obnoxiously.

When the Pentagon didn't immediately honor the request of the self-proclaimed "most powerful woman in America" for a top-of-the-line Air Force passenger jet, Pelosi deployed the "s"-word: sexism.

"As a woman, as a woman speaker of the House, I don't want any less of an opportunity than male speakers when they have served here," she said.

Pelosi then implied that the Pentagon was getting even with her:

"Why are they [the Pentagon] feeding the flames? Of course, I have been a constant critic - for nearly three years, I've called for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, who still has a desk at the Department of Defense . . ."

Then the thuggish, ethically challenged Murtha weighed in - saying it would be a "mistake" to deny her request, "since she decides on the allocations for the Department of Defense."

* * *

"I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do," Murtha said of his efforts to secure from the Pentagon a plane for Pelosi.

As more information comes out, I'm progressively more willing to give Pelosi a pass -- it appears that it wasn't her or her staff who asked for the larger plane to be at her full-time disposal. But Murtha's words are more troubling.

Especially since this isn't the first time he has tried crap like this.

Murtha's history of manipulating defense appropriations for personal gain is long and distinguished. In a 1989 defense bill, then-Speaker Tom Foley was shamed into redlining a Murtha-authored provision requiring the speaker have a C-20 jet available at all times.

And, of course, there is his cozy relationship with Defense industry lobbyists who feather his nest, and with companies that are clients of his brother's company.

Thuggish and corrupt -- those are two of the words that best describe John Murtha. I'll refrain from using the other one that comes to mind.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

As I've said in the past, the situation involving the stricken senator transcends the political -- and so I bring you the following update of what can only be called positive developments.

Sen. Tim Johnson is reading news clippings and starting to do some office work from the hospital, almost two months after suffering a life-threatening brain hemorrhage. "At this point, he has requested more contact with office and is looking for updates from staff," his office said in a statement Friday.

Spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said the South Dakota Democrat is starting slowly.

"We do not anticipate him back (in the Senate) for several weeks," Fisher said. "We are bringing work to him rather than him coming to us. His first priority still is rehabilitation."

Johnson has been undergoing physical, occupational and speech therapy since he was transferred to rehabilitation from intensive care at George Washington University Hospital last month. He recently began to read and speak in full sentences, according to statements from his doctors.

Johnson continues to have weakness on his right side, but is continuing with therapy and will eventually return to the Senate. And while I'm of a different party, I will rejoice when that day arrives -- as should every American.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

After committing political suicide this past week, we now hear that Rick Perry doesn't have an ambition to seek any office higher than governor.

Gov. Rick Perry has no interest in national politics and may seek re-election in 2010, his chief political consultant said Friday.

Dave Carney said speculation that recent decisions by Perry, including his mandate that middle-school girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer, are designed to raise the governor's profile nationally is "one of the most retarded things about the political observers in Texas."

"He hates Washington. He doesn't like to go there," Carney continued.

Perry also isn't worried about his legacy, Carney added. The 56-year-old governor, who has served since 2001, is on track to be the longest-serving governor in Texas history.

"He's one of the few politicians in the world who doesn't care about what people write, what editorials say. That's why he's been so successful. He doesn't put his personal ego and reputation ahead of doing the right thing," Carney said.

Well, Rich Perry has done the wrong thing time and again over the last few years, and a lot of us would be happy to see him gone. If he runs for reelection in 2010, it had better be as an independent, because most of us will not support him then (and for the record, I didn't vote for him in 2006).

Posted by: Greg at 03:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

I do not believe that Gardasil should be mandated by any government. That said, I do support the method being pursued by this New York lawmaker.

A Democratic state assemblywoman plans to introduce legislation next week that would require schoolgirls in New York to get shots meant to knock out the virus linked to cervical cancer.

The question of whether to inoculate girls against human papilloma virus recently touched off controversy in Texas where Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order requiring the vaccine.

''This is a revolutionary opportunity to eradicate a disease that kills many, many women. As a mom, I'm grateful my daughter will not have to fear having cervical cancer,'' Amy Paulin of Westchester County, whose 18-year-old daughter just received her first shot, told the New York Daily News for its Friday edition.

Paulin's legislation would require girls be inoculated with the three-shot series against HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that causes 70 percent of cervical cancers. Children whose parents have religious objections to the vaccine, called Gardasil, would be exempt.

I’ve explained my opposition to requiring this vaccine in the past, and won’t go into those reasons again. They have to do with the right of families to determine appropriate medical care, and the lack of a reasonable nexus between the vaccine and the right to a public education – and I have in a general sense rejected the “middle schoolers gone wild” argument espoused by a small minority of my fellow conservatives. I’ve also said that I would get the vaccine for my daughter if I had one, and that I believe girls OUGHT to be vaccinated without state coercion.

However, if such a requirement is the wave of the future, this method, not the dictatorial decree by a single officeholder, should be how the requirement is enacted into law.

It’s called democracy, folks, and it is how such decisions should be made – if it is proper that they even enter the realm of government decison-making at all.

Posted by: Greg at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 2 kb.

If Karl Rove said anything even remotely close to this, he simply needs to be fired by the President.

According to a congressman's wife who attended a Republican women's luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president's amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Like most members of the GOP, I come from a background in which hard work was stressed as a positive thing. I was raised to believe that no work was beneath the dignity of any person so long as they did it to the best of their ability. Indeed, that is why my folks encouraged me to take my first job (age 14) stacking bundles of newspaper, bagging empty cans, and putting old jars and bottles in crates at the base recycling center. It is why I did stock work for three years at the base PX and worked the drive-thru window at Burger King while finishing graduate school. RoveÂ’s statement insults those of us in the conservative base who have done the kind of menial/manual labor that he seems to view with disdain, and too good for his own child.

And I wonÂ’t get into the fact that he clearly thinks that such work is the proper field for my many Hispanic students. There is an implicit racism there that needs no comment.

Assuming, of course, that this report is accurate.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

That's the only way to interpret the decision not to fire the two NutRoots bloggers his campaign has recently hired.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he's not firing them.

Edwards issued a written statement about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, two days after the head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded they be fired for messages they wrote before working on the campaign.

The campaign distributed written apologies from the two women, who stressed they were writing on personal blogs and not on behalf of the campaign. Edwards said he believes in giving everyone a "fair shake."

"I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word," Edwards said.

The problem is that what they wrote was not merely "critical" of the Catholic Church. I'd be fine with that. What they wrote were crude, hate-filled anti-Catholic rantings that (at least in Marcotte's case) were clearly intended to malign the faith of Catholics (indeed, of all Christians).

I'll just ask -- would Edwards keep around staffers who wrote equally offensive things about the beliefs of Jews or Muslims, or attacked in such crude and insulting language major leaders of the black and Hispanic communities? I think we can all answer that question without too much help -- and can therefore see that John Edwards is merely talking a good game when it comes to rejecting bigotry, even as he embraces it by keeping these two hatemongers on his staff.

I guess we know whose votes John Edwards is counting on in order to win the presidency -- bigots, not Catholics. In doing so, he has embraced the KKK heritage of the DemocratICK Party.

Posted by: Greg at 11:26 PM | Comments (246) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is the statement of Rep. John Zerwas on the Rick Perry’s decision to play doctor with every little girl in Texas by unilaterally making the HPV vaccine mandatory if they are to receive a public education. And he is clearly against it.

Governor Perry’s mandating the vaccination of 11 year-old girls against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted disease, to me represents a radical and unwise shift away from the state’s current policies for vaccinating children.

To start, though HPV does present some serious health risks for women if left untreated, it does not present the same level of public health hazard as do the measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. There is a reason why vaccines for these other illnesses are mandated: they are contagious diseases that can be transmitted by virtue of an infected child walking in a classroom and breathing. As in real estate, location matters here because the HPV cannot be transmitted without sexual activity – and, therefore, does not constitute a public health threat to Texas’ schoolchildren while in the classroom.

It follows, then, that I cannot support extending the mandated childhood immunization program as preferred by the Governor. Such a prescription, in my view, will only serve to undermine public trust in the existing, and badly needed, childhood immunization efforts.

In other words, exactly what I have been arguing since Friday – there is no nexus between HPV and presence in a public school classroom that justifies requiring it for all girls. This is simply a naked power grab by Rick Perry.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, here is the statement of Rep. John Zerwas on the Rick PerryÂ’s decision to play doctor with every little girl in Texas by unilaterally making the HPV vaccine mandatory if they are to receive a public education. And he is clearly against it.

Governor PerryÂ’s mandating the vaccination of 11 year-old girls against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted disease, to me represents a radical and unwise shift away from the stateÂ’s current policies for vaccinating children.

To start, though HPV does present some serious health risks for women if left untreated, it does not present the same level of public health hazard as do the measles, mumps, rubella, and whooping cough. There is a reason why vaccines for these other illnesses are mandated: they are contagious diseases that can be transmitted by virtue of an infected child walking in a classroom and breathing. As in real estate, location matters here because the HPV cannot be transmitted without sexual activity – and, therefore, does not constitute a public health threat to Texas’ schoolchildren while in the classroom.

It follows, then, that I cannot support extending the mandated childhood immunization program as preferred by the Governor. Such a prescription, in my view, will only serve to undermine public trust in the existing, and badly needed, childhood immunization efforts.

In other words, exactly what I have been arguing since Friday – there is no nexus between HPV and presence in a public school classroom that justifies requiring it for all girls. This is simply a naked power grab by Rick Perry.

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

That’s right, our liberal friends at ACORN, the DemocratICK Party supporting group that has been connected with vote fraud around the nation.

A man who worked for an advocacy group that signs up new voters pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court to voter registration fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Dale D. Franklin, 44, was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to work with Project Vote, another not-for-profit group that helps register voters.

Franklin admitted to giving the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners a forged voter registration application while he worked as a recruiter in late September and early October, the U.S. attorney's office said in a statement.

He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled.

In November, four other ACORN workers were indicted on charges of submitting false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

Once again, we find the same pattern – the same liberals who object to reliable proof of identity to vote are involved in creating fictitious voters, to make it easier to engage in vote fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

ThatÂ’s right, our liberal friends at ACORN, the DemocratICK Party supporting group that has been connected with vote fraud around the nation.

A man who worked for an advocacy group that signs up new voters pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court to voter registration fraud, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Dale D. Franklin, 44, was hired by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to work with Project Vote, another not-for-profit group that helps register voters.

Franklin admitted to giving the Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners a forged voter registration application while he worked as a recruiter in late September and early October, the U.S. attorney's office said in a statement.

He faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing has not been scheduled.

In November, four other ACORN workers were indicted on charges of submitting false voter registrations to the Kansas City election board.

Once again, we find the same pattern – the same liberals who object to reliable proof of identity to vote are involved in creating fictitious voters, to make it easier to engage in vote fraud.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at what we would stand to lose under a single-payer, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton style “single payer” system. After all, this is the English system, touted as a model by the DemocratICK candidates.

Women in labour could face lengthy journeys by ambulance to distant specialist units under plans which would strip dozens of local hospitals of consultant-led maternity services.

Department of Health proposals unveiled yesterday seek a smaller number of consultant units to deal with the most complicated births and the sickest babies.
It would be left to local, midwife-led units to handle the majority of births, while more women would be encouraged to have their babies at home.

Unusually, the health minister responsible for maternity services, Ivan Lewis, was not present at the report's launch.

To put that into American English for you, that means that having an actual attending physician at a birth would become even less common in England, and specialists – ObGyns – would be rarer still.

Indeed, we see that the quality of healthcare continues to decline under the NHS. Why would we try to implement such a system here?

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Look at what we would stand to lose under a single-payer, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton style “single payer” system. After all, this is the English system, touted as a model by the DemocratICK candidates.

Women in labour could face lengthy journeys by ambulance to distant specialist units under plans which would strip dozens of local hospitals of consultant-led maternity services.

Department of Health proposals unveiled yesterday seek a smaller number of consultant units to deal with the most complicated births and the sickest babies.
It would be left to local, midwife-led units to handle the majority of births, while more women would be encouraged to have their babies at home.

Unusually, the health minister responsible for maternity services, Ivan Lewis, was not present at the report's launch.

To put that into American English for you, that means that having an actual attending physician at a birth would become even less common in England, and specialists – ObGyns – would be rarer still.

Indeed, we see that the quality of healthcare continues to decline under the NHS. Why would we try to implement such a system here?

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Now the New York Times is covering it!

Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, ShakespeareÂ’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. EdwardsÂ’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

Will the Edwards campaign – like the Biden campaign – be tarnished by yet another scandal that that would have passed unnoticed in years past, but became a story because of the intrepid work of the journalists of the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Terry Moran of ABC News asks – Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?

UPDATE 2: Have the girls been fired by Edwards? Will they stay fired?

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the official blogger of the Edwards campaign will need to do a whole lot of scrubbing if the wants to sanitize her history of hatemongering – especially directed against Catholics and other Christians. She certainly helps put the “ICK” in the DemocratICK Party.

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Or this.

There’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that there’s no limbo (definition here, for those who don’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But it’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So it’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So that’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesn’t suck so much as to run people off.

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

Which all brings me to recommending this great post by Austin Cline at Jesus’ General about why authoritarian types are so damn interested in cobbling people’s sex lives and meddling around in people’s private sexual decisions, like in this case why the Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life—either you’re going to have to forgo birth control or you’re going to have to feel guilty to the point where you fear you’re casting babies into hellfire, by their standards. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control.

Oh dear – what a hateful bitch she is.

I wonder if the Edwards campaign really wants to be associated with the Know-Nothing wing of the DemocratICK Party that still espouses the same anti-Catholic hate that long-sustained the party’s paramilitary terrorist auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like the official blogger of the Edwards campaign will need to do a whole lot of scrubbing if the wants to sanitize her history of hatemongering – especially directed against Catholics and other Christians. She certainly helps put the “ICK” in the DemocratICK Party.

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: YouÂ’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Or this.

ThereÂ’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesitant to come right out and say that thereÂ’s no limbo (definition here, for those who donÂ’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But itÂ’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So itÂ’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So thatÂ’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesnÂ’t suck so much as to run people off.

I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say thereÂ’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He canÂ’t help it; heÂ’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the PopeÂ’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into SatanÂ’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that itÂ’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, itÂ’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.

Which all brings me to recommending this great post by Austin Cline at Jesus’ General about why authoritarian types are so damn interested in cobbling people’s sex lives and meddling around in people’s private sexual decisions, like in this case why the Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life—either you’re going to have to forgo birth control or you’re going to have to feel guilty to the point where you fear you’re casting babies into hellfire, by their standards. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control.

Oh dear – what a hateful bitch she is.

I wonder if the Edwards campaign really wants to be associated with the Know-Nothing wing of the DemocratICK Party that still espouses the same anti-Catholic hate that long-sustained the partyÂ’s paramilitary terrorist auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

Despite almost universal opposition, Governor Rick Perry refused to back down from his effort to play doctor with every little girl in Texas yesterday.

Gov. Rick Perry stood firm Monday against a political firestorm generated by his order that sixth-grade girls be inoculated against a sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer.

Social conservatives from Texas to Washington called on Perry to reverse his order making Texas the first state to require the vaccine, saying the mandate makes sex seem permissible and that parents should be the ones to decide whether to immunize their daughters. And several Texas lawmakers expressed outrage at Perry for circumventing the legislative process.

"This needs closer examination. How much will it cost the state?" asked Sen. Jane Nelson, chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, at a press conference. "Most importantly, as a mother of four daughters, I want to make sure our daughters' health is protected and parental rights are preserved."

Nelson, R-Lewisville, asked Perry to reverse his order and said she also would ask the attorney general whether the Legislature has any recourse if he doesn't.

Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, said he would file legislation to reverse Perry's order. There also is the question of what happens to several bills already filed to make the human papilloma virus shots mandatory for school enrollment.

Interestingly enough, these are Perry's ALLIES opposing him -- based upon his usurpation of the proper function of the sate legislature. But Perry will not acknowledge that criticism, instead attacking a strawman argument about teen sexuality.

"Providing the HPV vaccine doesn't promote sexual promiscuity any more than providing the Hepatitis B vaccine promotes drug use," the governor said. "If the medical community developed a vaccine for lung cancer, would the same critics oppose it claiming it would encourage smoking?"

But as I pointed out, that isn't the argument that the opponents are making. Rather than confront the real issue of the proper role of government, the separation of powers, and the lack of a nexus between public education and HPV transmission, Perry wants to take the argument of a small group with an absurd position and present it as the mainstream position. It is an incredibly dishonest tactic, and insults every Texan.

All the Merck commercials tell women to talk to their doctors to determine if Gardasil is right for them. None of the advertising material suggest consultation with the governor or other elected officials. That is as it should be -- and the most fundamental reason for opposing making this vaccine mandatory.

PREVIOUS POSTS ON THIS TOPIC:
1) Perry Engages In Dictatorial Tactic -- Issues Gardasil Executive Order
2) An Open Letter To Governor Rick Perry

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.

It was supposedly a way of defending institutional integrity when Democrats used their ability to block cloture votes when the GOP had a Senate majority. Now the Republicans are using the tactic to prevent the passage of a cut-and-run resolution on Iraq, and the Democrats are howling.

A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

A day of posturing, finger-pointing and backroom wrangling came to nothing when Democratic and Republican leaders could not reach agreement on which nonbinding resolutions would be debated and allowed to come to a vote. The Senate's 49 to 47 vote last night to proceed to debate on Bush's new war policy fell 11 votes short of the 60 needed to break the logjam. Just two Republicans, Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), voted with the Democrats to proceed with the debate. Both are considered among the most vulnerable senators standing for reelection in 2008.

Republicans insisted that the impasse will soon be broken. But the leaders of the two parties appeared to be far from a compromise last night, and the White House has worked hard to block action on a resolution disapproving of the president's decision to boost troop levels.

"What you just saw was Republicans giving the president the green light to escalate in Iraq," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote. Reid contended that Republicans "are trying to avoid a debate on this matter."

Republicans said they have no desire to avoid a debate, asserting that they simply want a fair hearing on their proposals.

"We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week," said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

Hey, harry, didn't you folks like to use this very method to stop legislation you opposed as recently as last year? How, then, can you object to its use today, now that you are in the majority?

Oh, that's right -- the shoe is on the other foot, and you don't like having to play by the rules you established when you obstructed Senate business while in the minority.

And frankly, I want to see the GOP prevent any vote on any measure that will undercut the troops and their mission by giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, it looks like potential GOP candidates for President will be making trips to Houston seeking support. That's no surprise, considering that we are the fourth largest city in America. But they are coming, and coming early.

Whoever wins the 2008 Republican presidential nomination probably has Texas' electoral votes in his pocket, and prospective candidates also are making the rounds pocketing Texas cash.

Already this month, three top-tier candidates are stretching their hands out to Houston.

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was in Houston on Monday, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is scheduled today, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani headlined a dinner last week.

Though Romney has lagged behind McCain and Giuliani in fundraising and organizing in Texas, he said he will name a state team of financial and political supporters after meeting with potential backers this evening at the Houston home of L.E. Simmons, the founder of SCF Partners, which invests in energy companies.

Romney said he will draw on ties cultivated in the Lone Star State when he headed Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that did business with energy interests.

"I have a good network in Texas," Romney said in a phone interview with the Houston Chronicle.

Another notable Texan backing Romney is Kevin Rollins, of Austin, who recently left as chief executive officer of Dell Computer.

And given Rudy Giuliani's connection to a local law firm, it won't be any surprise to see him stumping in town either. That makes the three leading candidates very active in our community. And why not -- this will be only the second presidential election since 1980 when the GOP has not had a Houston connection to the national race in the form of someone named George Bush in the thick of things.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

We saw how well a promise to raise taxes worked for Walter Mondale in 1984. Surely it will be no more popular in 2008.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday said that he would raise taxes, chiefly on the wealthy, to pay for expanded healthcare coverage under a plan costing $90 billion to $120 billion a year to be unveiled on Monday.

"We'll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a healthcare plan that cost anywhere from $90 to $120 billion is there has to be a revenue source," Edwards said on NBC's Meet the Press news program.

The 2004 vice presidential nominee and former North Carolina senator said his plan would "get rid of George Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year."

He said the plan would also reduce healthcare costs.

Of course, we’ve already seen how well nationalized health care has worked in Canada and England – in the latter medical care is rationed based upon budgetary considerations, and in the former people skip across the border to the US to quickly receive treatment and diagnostic tests that take months to get in Canada. Do we really want to see our system follow their models, and for medical advances to slow to a trickle as the economic incentive for them is leached away – and your taxes go up, as they inevitably will? After all, you know that the “optional” single-payer program will quickly become mandatory.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.