Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevic is truly the gift that keeps on giving.

What has he given us today? An eminently qualified African-American nominee to replace Barack Obama in the US Senate -- and a full-blown constitutional crisis on both the state and federal level.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. SenateÂ…

Shortly after ObamaÂ’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following BlagojevichÂ’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governorÂ’s support.

Though he is 71, Burris has said that ObamaÂ’s replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, heÂ’s never lost to a RepublicanÂ…

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada previously warned Blagojevich, following the governorÂ’s Dec. 9 arrest, that Senate Democrats would not seat any appointment the two-term Democratic governor made. ReidÂ’s warning was contained in a letter signed by all 50 sitting Democratic senators, including the No. 2 Democrat in Senate leadership, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Now I lived the better part of two decades in Illinois. I remember Roland Burris as a public official and a candidate for office. He always struck me as a fundamentally decent man, well-qualified and eminently worthy of public trust. And even though I voted against him at every opportunity, I always believed him to be the sort of Democrat I could live with if my Republican candidate lost. And I will say this loud and clear -- given the failure of the Illinois legislature to act to strip Blagojevic of his power to appoint Barack Obama's successor, I fully support his decision to appoint Burris.

Of course, this action by the corrupt governor has given rise to several interesting responses.

Consider this response from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with Illinois Senator Dick Durbin giving him a measure of cover.

Senate Democrats said Tuesday they would refuse to seat the man Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has picked to succeed President-elect Barack Obama, saying that the taint of scandal would follow the new senator to Washington.

"Anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and his deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement.

Well, the Senate DOES have the right to judge the qualifications of its members -- but there could be a constitutional problem with this declaration. More on that in a bit.

And then there is this statement from Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

The appointment was instantly rejected by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White who said he would refuse to certify Burris' selection....

His argument amounts to a claim that the current legal cloud under which Blagojevic finds himself makes the appointment illegitimate. However, does that apply to all appointments, or just to this one -- and on what basis does he make and enforce that judgment. Another constitutional crisis, this on the state level.

And wherein lie the constitutional crises?

Well, let's start with the state constitutional crisis. After all, state law REQUIRES the Secretary of State to perform the following acts, and the state constitution (Article V, Section 16) obliges him to carry out the duties prescribe by this law.

1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor.

2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.

There is nothing optional or discretionary in this. His failure to do so will lead to state court action to require White to do his job. That means lots of drama on another front in Blago-gate.

And the federal constitutional crisis? I'll let Eugene Volokh explain this one.

If there's some evidence that Burris's appointment was indeed the result of a bribe or some illegal maneuvering, then indeed the Senate can refuse to seat him. But if there is no such evidence, then for reasons I noted earlier, I think their position is legally unsustainable, given the Supreme Court's Powell v. McCormack precedent.

Given that Burris meets all the requirements set by the US Constitution to hold a Senate seat, any failure to seat him will almost certainly be struck down -- just as any attempt to toss ted Stevens would have failed if the Senate had tried to expel him following his reelection after a bribery conviction. Of course, that will require another nasty court fight.

Now as a Republican, I see a great political upside for my party if White refuses to certify or Senate Democrats refuse to seat Burris. The ensuing court battles as the Democrats try to keep a black man out of the Senate seat previous held by the only black member of the US Senate (by then the first black president) would be entertaining -- and would likely serve to drive a wedge between some elements of the black community and the Democrat Party. That could only serve to help turn Illinois (and perhaps some other states) from blue to red.

But to be honest, I don't want it to come to that. I actually agree with Bobby Rush on this score -- words you may never see again.

"This is a good decision," Rush told reporters. "Roland Burris is worthy. He has not, in 20 years of public service, had one iota of taint on his record as a public servant. He is an esteemed member of this state and this community."

"I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to casitgate the appointor," Rush added. "Separate, if you will, the appointee from the appointor. Roland Burris is worthy."

Let's be honest -- at 71, Roland Burris is unlikely to be a Senator for more than two years. He will certainly face challengers in the Democrat primary in 2010, and the Blagojevic connection will not serve him well. The GOP will put up a strong candidate as well, who will have a better than even chance to win. In other words, he is a sear-warmer -- and one whose service to the people of Illinois would be capped by this honor, and who has the stature to rise above the current scandal. He should be accepted by all parties as the ideal compromise appointee.

UPDATE: Obama says not to seat Burris -- and here I thought he knew enough constitutional law to know that the Senate really has no choice.

Others Blogging: Top of the Ticket, Ace (twice), Malkin, Hot Air (twice), Gateway Pundit, Sister Toldjah, Bench Memos, Concurring Opinions, Patterico, The Glittering Eye, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1215 words, total size 10 kb.

Could you imagine the howls of outrage if George W, Bush appointed as Secretary of Education a school administrator from a district where 83% of eight graders tested below grade level in reading and less than half of all entering freshmen graduate from high school? We'd hear words like "incompetence", "failure", and "the destruction of public education".

But when Obama makes precisely such an appointment, we are told that the new Cabinet member is an "innovator" and "reformer" who will continue "experimentation on a national scale".

City schools chief executive Arne Duncan, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for education secretary, pushed that performance-pay plan and a host of other innovations to transform a school system once regarded as one of the country's worst. As Duncan heads to Washington, the lessons of Chicago could provide a model for fixing America's schools.

"Obama chose Arne Duncan for a reason, and part of that reason is the experimentation that Duncan has done in Chicago and his real attention to data and outcomes," said Elliot Weinbaum, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education. "Duncan's willing to try new things and see if they work, hopefully keep the ones that do and drop the ones that don't. I expect that experimentation to continue on a national scale."

Now I will give Duncan some credit -- he has introduced some meaningful reforms into a district that has been troubled for decades by corruption, incompetence, and union intransigence. But the reality is that, by virtually every measure, the district remains a failure in terms of its primary mission -- educating every student to his or her fullest potential, and preparing them to function as productive citizens.

As a teacher, I am NOT reassured by this appointment -- and I am shocked by the whitewashing that the press are giving Duncan and his record.

Posted by: Greg at 07:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Íàïèñàíî õîðîøî. Íî ó ìåíÿ, âîçìîæíî, ëó÷øå ïîëó÷èëîñü áû! (Øó÷ó! Àâòîð ìîëîäåö!)

Posted by: beftraurgevat at Mon Dec 29 22:29:29 2008 (fN8DX)

2 Ìíå î÷åíü íðàâèòñÿ âàø áëîã. ß óæå äàâíî åãî ÷èòàþ. È ïî÷òè âî âñåì ñ âàìè ñîãëàñíà. Ìíå íðàâèòñÿ òî, êàê âû ïèøèòå. Âû òàê òî÷íî âûðàæàåòå ñâîè ìûñëè. Êàê áû ìíå õîòåëîñü îáëàäàòü õîòü ñîòîé äîëåé âàøåãî òàëàíòà. Ïîæàëóéñòà, ïðîäîëæàéòå ïîïîëíÿòü âàø áëîã! Ñïàñèáî âàì! Âàø âåðíûé ÷èòàòåëü.

Posted by: veksteessyCag at Tue Dec 30 08:18:09 2008 (xEFAk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I find this particularly disturbing.

What we've all been waiting for — a little hope, and Barack's the man for the job. We made him purple, because we here at dugshop feel that he's a true uniter, there are no red or blue states, we're all purple.

Just as I have no interest in shirtless pics of Obama on vacation, I also have no interest in having him stare at me naked in the shower. Indeed, I can't think of a politician who I want in the shower with me.

H/T Moonbatery

Posted by: Greg at 08:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

For the last eight years I've heard Democrats tell us that tax cuts are irresponsible. Indeed, during the last campaign we heard Joe Biden define patriotism as paying higher taxes. So what gives with this?

A top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that the country's slowing economy won't keep the new administration from fulfilling its plans for a middle-class tax cut.

"We feel it's important that middle-class people get some relief now," Obama adviser David Axelrod said.

"This package will include a portion of that tax cut that will become part of the permanent tax cut that he'll have in his upcoming budget," Mr. Axelrod said.

The adviser appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" and CBS's "Face the Nation."

The incoming administration is considering tax cuts of $1,000 for couples and $500 for individuals that will be delivered by reducing the tax withheld from paychecks. That plan has been estimated to be worth about $140 billion in 2009 and 2010.

Odd, but wasn't that the argument used by George W. Bush to reduce the the amount of income tax paid by every American who paid income tax when he entered office in 2001? Indeed, didn't those tax cuts have the very impact that the incoming administration says this cut will have -- putting money in the pockets of Americans? Does this mean that the Democrats are admitting that Bush was right?

Oh, and I cannot help but be struck by this twisted bit of illogic.

The lump-sum rebates issued earlier this year were used by many people to pay down debt, rather than spending the money and boosting the economy as the administration had hoped.

Now wait -- if (hypothetically speaking) my wife and I took our $1200 and used it to pay down our credit card debt or student loans, wouldn't this have had the effect of dribbling money into our pockets the same way this Obama tax cut will do? After all, the amount of the Obama cut will be about $80 a month -- roughly the same as would be left by the reduced payments on the bills in question.

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Some details are just priceless.

ON Thursday, Dec. 11, Jim Donnelly got the call at his office on Jay Street in Dumbo for the biggest job he had ever had. Emmett Beliveau, the executive director of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, told him that Precise Continental, Mr. DonnellyÂ’s 26-year-old printing company, had won the bid to produce one million gold-and-black engraved invitations for the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Insert your joke here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

The omission is pretty glaring here.

Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann used his campaign account to bankroll home repairs and family vacations, according to a newspaper review of state investigative reports.

The reports are part of a complaint filed last week with the Ohio Elections Commission by state Inspector General Tom Charles. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner also filed an elections commission complaint against Dann last week alleging misuse of campaign funds.

The Ohio Elections Commission will address both complaints Jan. 22. And state Auditor Mary Taylor plans Monday to release her own investigation into Dann's spending.

Dann resigned in May amid a sexual harassment scandal in his office that included his admission that he had an affair with an employee.

The first four paragraphs are representative of the rest of the article in that they leave out Dann's party. Nowhere does this AP article identify this corrupt public official's party, which seems to me to be pretty shocking. Isn't that relevant information?

Of course, Dann is a Democrat -- something that could have been inferred from the absence of the party label. After all, if Dann were a Republican, we know it would have been included.

H/T Instapundit, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 2 kb.

Using the arguments made by California AG Jerry Brown, it could be. After all, his argument that certain sorts of amendment are impermissible could just as easily be used to make the following argument put forward (tongue-in-cheek) at Discriminations.

If only slaveholders (or, arguably, former slaveholders) had been as smart as Jerry Brown, they could have urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, on the Brownian ground that the Constitution as adopted protected property, including property in slaves, and that that right should not be sacrificed to the whims of a tyrannical majority.

Fortunately for African-Americans in this nation, the US Supreme Court of the United States is unlikely to rule that constitutional amendments are unconstitutional. Will the California Supreme Court exercise similar restraint, even with Brown's urging that they make precisely such a ruling?

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

When your obligation under the state constitution is to defend the laws of the state -- and any constitutional amendments passed by the people of your state -- your duty should be pretty clear.

Unfortunately, California Attorney General Jerry Brown doesn't believe he has to fulfill the duty he owes to the people.

In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."

It is the attorney general's duty to defend the state's laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.

But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

In other words, Brown has arrogantly taken it upon himself to substitute his view of the matter for the view of the people of the state of California who passed an amendment to the state constitution to formally establish the definition of marriage as that which it has been since the founding of the American Republic -- one man and one woman.

In other words, what Brown has done here is to promulgate as the official position of the state of California the position taken by the losing side in the last election. What's more, he has taken the position that right of the people to govern themselves and to alter or abolish their form of government does not exist -- and that they have no recourse in the face of judicial tyrants who impose novel interpretations of the very document from which they derive their authority. In other words, he has rejected the notion that the people are sovereign and instead seeks to have the California Supreme Court rule that the people of that state are mere subjects. As such, he has actively violated his oath of office and should be immediately impeached and removed from office.

That will not happen, of course, given the predilection of some members of the gerrymandered General Assembly to ignore the vote of the people on the same issue and attempt to legalize what the people of California had banned when they voted for a proposition against gay marriage in 2000 -- despite explicit constitutional prohibitions on repealing such initiatives through legislation.

What is even more frightening is that the California Supreme Court may take it upon itself to use Brown's filing to overturn Prop 8 -- after all, it is a specific rebuke to that activist court that overturned the previous vote of the people because it overturns last spring's decision legalizing gay marriages.

What we may have here, then, is a situation in which it may become the obligation of the Federal Government to intervene in California, under the authority conveyed by Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

After all, if the ruling of the court is that the people may not alter or abolish the government established by their state constitution and that the voice of the people on matters of public policy carry no force, then it is clear that there does not exist a Republican Form of Government in that state.

And of Congress or the Obama Administration were to fail to act in such a situation? Jefferson addresses that matter well.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Like the patriots of old, prepare the tar and feathers -- and like the people of Italy at the end of WWII, prepare the piano wire and meat hooks.

More At Malkin, Patterico, Gateway Pundit, Jules Crittenden, NewsBusters, STACLU, Don Surber, Pirates Cove, Jane Q. Republican

Posted by: Greg at 05:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 6 kb.

Now IÂ’ve said in the past that I donÂ’t care that Congressman Keith Ellison is a Muslim. IÂ’m not offended that he took his oath of office using a Koran. And I personally consider it a wonderful thing that he went on the hajj this year.

However, Scott at Power Line bring up an interesting point today.

John Hinderaker wrote about the Star Tribune's W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUT">puff piece by Mitch Anderson earlier this week on the pilgrimage of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison to Mecca for the Muslim Hajj. The brief piece relied heavily on comments by Ellison spoksman Rick Jauert, who told Anderson "that Ellison paid for the journey himself." (Incidentally, the Star Tribune seems to have tinkered with the version of the story on which John commented)

Today the Star Tribune devotes a second W3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUsX">puff piece by Anderson to Ellison's Hajj The rationale for another piece on the same subject is obscure. Apparently adding weight to Ellison's greatness in the eyes of the Star Tribune, Anderson quotes Ellison: "This is just me trying to be the best person I can be."

Anderson buries the sole item of journalistic interest at the end of the article. Anderson reports: "[Ellison's] expenses were paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota." Despite the fact that it was Anderson himself who previously quoted Ellison's spokesman asserting that the trip was on Ellison's own nickel, Anderson drops the subject there.

Now IÂ’m not going to delve into the prolems with the MAS or its various branches, the groupÂ’s origins or its somewhat alarming connections to some troubling groups abroad. Power Line does a great job of that later in the piece IÂ’ve quoted above, and I wonÂ’t reproduce it here. Go read it there, and give them the traffic.

No, I’m concerned about another issue – one related to ethics. After all, democrats have for years raised questions about what Republican went where on what company or group’s dime. And there are, of course, some rather straightforward requirements on what can be accepted as well as when and how the travel must be reported on official disclosure forms. Not only that, but there are requirements for advance approval of such privately funded trips. Has Ellison complied with all those disclosure and reporting guidelines? I checked the House website, and there is no filing there. Do we have another potential ethical lapse by a House Democrat?

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

We have a local blogger over at Bay Area Houston who has taken it into his head that he is the leading watchdog on government ethics in the state. After all, he regularly makes posts attacking pols who have been cited for various ethical lapses. Now I’d find this admirable except for one minor detail – he only reports on the REPUBLICANS – as a Democrat activist, he won’t touch the ethics problems of Democrats with a 10-foot poll.

That’s why he managed to miss this tidbit about a Texas legislator with a host of such problems – one who wants to be Speaker of the House.

Representative Sylvester Turner has been a busy little beaver. He has managed to amass enough campaign finance violations in the last two years to fill a 37 page ethics complaint, along with167 pages of campaign finance reports to back up the complaint. Since the complaint runs 37 pages I obviously cannot do all of his violations justice but I will hit some highlights for you.

• $220,905.33 (cumulative errors) is missing and unaccounted for out of his campaign funds, and also did not report any interest accrual on the account as well. This is fraud and perjury.
• Accepted $13,500 in direct contributions from corporate entities which is illegal.
• $500 of which was from Zachry Construction, the prime contractor for the Trans-Texas Corridor construction and a major contractor to TXDoT. Knowingly accepting Corporate donations is a third degree felony. He did this a total of 16 times in the last two years, listed the corporations on the forms, and then signed them, so he will have a hard time claiming he did not know. Maybe he didn't read them, but he SHOULD have read them. He signed the form which means he is accepting responsibility for what is in them.
• Made six payments to Ford Motor Credit in the amount of $736.46 for what appears to be his personal vehicle. Amounting to $4418.76. This is personal enrichment from campaign funds and he would be civilly liable for the amount, even if it's a lease with residual value to the lessor.
• Made a total of 141 payments to himself and others from the fund without disclosing the names of payees, dates, amounts, or purposes of the payments.

Now mind you, this covers just TWO YEARS worth of violations.

Personally, I donÂ’t know if Turner is actually guilty of the offenses with which he is charged, and I am willing to wait to see what the outcome is. And IÂ’d even cut John some slack here were it not for the fact that he has recently filed an ethics complaint against the current speaker, and has implied on his blog that the mere fact that the Texas Ethics Commission accepted his complaint as properly filed is indicative of Speaker CraddickÂ’s guilt. That means, I suppose, that John is seeking to protect his partyÂ’s own corrupt pols, since he is only reporting on actions against his political opponents.

And interestingly enough, he himself would be one of the corrupt Democrats he has been protecting. After all, he’s the guy used by the Office of the Inspector General as a case study in what not to do with regards to the Hatch Act – which he was determined to have violated and for which he received a 180 day suspension from his job at NASA. Interestingly enough, John didn’t see fit to comment on that ethical lapse on his blog – and nor did he offer any criticism of the candidate for whom he illicitly raised funds on government time using government resources and facilities in violation of federal law. I guess that lapses of political ethics are in the eye of the beholder, right?

But then again, why should we be surprised? After all, he’s jut following the Pelosi Paradigm for improving political ethics – cleaning out the ethical swamp to make room for his own unethical alligators.

UPDATE: I'll be damned -- Coby actually reports today on the ethics issues of a Democrat. Of course, she is one of the "Craddick Democrats" who support the current speaker, so John is still only commenting on the ethical issues of those he identifies as political enemies.

UPDATE II: I love it when John brags about his threats of physical violence against me. Just more of barack Obama's "new tone" in American politics, I guess.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 748 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, if you are going to waive a requirement for all those who do not meet it, how can you keep a straight face by labeling it a requirement?

Many Maryland high school seniors at risk of not graduating may be able to earn diplomas through a waiver of the state's new exit-exam requirements under a policy approved yesterday.
The waiver process, approved unanimously by the Maryland State Board of Education, provides another path to a diploma for some of the 4,000 seniors who have not passed or not taken one or more of the High School Assessments, a set of four exams in algebra, English, biology and government.

The estimate of 4,000 at-risk seniors is sharply reduced from an earlier statewide estimate of 9,000 because, state officials said, thousands of students have met graduation standards in recent months.

State Superintendent of Schools Nancy S. Grasmick said the waiver was likely to affect "a small cohort" of students who have not completed courses or remedial work. Many of those affected would be students learning English as a second language or others in special education programs, she said.

"It's very hard to predict. The determination literally has to be made at the school level," Grasmick said. "I could say several hundred, and I'd probably be somewhat safe."

In other words, the state of Maryland has said you must pass a test to graduate, and if you can’t there are other options – unless you can’t fulfill any of them, in which case you don’t have to bother with any of it at all. All I can say in response is that instead of raising the value of a Maryland diploma, they have managed to lower it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

I love the conclusion in the NY Times article on the new freedom of conscience rules put in place for medical professionals.

Opponents of abortion, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals, support the new regulations and say they are needed to protect health-care providers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations.

They are opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, among others. Opponents contend that the regulations are a threat to a womanÂ’s right to choose to have an abortion, and that they are not needed in any event because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion.

Now look at that last sentence. It shows the propensity of anti-lifers like the NACDS, AHA and AMA folks to lie about anything in an effort to ensure that abortion is available any time, anywhere, with as little restriction as possible. After all, absolutely nothing in the regulations forbids women to have abortions – they simply ensure that those who have a moral objection to abortion are not forced to participate in them. After all, must every doctor be forced to become an abortionist in order to guarantee a woman the freedom to take the life of her unborn child? Of course not. And since the 1964 Civil Rights Act argument has not generally been successful in protecting the conscience rights of pro-life medical professionals, the latter argument is fatuous

But the assertion made by the proponents of death does lead to a question that no reporter for the Grey Lady would dare ask – if they are opposed to regulations that they claim essentially duplicate protections found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, are they also opposed to the protections found in that seminal piece of civil rights legislation? Do they, in fact, believe that even the religious liberties of Americans must take the back seat to the needs of the abortion industry? But while asking such questions would be good journalism, doing so might expose the anti-freedom agenda of these acolytes of death – meaning that the answers to such questions will never make it into the MSM.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’m personally surprised that the New York Times included the party affiliation in this story.

City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat who was elected to the State Senate last month, was arrested and charged with assault on Friday morning in connection with an injury to his girlfriend, law enforcement officials said.

Paul J. Browne, the Police DepartmentÂ’s top spokesman, said that Mr. Monserrate had been arrested and charged with assault in the first degree.
Officials said that Mr. Monserrate had taken his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, 30, to Long Island Jewish Medical Center with what appeared to be a serious injury in or around her left eye.

Ms. Giraldo told hospital staff that it was Mr. Monserrate who had assaulted her, officials said. It appeared that she had been punched and slashed in or around her left eye with a shard of glass, and officials said it took 20 to 40 stitches to close the wound. A doctor at the hospital, which straddles the border between Queens and Nassau County, called the police at 4:50 a.m.

New York City police detectives arrived at the hospital, arrested Mr. Monserrate and took him to a Queens precinct house for questioning. The alleged assault occurred in Mr. MonserrateÂ’s apartment, at 37-20 83rd Street in Jackson Heights, officials said.

What a prince of a man – just one more example of the way in which New York Democrats show their respect for their women. After all, in the last year we have seen a pair of New York governors exposed for engaging in affairs behind the backs of their wives (one with a hooker, the other with a staffer). And let’s not forget the way in which New York’s junior senator was treated by her husband a few years back. I guess this sort of stuff proves that NY Democrats view women as doormats – and I’m prepared to call them on it in light of the propensity of Democrats to be outraged by the peccadillos of Republicans.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

What Muslims don't want you to be able to publish.

Islamic proposals to ban criticism of religion, which have gathered strength since the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad two years ago, threaten to derail an already troubled U.N. anti-racism conference planned for next year.

The European Union rejects suggestions by Algeria _ backed by other Muslim and African countries _ that limits on free speech are needed to stop the publication of offensive articles and images.

Supporters of the proposal, who have been pushing for such a ban to be included in international anti-discrimination charters, want it discussed in April at a high-level United Nations anti-racism meeting in Geneva.

What Muslims want to be able to publish themselves.

BOOK EXCERPTS from Islam or Fundamentalism? In light of the QorÂ’an and the Sunna by Imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti

Homosexuals

* Homosexuality is a "perversion"
* Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"
* Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
* "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"

Ethnic groups are not equal

* "Can we doubt the superiority of Islamic principles over the corrupt principles of Eastern and Western cultures ? Culture is based on the beliefs of a nation. The superior culture is the one closest to the revelation of Allah !"
* "This is the reason why ethnic groups are not equal"

Muslims are superior to Infidels

* "... a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice"
* "The rule is that the most disobedient among Muslims is better than the most virtuous, the most polite, the most honest and the most loyal among the Infidels"
* "The Muslim nation is actually the most balanced and the most righteous"

Christianity

* "It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery"

Jews

* Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth"
* Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing"
* Jews "unjustly occupy" Palestine for the sole purpose of "filling this land with corruption and transgress the laws of Allah in the name of secularism"

The scary thing is that there are some in the West who are more than willing to allow precisely such a dichotomy of speech, establishing a regime under which even the mildest criticism of Islam will result in government sanction while even the most outrageous words of hate from Muslims will be treated as protected speech. This leads us back to the question I have asked more than once in the past -- are Islam and human rights able to coexist, or is Islam a fundamental threat to the human rights of all non-Muslims?

Posted by: Greg at 03:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 4 kb.

And it isn't to perform an extra-constitutional impeachment.

The Illinois Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to Gov. Rod Blagojevich's fitness to hold office.

A spokesman said Wednesday that the court rejected the challenge without comment.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan had argued Blagojevich's legal and political troubles are keeping him from performing his duties. He has been charged with seeking kickbacks in choosing a successor for President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

Madigan argued that the governor's problems amount to a disability, so Blagojevich should have his authority removed temporarily.

My guess is that the court internally adopted a theory something akin to what I outlined here. However, they didn't need to explain their decision not to take the case, and did not. Now the ball is in the court of the branch constitutionally charged with dealing with impeachment.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.

So, asking questions is now the equivalent of a physical assault?

In the few seconds it took Iraqi journalist Muntather Zaidi to wing a pair of shoes at President George Bush, the Middle East got its own version of Joe the Plumber.

Just as Joe Wurzelbacher's gripes to Barack Obama during the U.S. presidential election catapulted him to fame, Zaidi's burst of rage toward Bush during a Baghdad news conference Sunday has made him a household name across the Middle East.

To many, Zaidi is a hero for engaging in the ultimate Arab world insult -- hurling his shoes -- at Bush, who ducked to avoid being slammed in the head. To others, Zaidi is an embarrassment for a society that prides itself on being hospitable to guests, even those who are not much liked. Whichever way his act is viewed, there's no question that Zaidi, like Wurzelbacher, is no longer just another Joe.

Let's see -- Wurzelbacher asked a pointed question of a candidate who literally appeared on his doorstep -- the ultimate in free speech. Zaidi engaged in a violent attack and confuses that with free speech.

Personally, I think we'd do better to compare Zaidi to Squeaky Fromme or John Hinkley -- but somehow I expect the press to start comparing those two presidential assailants to Joe the Plumber instead.

H/T NewsBusters

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Will there be another corruption scandal touching the nascent Obama Administration?

A federal grand jury is investigating how a company that advised Jefferson County, Alabama, on bond deals that threaten to cause the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, did similar work in New Mexico after making contributions to Governor Bill RichardsonÂ’s political action committees.
The grand jury in Albuquerque is looking into Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products Inc., which received almost $1.5 million in fees from the New Mexico Finance Authority in 2004 after donating $100,000 to RichardsonÂ’s efforts to register Hispanic and American Indian voters and pay for expenses at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation asked current and former officials from the state agency if any staff members in the governorÂ’s office influenced CDRÂ’s hiring, said the people, who declined to be identified because the proceedings are secret. Richardson, who is President-elect Barack ObamaÂ’s designate for Commerce Secretary, has a staff of at least 30 people.

This probe has been in progress for some time. It could ensnare Richardson directly, but even if his involvement is only tangential it has the potential to spatter the new president with even more scandalous muck. After all, this appears to be more of the Chicago Way of pay-to-play.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

I’ll concede that I have expressed some preferences for possible GOP nominees in 2012, but I also recognize that it is a bit early to commit oneself to a candidate. After all, the new president has not even taken his oath of office. So for John McCain to take this position vis-à-vis a possible Sarah Palin candidacy is not at all surprising.

Sen. John McCain said Sunday he would not necessarily support his former running mate if she chose to run for president.

Speaking to ABC's "This Week," McCain was asked whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could count on his support.

"I can't say something like that. We've got some great other young governors. I think you're going to see the governors assume a greater leadership role in our Republican Party," he said.

He then mentioned governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Jon Huntsman of Utah.

McCain is no fool. He is correct in recognizing that we have a number of young governors (including not only the two he mentioned, but also Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Hawaii’s Linda Lingle who would be great candidates. There are also several promising members of the House and Senate who would be fantastic candidates. And let’s not forget Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, whose showing this year gives them serious name recognition that would help a future candidacy. But who knows – there may be some candidate who is not yet on anyone’s radar who could emerge and lead us to victory. David Petraeus, anyone?

So for anyone who wants to make this into a slight of Palin by McCain, please think again. After all, at this time in 2004 we all thought that 2008 would see the major Dems line up to put Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office. We saw how well that worked.

Posted by: Greg at 01:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm regularly told that I'm not allowed to question the patriotism of Democrats -- even when they support policies that endanger our national security, parrot enemy propaganda during time of war, or conspire with America's enemies to influence American elections. After all, I'm told, the GOP does not have the monopoly on love of country -- and that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Now, however, the failure of Republican legislators to support legislation being rammed through by the Democrats who lead the Senate is described as unpatriotic by leading Democrats without a word of protest by the media or GOP leaders.

Consider these two statements, both made in the wake of the defeat of the Big Three bailout.

First, Congressman John Dingell.

“Last night, some Southern Senators kicked American workers in the gut,” Dingell said in a statement released by his office. “Let’s be clear about what happened in the Senate: Senators from states where the international automakers do considerable business unpatriotically blocked a bill that was supported by the White House, that passed the House with a bipartisan majority, and that had the support of 52 Senators.”

And then Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

"It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression," Granholm said during a radio interview Friday morning.

Notice, if you will, that failure to support the bill is not presented as a disagreement on principle, a policy difference, or even simply wrong. The Democrats have gone right to the patriotism of those who dare to disagree with their proposal to give another bailout to big business without giving a bit of relief to the average taxpayer. Now that they have seized power at the polls, dissent cannot be permitted, and dissenters have to be clearly labeled as the enemy of all decent Americans.

Oh, and let me make a little side note about Dingell. Could it be that his vote on the bailout bill, and his criticism of those who opposed it, is less about the needs of the country and more about the need of his stock portfolio?

[N]obodyÂ’s been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell. And for him, the stakes arenÂ’t just political, theyÂ’re personal.

“There’s an actual conflict,” said Ryan Alexander of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “His personal financial health, you know, the wealth of his family is tied up in the car industry.”

DingellÂ’s wife Debbie once worked as a lobbyist for GM.

When she married the congressman, she became a senior GM executive at an undisclosed salary. And we found the couple has extensive GM assets.

DingellÂ’s current financial disclosure filed in May lists GM stock worth up to $350,000, options worth up to $1 million more, and a GM pension fund. In 2000, among the DingellsÂ’ GM assets were stock options worth up to $5 million.

And in 1998, the congressman reported selling GM stock options worth up to $1 million dollars.

If Dingell were a Republican, I'm sure folks would accuse him of having a major conflict of interest. After all, a GM bankruptcy would certainly lead to sever financial losses for him and his wife. But since he has a D after his name, I suspect that the conflict of interest will be ignored and he will be permitted o cast aspersions on the patriotism of political dissenters.

Frankly, I'd love to see Granholm's disclosure forms as well. I know what I think we would find there, and it would certainly call into question whether her words were based upon the best interests of the country or the best interests of her personal finances.

H/T The Next Right

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.

Are the Democrats so short of credible folks to occupy newly vacated Senate seats that they will turn to not merely one, but instead two, members of the Kennedy clan to fill them?

Is Chris Kennedy, the son of the late, great U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, a possible entrant on the list to fill Presidentelect Barack Obama's Senate seat?

• • To wit: Sneed hears Kennedy's name has been wafted into the inner circle of Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, who would be the guy who chooses Obama's replacement if Gov. Blagojevich resigns.

• • Quoth Dem politico Jay Doherty, a Kennedy confidant: "It would give Pat Quinn the answer to the puzzle before him if he becomes governor."

• • The upshot: Word is Kennedy, who is also the nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, a major Obama supporter, is likely to accept if asked.

• • Hmmm: Wouldn't that be something: An offspring of the legendary Kennedy line as a senator from Illinois? Stay tuned.

Like his cousin Caroline (often mentioned as a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton), Chris Kennedy has no significant credentials for the office besides his name and has never held elective office. But what the heck -- who needs experience if you are a Kennedy?

Posted by: Greg at 03:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 224 words, total size 1 kb.

As you all know, I am not a fan of the folks at Daily Kos. I consider it a cesspool of the worst that liberalism has to offer -- hate, profanity, and anti-Americanism.

That said, I can't help but be struck by this diary about Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's effort to do an end-run around the Illinois Constitution's impeachment provisions by having the Illinois Supreme Court declare Gov. Rod Blagojevich unfit for office. It mirrors my own thoughts on the matter, which I had been planning to write about tonight.

The Illinois Attorney General is trying to stage a Thai-style coup this weekend. I know that Blagojevich is an asshole and should leave office forthwith, but even if it's technically legal, having the Supreme Court remove him without due process is antidemocratic and the wrong way to go about it.

The constitutions of the several states are all based on the same principles of the Federal one, three coequal branches providing checks and balances. While this is less efficient than the parliamentary system, where the chairman of committee of the legislature has near dictatorial powers for a time (see Canada), the removal of an elected executive by members of an unelected branch without due process is nothing more than a coup d'etat and anti-democratic. I have no brief for Blagojevich and what he did, but this way of getting rid of him is profoundly wrong.

the law in question was about the Governor being in coma or being so physically damaged that CANNOT physically do his job. This is not the case here. Blagojevich may be a felonious asshole, but to some extent, so are the other 49 governors, Look at Sarah Palin, for example, or Jennifer Granholm, who is only slightly more popular than Blagojevich. Just because Blago got caught doesn't mean the Supreme Court can get rid of him without due process. If he was in a coma or in the hospital heavily sedated, means he couldn't object, and in the latter case, he could probably get his job back as soon he was well enough to ask for it. OR could he?

Of course, the diarist does make a small mistake -- in Illinois the judicial branch is elected. However, the reality is that removal of an executive who has not been convicted of a crime is the sole province of either the voters (refusal to reelect) or the legislative branch (impeachment). The incapacity provision is clearly intended to cover a physical or mental illness, not political corruption. A quick check of the Illinois Constitution makes it clear where the power to remove a corrupt governor lies:

ARTICLE IV SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial
officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Given that it is a bedrock principle of our system that members of one branch may not delegate their constitutional prerogatives to officers of another branch, it is obvious that the Madigan gambit is in violation of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.

Why, then, is Madigan making this effort? While one could infer that she is doing so out of concern for good government, consider a couple of points. First, Madigan is seen as atop candidate for governor in the next election. This effort would burnish her image in advance of the election. Second, Madigan's father, the Speaker of the Illinois House, is a Blagojevich enemy who would be spared the need to impeach a governor of his own party by this move. And third, there is currently the incentive for Blagojevich to rat out any legislator who votes for impeachment or conviction, so this provides cover for a host of grateful Illinois pols.

Sadly, We the People have become less concerned to constitutional niceties when they get in the way of what we want done. Here's hoping that there are enough judges on the Illinois Supreme Court who still recognize that a constitution is more than just a piece of paper to be ignored when it suits them. Impeachment, not removal for unfitness, is the proper outcome. It is so simple that even a Kossack can see it.

UPDATE: Not precisely on this point, but Darren makes a point that is certainly tangential to one of mine in this post about how Republics degenerate.

UPDATE 2: Althouse offers a much more detailed explanation of what is wrong with this move by Madigan from a constitutional viewpoint.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 6 kb.

An apparent arson attack has caused major damage to Barack Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ.

Fire officials are investigating a suspicious blaze at one of the biggest churches in Chicago. The pastor is estimating damage at more than $1 million.No one was injured in the fire at Trinity United Church of Christ, which started late Friday. About a half dozen church members were in the building doing crafts when the fire began but were able to get out safely after the building's fire alarm sounded, a church spokesman said.

"This fire is definitely suspicious," said Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

Needless to say, this is a political attack by hate-filled Rethugliklans out to silence the prophetic voice of the black church and intimidate Barack Obama and his fellow progressive Christians. The Leftosphere is aflame in outrage, demanding action that includes the silencing of "hate radio" that obviously created the climate for such an attack

Oh.

I'm sorry.

The version of the story I received was apparently flawed.

Different church. Different city. Different state. Different major politician.

Fire officials are investigating a suspicious blaze at one of the biggest churches in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The pastor is estimating damage at more than $1 million.No one was injured in the fire at the Wasilla Bible Church, which started late Friday. About a half dozen church members were in the building doing crafts when the fire began but were able to get out safely after the building's fire alarm sounded, pastor Larry Kroon said.

"This fire is definitely suspicious," said Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

The church, located off the Parks Highway on the north end of town, is one of the biggest in the Valley with a typical Sunday service drawing up to a 1,000 people.

Several well-known Valley residents attend the church, including Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Wes Keller, R-Wasilla.

Well, I expect that we won't be hearing any liberal outrage on this one -- and probably a fair amount of liberal gloating. In the mean time, conservative blogs are maintaining a calm tone, though the question obviously must be asked as to whether or not the arson was politically motivated (especially since we were told by liberals that the teachings of Palin's church were quite relevant to her fitness for office, while those of Obama''s church and pastor were merely a racist distraction).

What is shocking is that anyone would torch a church -- especially when there are people inside. But since this is a predominantly white church, I somehow suspect that there will be no assumption that this is a hate crime -- even though we have seen the repeated targeting of evangelical churches by liberal groups since the passage of California's Prop 8 and WBC has hosted at least one conference promoting the "ex-gay" movement.

And as for a possible Palin connection, i can't help but note the unique level of venom directed against her by the media and her political opponents (as bad or worse than that directed at George W. Bush, and with less reason). Heck, when a woman's political opponents (like Andrew Sullivan) go so far as to question the maternity of one of her children, I won't put anything past them.

Which leads, of course, to another question -- given that Andrew Sullivan is on sabbatical right now, can anyone verify his whereabouts at the time of the fire?

H/T Ace, Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 583 words, total size 4 kb.

It does rather look like it, given this story.

As Gov. Rod Blagojevich was trying to pick IllinoisÂ’ next U.S. senator, businessmen with ties to both the governor and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for BlagojevichÂ’s campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the job, the Tribune has learned.

Blagojevich made an appearance at an Oct. 31 luncheon meeting at the India House restaurant in Schaumburg sponsored by Oak Brook businessman Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich supporter who also has fundraising and business ties to the Jackson family, according to several attendees and public records.

Two businessmen who attended the meeting and spoke to the Tribune on the condition of anonymity said that Nayak and Blagojevich aide Rajinder Bedi privately told many of the more than two dozen attendees the fundraising effort was aimed at supporting JacksonÂ’s bid for the Senate.

Among the attendees was a Blagojevich fundraiser already under scrutiny by federal investigators, Joliet pharmacist Harish Bhatt.

Isn’t this all remarkably coincidental? And doesn’t it harmonize better with the evidence offered by Patrick Fitzgerald than the story told by the young congressman at his press conference? Interestingly enough, though, the major go-between in this case isn’t daddy, the well-know shakedown artist Rev. Jesse Jackson. Instead it was another Jackson son, Jonathan. I guess this shows that the apple does not fall far from the tree – though in this instance the elder Jackson was wise enough to stay away from the fire so as not to get burned.

Posted by: Greg at 02:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

While I think that Obama and company have handled the entire Blagojevich matter incorrectly (and probably dishonestly), I must applaud the course of action taken by one member of his team.

Emanuel turned testy and declined to talk with a reporter who approached him Thursday at Chicago City Hall, where he was watching his children perform in a concert. The Chicago Sun-Times reporter pressed him to comment about whether he was the emissary named in the criminal complaint.

“You’re wasting your time,” Emanuel said. “I’m not going to say a word to you. I’m going to do this with my children. Don’t do that. I’m a father. I have two kids. I’m not going to do it.”

When pressed for comment, he said, “I’m not as capable as you. I’m going to be a father. I’m allowed to be a father,” and he pushed the reporter’s digital recorder away.

Now I realize that the press has the right to ask questions, and I fully support their doing so. That said, there is an appropriate time, place, and manner for doing so – and the Sun-Times reporter chose the wrong one. There was absolutely nothing asked that could not have waited until after the Emanuel kids sang at that concert – and Emanuel was pretty gentle in how he rebuffed the reporter in question. Every public official has a private life and is entitled to a bit of family/personal time, and Emanuel was drawing a healthy line to guarantee that he would get to be a Dad. What’s not to respect there?

And given Rahm’s reputation, I’m actually amazed there weren’t a few curse words – which I would have been hard-pressed to condemn under the circumstances.

H/T Hot Air, Protein Wisdom

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s face it – even in a year in which Republicans were at a distinct disadvantage, Democrat Senatorial candidate Rick Noriega never stood a chance. Only rarely did he even have a close showing in the polls, and the final couple of months showed him to be generally fading in most polls. Except for the most blind partisans, no one expected Noriega to best Senator John Cornyn. It was no wonder, then, that the national Democrats dropped Noriega from their list of races to focus on during the waning days of the campaign – they knew he could not win.

Well, now we’ve got Hispanic Democrats here in Texas up in arms over that decision – and angry that it appears that Democrats are going to focus upon viable candidates who happen to be Anglo in 2010 and beyond.

Two prominent Hispanic Democratic officials from Texas harshly criticized an arm of their national party today for skipping over the state when it provided funding muscle for U.S. Senate candidates across the country.

State Sens. Mario Gallegos of Houston and Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio objected to the fact that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected contributions from Texans — $1.1 million at an event in San Antonio, for instance — without sending any to the campaign of outgoing state legislator Rick Noriega of Houston.

Noriega lost the Senate race in November to Republican incumbent John Cornyn, who raised $10 million during the campaign to $4 million for Noriega, according to federal records.

The Democratic committee's decision to spend the money outside Texas "is shameful and disgraceful, and we will do everything we can to prevent this disrespect from happening again," the two state senators wrote.

"For the face of the U.S. Senate to represent the true face of America, we must all work together to invest in quality candidates such as Rick Noriega, not take a walk when our candidate is not a member of the millionaires' club," they added.

Sorry, folks, but while Noriega is an honorable man, he did not represent the views of Texas. After all, this is a state that went strongly for John McCain, and Cornyn won with similar numbers. Why, pray tell, would one expect a Democrat running on the same old liberal platform to do any better, especially when he publicly associated with the dregs of the Left over at Daily Kos?

And the other comments in the article, are Gallegos and Van de Putte suggesting that Democrats should back minority candidates rather than candidates who are more likely to win?

Posted by: Greg at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

I agree with David Frum -- letÂ’s not overlook this corrupt Democrat just because of the ruckus in BarackÂ’s backyard.

The House ethics committee voted on Tuesday to expand its investigation into Representative Charles B. Rangel to examine his role in preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company whose chief executive pledged $1 million to a City College of New York project that will bear the congressmanÂ’s name.

Interestingly enough, Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to stand by Rangel – just as she did recently defeated Corruptocrat Congresscritter William Jefferson. I guess draining the swamp is taking a backseat to feathering her nest – and that of her party.

Posted by: Greg at 01:57 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

By now so much has been said about the Blagojevich indictment and the sleazy deeds that led to the charges that there is little left to say. What I will note is that the alleged misdeeds are even shocking to me, who cut his teeth on Illinois politics before moving to Texas.

The 76-page criminal complaint reveals a governor who no longer wanted his job and badly wanted cash – and quickly realized that the chance to name Obama’s successor was the answer to both of those problems. He and his aides spoke in expansive – and often profane – terms of replacing Obama as a naked act of political horse-trading, something to be maximized for as much personal gain as possible for Blagojevich, the complaint says.

And it isn’t just the Senate seat issue – there was the attempt to shake down a children’s hospital and the effort to get journalists fired as a condition of approving a deal on Wrigley Field. And he certainly worked to keep it all in the family, trying to ensure that his wife also got some lucrative plums in the process. Simply unbelievable – even by Chicago standards.

Too bad that the press and prosecutor acted to make sure that the American people knew nothing of this corruption before the election – because like it or not, it does reflect poorly upon Barack Obama, whose entire career is based upon connections to many of the very same players that are a part of the Blagojevich sleaze machine. Unless we are to conclude that Obama is the only virgin in the brothel, I think it is reasonable to believe there is more than meets the eye here.

I’m also curious – what actions will be taken regarding Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. AKA “Senate Candidate No. 5”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

It is his name – he should use it proudly.

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama.

The manÂ’s name is Barack Hussein Obama. Why should he shrink from using it? Indeed, one of the silliest controversies of the election season was over whether or not the use of that middle name constituted a vicious hate attack on the then-candidate. This move by the new president should settle that question once and for all.

As for the speech, I’ve commented on what he should say and where he should say it in a previous post. All I will say in addition to those earlier words is that the only “reboot” needed in the speech is a metaphorical one applied to the rumps of followers of Islam. Mutual respect and goodwill are wonderful – but not if they mean the sacrifice of fundamental American values like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion around the world. To the degree that Islam is an obstacle to the spreading of those values around the world, there can be no mutual respect – and to the degree that the followers of Islam use terror and violence to oppose such freedom, there can be no goodwill.

Posted by: Greg at 01:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

I realize that the explosive charges against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich are overshadowing everything else about his time as governor – but one recent action of his raises a question in my mind.

On Monday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich held a quickly organized press conference at the plant and vowed to ask a federal court to enforce federal guidelines. He also said the state would sever business dealings with Bank of America until the Republic matter is resolved. "It's a natural thing to step up to help workers when there's a situation like they're facing now," Blagojevich said. "This is the right thing to do, this is the just thing to do."

I’m curious – just how far is the state of Illinois willing to go here? What exactly does it mean to “sever business dealings with Bank of America”? Will the state REALLY stop doing business with B of A? I mean completely, such as refusing to cash checks drawn on accounts with Bank of America customers? Or does it mean something less? And if the state isn’t willing to make the associated sacrifice (foregoing the funds drawn on Bank of America), how willing is it to REALLY do the right thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t know that Kathleen Parker will succeed in mollifying her many conservative critics (including me) with her most recent column, but she does make a good point that I believe bears repeating.

How about social conservatives make their arguments without bringing God into it? By all means, let faith inform one's values, but let reason inform one's public arguments.

It is, I would have to say, a quite valid position – and one to which I personally subscribe. As long as arguments are presented in strictly theological terms, conservatives ought to lose any argument on public policy. Indeed, that is why I am often embarrassed by some of the language in the Texas GOP platform – not because I disagree with the sentiments expressed, but because such a document ought to be a reasoned outline of policy positions rather than a profession of faith.

Take, for example, abortion, which Parker uses to illustrate her position.

They might take a cue from Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish-atheist, who has written as eloquently as anyone about the "indivisibility of life" and the slippery slope down which abortion leads.
He uses logic and reason to argue that being pro-life, rather than resolving the religious question of ensoulment, is really a necessary barrier against selective killing, such as when someone else decides it's your time to die.

Even during my days studying for the priesthood, I never made the argument against abortion from a theological point of view. After all, such an argument is easily dismissed with the statement “I believe differently.” The moral argument, however, that a human being exists from conception is difficult to dispute scientifically – and the self-evident importance of defending innocent human life is something that brings most abortion supporters up short. But the moment someone trots out Biblical passages about God knowing us in our mother’s womb, the argument instead becomes one of religious freedom that is difficult to win. The same sort of thing applies in the gay marriage debate as well, which is why the folks who opposed Prop 8 are now actively appealing to religious bigotry in their efforts to overturn a ballot measure supported by virtually every demographic segment in the state of California.

But most importantly, the issue that needs to be dealt with is one of perception, as Parker notes. As long as GOP is seen as a party dominated by one segment of religious believers, the party will alienate many sympathetic to conservative and libertarian political philosophy. That doesn’t mean repudiating the values many of us draw from our faith, but instead requires that we present them in a way that are palatable to our fellow citizens. And I say that as a conservative who is unapologetically Christian – but who is certainly not a Christian Conservative.

But Kathleen – loose the oogedy-boogedy thing. It seems condescending and offensive to me, especially since you can’t particularly explain what you mean by it. Admit you were wrong, apologize, clarify what you meant, and move on – most of us are more than willing to forgive you if you do.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Personally, I hope that the Supreme Court takes the case and expedites it -- because I believe that the result would be the confirmation of my long-standing position on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack ObamaÂ’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of ObamaÂ’s election.

Not because I want to deny Obama the presidency. I don’t – and have not since the election returns came in a month ago. Rather, I wish to definitively confirm the legitimacy of his election so that those who continue to claim differently will be exposed as the crackpots they are.

Of course, Obama should simply moot the whole thing by directing the state to release certified copies of the original vault version, filed in 1961, of his birth certificate. I remain mystified why he has not done so.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 02:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.