If you ever needed proof that there are too many government regulations and too many government officials enforcing them, this is it.

A Cedar Rapids group will do a symbolic tea dumping into the Cedar River on Saturday because state officials wonÂ’t let them use the real thing.

An anti-tax group wanted to pitch in real tea like the Bostonian revolutionaries opposed to EnglandÂ’s tea taxes.

Tea, although natural and quite tasty, is considered a pollutant that canÂ’t go into a body of water without a permit, said Mike Wade, a senior environmental specialist at the DNRÂ’s Manchester field office.

“Discoloration is considered a violation,” Wade said.

Where are Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty when we really need them?

And where are the tar and feathers?

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Having already alienated large segments of the GOP base, I guess Gov. Rick Perry has decided that the surest path to reelection is to start digging for dirt on his primary opponent.

Gov. Rick Perry's re-election campaign has been asking Dallas City Hall for information concerning rival Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and her husband, a signal that the campaign could turn personal.

Ray Hutchison is a prominent bond attorney who has represented public agencies for decades.

Perry has promised a vigorous campaign if Hutchison challenges him in the March 2010 Republican primary, as she has said she will.

"We're interested, as most Texans would be, in how Senator Bailout's husband's bond business has benefited from her job in D.C.," said Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner, using a nickname the campaign has applied to the senator for her support of the federal government's initial financial-industry assistance plan.

Ray Hutchison told the Dallas Morning News the Perry campaign has filed such open-records requests all across the state and that their fishing expedition was "stupid." He said he has not benefited from his wife's position as senator.

"I don't know what she does. I don't communicate with her staff," he said.
Hutchison's campaign said the request shows Perry intends to run a negative campaign.

"On the heels of some bad poll numbers, Rick Perry is taking the low road for an election that's 13 months away," said Rick Wiley, Hutchison's campaign manager. "Republicans don't want that kind of campaign, but he's already showing his hand and decided to go down that road. It's vintage Rick Perry."

IÂ’m struck by several things in the article.

First, the distinct lack of class shown by Perry spokesman Miner. I’ve yet to see the Hutchison campaign refer to the incumbent as “Governor Goodhair” or any other derogatory nickname.

Second, I’m struck by the sleazy innuendo. Miner states that they are checking to see “how” Hutchison’s husband benefited from her work as a Senator, not if it had benefited. This is an effort to imply that Ray Hutchison’s business has benefited, and that any benefits have been illicit. If Perry wants to make such a claim, let him produce some evidence to back it up.

Third, IÂ’m rather amused by the sort of stuff that has been requested.

The request, dated Feb. 24, asked Mayor Tom Leppert's office for copies of all documents in which Kay Bailey Hutchison's name appears with the words bond, bonds, funds, funding or project.

It also asks for any letters or correspondence to Hutchison or her office seeking federal action or support and any "letters of acknowledgment and thanks."

Good grief, the Perry campaign is even after thank you notes! ThatÂ’s a sure sign that we are seeing the campaign of a desperate and pathetic incumbent who wants to cling to power by any means necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

You know, since President Obama has said he opposes reviving the policy, it should be a no-brainer for all the loyal Democrats in the House of Representatives to join with the Republicans to keep speech free on radio and television.

The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The problem, of course, is not one of denying equal time to liberals – if people wanted to listen to liberal talkers such shows would flourish. The problem is that programming in the broadcast industry is based upon what viewers and listeners want to see and hear. Liberal talk radio has failed time and again, even when it has had big bucks placed behind it. Even in liberal Washington, DC, a liberal talk station folded due to lack of listenership. Just as it would be nuts to require that hip-hop stations play a certain number of country and classic rock songs each day no matter what the listeners want, it is equally crazy to tell talk stations that they must program shows that their audience does not want to hear. And rest assured that if the Fairness Doctrine were to return, the next step would be to insist that there be balance in how the unpopular liberal shows were placed – no running Ed Schultz and his ilk at oh-dark-thirty while placing the top-rated national shows (all conservative) during prime listening hours. The end result would be stations abandoning the talk format – and the AM band left barren.

Better to slay this beast now to stop the ideological censorship of the broadcast media.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

I could have sworn that Barack Obama and his supporters told me that this constituted torture, and that such a policy was unworthy of the best traditions of the United States.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters. . . , also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.

I don’t remember which distinguished blogger pointed out that promises by Barack Obama all appear to carry an expiration date. Well, this would certainly appear to be one more example of that. And while I generally agree with the policy shift, I can’t help but be struck by the inconstancy that the new chief executive is showing. Just call it one more sign of the fact that Barack Obama really needed a few more years of seasoning to gain the experience and wisdom to be an effective, competent president – especially when it comes to dealing with issues of national security.

I’m curious, though – will Barack Obama ever come out and apologize for his criticism of George W. Bush over a “torture” policy that he has now adopted himself.

And I wonder – since Obama has adopted the Bush policy that detainees outside the US in places such as Afghanistan have no rights under the US Constitution, will he do the right thing and ship the Gitmo jihadis to Afghanistan?

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

You know, the sort that the media won't cover because it is articulated by "mainstream" liberal journalists like Chris Matthews and Helen Thomas. Both decided to make cheap shots at Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal over his Indian heritage.

First Matthews, whose comment may well be seen as the least egregious of the two. After years of seeing customer service jobs relocated to India by companies, is it really appropriate for a political commentator to state that having the nation's only Indian-American governor give the response to President Obama constitutes "outsourcing"?

They had to outsource the response tonight, the Republican party. They had to outsource to someone who had nothing to do with Congress because the Republicans in Congress had nothing to do with the programs he was talking about tonight or the record he referred to.

Aside from the racist slam, it is interesting to note that Matthews is ignoring the fact that Jindal was a member of Congress before winning election as governor.

And then there is Helen Thomas. The malignant old bat decided to yuck it up by making a "Slumdog Millionaire" joke.

“Bobby Jindal was ‘pitiful,’ Helen Thomas tells film crew, right before making a ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ crack.”

Yeah, I know -- the film is topical. But if the Left really wants to argue that the recent chimp cartoon in the NY Post is racist, let's use the same standard across the board. Where's the outrage?

UPDATE: Looks like liberal talk show host Mike Malloy decided to turn the American-born Rhodes Scholar Bobby Jindal into Apu the convenience store clerk.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

Words from Bill Ayers.

I don't regret anything I did it to oppose the war. It was -- I did it to oppose the war. I don't regret it.

Remember -- this is the man who helped launch the career of the current President of the United States. Do you really feel comfortable with Barack Obama making policy for the War on Terrorism?

Too bad Alan Colmes wasn't so keen to get this sort of admission before the election.

Posted by: Greg at 03:14 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The news media, how's that for a misnomer, did everything in their power to keep the voting public unaware of anything which would mar the supposed pristine aura of Obama. Anything which came close to revealing ObamaÂ’s attachment to home grown terrorism was quickly labeled as racist remarks or kook fringe ultra conservative rumors rather than doing any real exploratory journalism which would have uncovered Obama for the danger he is to the America which our founders tried to protect through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Posted by: T F Stern at Tue Feb 24 17:00:21 2009 (Ruh11)

2 comment4, lindsay lohan breasts, ccnx, miley cyrus naked, %(, miley cyrus naked, =))), jessica biel pictures, 100963, adrienne bailon nude pics, vflsgj,

Posted by: adrienne bailon nude pics at Thu Oct 8 07:50:08 2009 (JhPAt)

3 online bachelors degree education, jennifer aniston nude, ztmfee, carmen electra nude, cvkd, carmen electra pussy, 00348, hayden panettiere nude, 614625, lindsay lohan hot, rbqcz, jennifer aniston sexiest gallery, 8-[,

Posted by: kelis sextape at Fri Oct 23 04:25:57 2009 (5Jc/8)

4 ministry of education, megan fox wallpaper, jrkc, ashley tisdale sex, 492065, ashley tisdale sex, %), katy perry sexy, =-((, miley cyrus pics, 854,

Posted by: carmen electra gallery at Wed Oct 28 14:20:30 2009 (Oouas)

5 indiana department of education, kim kardashian naked, qgu, pictures of miley cyrus, isxe, megan fox gallery, hlospd, lindsay lohan hot, > ((, holly madison pictorial, twi, paris hilton video, tdaym,

Posted by: megan fox fhm at Mon Nov 2 11:57:53 2009 (Upsro)

6 health education, lindsay lohan breasts, 445, carmen electra fucking, 8[, lindsay lohan sex, =-O, nude megan fox, 551, katy perry sexy, lybgi, ashley tisdale sex, =-]],

Posted by: jessica biel pictures at Mon Nov 2 23:55:31 2009 (iN3lv)

7 college education value, carmen electra fucking, =(((, holly madison photos, 22447, lindsay lohan breasts, =]], megan fox nude pics, 956457, jessica biel pictures, 92659,

Posted by: kim kardashian naked at Fri Nov 6 22:52:02 2009 (7qd4D)

8 missouri department of education, kim kardashian ray j, =)), kim kardashian nude pics, 482815, megan fox pics, fjuycu, kelis sextape, 81266, jennifer love hewitt cleavage, opy,

Posted by: megan fox pictures at Sat Nov 7 12:50:26 2009 (x7cxm)

9 general objectives of physical education, kim kardashian naked, =-PP, miley cyrus naked, 18443, jessica alba exposed, 8DD, holly madison photos, qnfjv, kelis sextape, >:[[[, kim kardashian naked, 773217,

Posted by: miley cyrus pics at Sun Nov 15 07:05:50 2009 (KhDn+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It must suck to see your approval rate sink so dramatically in only a month.

For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.

At this rate, we're going to be seeing Obama reach lows that it took 7 years for George W, Bush to reach.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

In direct contravention of the US Constitution (Article III, Section 3), Obama supporters want to bring back the Great Treason statute of King Edward III.

When a man doth compass or imagine the death of the King, . . . [he] ought to be judged treason which extendeth to the King and his royal Majesty. . . .

After all, how else can you explain the outraged call for investigations, governmental action, etc on the basis of a chimp cartoon that may or may not have been directed at Barack Obama (I’d argue not)? Especially when some overwrought partisans go so far as to claim that the cartoon was “inviting the assassination of President Obama"?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 2 kb.

In a stunning reversal of all of the rhetoric of the Democrats and other leftists over the last several years, the Obama Administration has issued a report that indicates that the Guantanamo By facility used to detain jihadi scum meets the requirements of the Geneva Convention.

A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions. But it makes recommendations for improvements including increasing human contact for the prisoners, according to two government officials who have read parts of it.

I wonder when the apologies to George W. Bush will start.

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like they are sticking the people of Chicago with a $1.74 million bill for his victory party on election night.

Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.

"The Democratic National Committee has not yet paid us,'' Peter Scales, a spokesman for the city's Office of Budget and Management, said Thursday after questions from the Chicago Sun-Times. "We're reaching out to them this week."

Funny, mayor Daley was shocked and offended by suggestions that Obama and the Dems might stiff the city for the bill back in November. Guess we know who looks the fool now.

And it appears that Chicago isn't the only city stiffed by the Obama campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 2 kb.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

In what may be among the more shameful moments in American diplomatic history, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the repudiation of a central premise of our nationÂ’s founding document on behalf of the Obama Administration during a visit to one of the most repressive states on Earth.

Human rights violations by China cannot block the possibility of significant cooperation between Washington and Beijing on the global economic crisis, climate change and security threats such as North Korea's nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday.

"We pretty much know what they are going to say" on human rights issues such as greater freedoms for Tibet, Clinton told reporters traveling with her on a tour of Asia. "We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere" with dialogue on other crucial topics.

Because after all, we canÂ’t let little things like the Red Chinese regimeÂ’s wholesale violation of the fundamental rights due its citizens to interfere with other, more pressing matters.

No doubt the Secretary of State and the President she represents are hoping that this courageous reordering of American priorities will win them this yearsÂ’ Neville Chamberlain Prize for Achievement in Diplomacy and the Stalin Prize for the Advancement of Freedom.

UPDATE: As if on cue, the Chinese have begun a new crackdown on those who oppose the government and want to exercise those inalienable rights. That's what happens when you put human rights second.

More At Don Surber, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 3 kb.

While I personally don’t find “Abort Obama” to be a particularly helpful bit of political rhetoric, I also recognize that it is not a death threat. So would most folks. Too bad some cops in Oklahoma are incapable of doing the same.

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

The sign was quickly returned by the department, where higher-ups recognized the First Amendment violation that had occurred. But by that time the Secret Service was on his doorstep.

'The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.

After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.

''When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."

Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial."

''We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said.

He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.

I’m curious – what would they have done if they had found that Harrison was a member of a “hate group”? Membership in “hate groups” is not illegal – and expression of extreme political sentiments (and Harrison’s position is hardly extreme) is fully protected by the Constitution.

HereÂ’s hoping that this law-abiding patriot, who dares to dissent from the pro-abortion orthodoxy of the Obama regime, files a lawsuit of sufficient size to quell the tendency of some law enforcement officers to violate the right of Americans to freely engage in political expression.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Shall we guess whether this latest revelation will lead to the Democrats to get this alligator out of Nancy PelosiÂ’s Corruptocrat swamp? Or will we instead see them pull John Murtha still closer?

A $100,000 fundraiser for Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) held last year at a big-game ranch in Western Pennsylvania may have violated campaign-finance rules, according to campaign-finance experts.

Campaign-finance records do not reflect any payments from Murtha to LBK Game Ranch or the companyÂ’s president, Bill Kuchera, for the use of the site for the Aug. 21 fundraiser. The records also contain no mention of in-kind donations from Kuchera to MurthaÂ’s campaign for the event.

Federal election law allows private citizens to host fundraisers at their residences, and campaigns are not required to reimburse the hosts for costs associated with these types of events or to list the donation of space as an in-kind contribution in campaign-finance records.

Under that rule, a married couple can host a fundraiser in their home and spend up to $2,000 without triggering any campaign-finance disclosure laws. Single people may spend up to $1,000 of their own money on these events.

But campaign-finance experts say the Murtha fundraiser poses serious questions and may have broken the law because the event was held at a for-profit corporation. LBK Game Ranch owns the 161-acre ranch where the fundraiser took place, county property records indicate, so Murtha would not be able to benefit from the residential exemption even if Bill Kuchera occupies a house on the property.

In other words, this is an illegal corporate contribution to the Murtha campaign. And given that Kuchera and his companies (which have been the recipients of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars through the connection to Murtha) are now under federal investigation related to the misdirection of federal funds for the purchase of the property where the illegal event occurred, it seems clear that Murtha needs to divest himself of all contributions raised at the LBK Game Ranch and all funds raised from officers and executives of Kuchera’s companies. Oh, yeah – and go to jail or pay a hefty fine for his end run around the law.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

I noted recently that liberals often feel that we are undertaxed and ought to pay more of our hard-earned income to the government. I pointed out that any liberal who feels that way has the option of writing a check to the US Treasury for the amount they feel they are immorally holding back under the current tax code.

But some states offer another solution. Consider Massachusetts, which includes the option for taxpayers who view the stateÂ’s tax cut earlier in the decade to be bad policy which immorally withholds needed resources from the state. All taxpayers need to do is check one little box on their return to use the older 5.85% tax rate instead of the current 5.3% rate.

What has been the result?

Here are the latest DOR numbers. As of yesterday, 640,783 individual taxpayers had filed their 2008 returns. Of those 640,783, exactly 293 opted to pay at the higher 5.85 percent rate.

Back me up on the math here. If 640,000 is the number, then 6,400 would be 1 percent, and 640 would be one-tenth of 1 percent. And 293 is less than one half of one tenth of 1 percent. So the percentage so far this year is one-twentieth of 1 percent.

Moonbats, I beseech you! Send in some more of the dough from PaterÂ’s trust fund. Otherwise, how can we offer alms to the neediest among us, like Deval PatrickÂ’s unemployed neighbor with the new made-up $120,000-a-year state job, and the Bulger hack whoÂ’s been collecting for 15 years and now was just handed a brand new $150,000 made-up state job?

Actually, the state claims the Beautiful People are twice as likely to check the higher-rate box this year, but two times zero is still zero. Even sadder is how much the commonwealth has collected from these 293 individuals - exactly $24,098.

Again, these are rough calculations, but I think that works out to just under $90 per filer. If $90 is .55 percent of your taxable income, you made about $18,000 in 2008.

What does this show? It demonstrates that liberals are not REALLY against tax cuts. They need that extra cash – after all, the Kennedy clan needs every penny it can find to keep up the family compound at Hyannis and a sailboat fleet that dwarfs the navies of some third world countries – while Joe & Jane Workingstiff can be counted upon to cough up a couple hundred extra bucks a year to pay for the needs of the non-working class and illegal aliens among us. It is YOU, average American, who these rich liberals want to see pay more so they don’t have to – as demonstrated by their unwillingness to cough up a miniscule 0.55% when they have both the means and the option to do so.

We’ve gotten quite a demonstration of how rich liberals really view taxes over the last several weeks. Geithner. Daschle. Rangel. I could go on, but you get the picture. They simply cheat and don’t pay. And when offered the chance to show the courage of their convictions by voluntarily paying taxes at a higher rate that they claim is appropriate and fair (and 40% of Massachusetts voters opposed the tax cuts in a 2000 referendum on the matter), they don’t put their money where their mouths and their votes have been. Let’s call it what it is – rank hypocrisy of the grossest sort. But then again, that’s what liberalism usually is.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

If this report is anywhere near true, it doesnÂ’t appear so.

[T]he White House is looking to install a small video or computer screen into the podium used by the president for press conferences and events in the White House. "It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it," says the adviser.

The screen would indicate whom to call on, seat placement for journalists, pass along notes or points to hit, and so forth, says the adviser.

Even George W. Bush could competently deal with the media. Apparently Barack Obama cannot do so. In light of that, IÂ’d like to know who the real dummy is, which one really operates at the level of a trained chimp? After all, Bush may not have been as pretty as Barack or have been a polished orator behind a teleprompter, but at least he could answer questions from reporters without being programmed by someone else.

H/T BizzyBlog

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

But then again, heÂ’s just another corrupt Illinois Democrat, so he may survive this.

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governorÂ’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

It is now apparent that Burris was involved in a quid pro quo for the Illinois Senate seat that belonged to Barack Obama before his election as president. Rod Blagojevich seems to have managed to sell the seat right in front of us, to a guy with a reasonably clean reputation for an Illinois Democrat. Now it is pretty obvious that he was as dirty as the rest of them.

Of course, this could have been avoided if the Illinois legislature had taken action to require a special election for the seat – but the desire to avoid allowing the people of Illinois the option of electing a Republican prevented that from happening. Will the Democrat-controlled legislature do the right thing now?

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

I suppose this shouldnÂ’t come as a surprise. Dick Cheney urged a pardon for Scooter Libby, one that George W. Bush chose not to give.

In the waning days of the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney launched a last-ditch campaign to persuade his boss to pardon Lewis (Scooter) Libby - and was furious when President George W. Bush wouldn't budge.
Sources close to Cheney told the Daily News the former vice president repeatedly pressed Bush to pardon Libby, arguing his ex-chief of staff and longtime alter ego deserved a full exoneration - even though Bush had already kept Libby out of jail by commuting his 30-month prison sentence.
"He tried to make it happen right up until the very end," one Cheney associate said.
In multiple conversations, both in person and over the telephone, Cheney tried to get Bush to change his mind. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the federal probe of who leaked covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press.
Several sources confirmed Cheney refused to take no for an answer. "He went to the mat and came back and back and back at Bush," a Cheney defender said. "He was still trying the day before Obama was sworn in."

Now looking at this situation, I see three reasons for this decision by Bush. IÂ’d like to comment on each of them.

1. Last minute pardons can be controversial and tarnish the reputation of the president who grants them. Consider not just Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon, but also the pardons issued by George H. W. Bush shortly before he left office. Why should he have opened himself up to even more controversy? Besides – why risk damaging the presidency with such a pardon?


2. Pardons, especially of recently decided cases, can be seen as undermining respect for the law and jury verdicts. As the governor of Texas, Bush had a very limited power to pardon – n part because the Texas Constitution is designed to keep the executive from running roughshod over the decision of juries. Bush carried that philosophy with him to Washington – and so while he may have modified some punishments he felt were excessive, he held back on pardons in general.


3. Accepting pardons keeps the recipients from clearing their names. Libby, like Border Patrol agents Ramos and Campeon, is appealing his conviction in an effort to clear his name. A pardon would have mooted the appeal – and acceptance of a pardon is generally seen as an admission of guilt. Libby remains free to work to clear his name in the courts – and to possibly receive a pardon by a future president if that effort fails.

Personally, I view the last of these as the most important one – and it is why I consider Bush’s decision not to issue pardons to either Libby or Ramos and Campeon to be the proper one, despite my belief that in both cases there was a grave miscarriage of justice in both the decision to prosecute and the decision to convict.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 01:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m married to a liberal Democrat who voted for Obama – and even she is outraged by this move by Senator Diane Feinstein.

Contrast Roosevelt's slyness with Sen. Diane Feinstein's recent comment regarding the secret location of the launch sites for Predator hunter/killer drones — “As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base.”

Sen. Feinstein's defense for discussing this highly sensitive information, that she was only repeating what she read in the papers, is greatly unconvincing.
It is true that the Washington Post first reported Predators operating out of bases in Pakistan, and the senator's flak catcher Philip J. LaVelle says that this report was what she was referring to. But there is a difference between making an allegation in a local paper and having the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirm it. After all, her remark was “as I understand it,” not “according to the papers.”

The response of my wife, a loyal part of the Democrat base, to FeinsteinÂ’s revelation?

“My God, why did she say that? What is she trying to do? Get American soldiers killed?”

No wonder the Washington Times note in the editorial about the senator’s irresponsible comments that “[t]his incident reinforces the growing impression that when it comes to national security policy the Democrats are not ready for prime time.” My only question is what they mean by “growing impression”. After all, throughout the Bush Administration we saw example after example of Democrats showing a distinct lack of seriousness in regards to national security – and I’d argue that this has been true for at least the last four decades. Here’s hoping that they grow up soon, given that they now control the two branches that control our national security policy.

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, it would be an even bigger financial crisis to expect his close aides and appointees to take the same pay cut as all the little guys and gals who actually make the state of New York run.

Gov. Paterson has secretly granted raises of as much as 46 percent to more than a dozen staffers at a time when he has asked 130,000 state workers to give up 3 percent pay hikes because of the state's fiscal crisis, The Post has learned.

The startling pay hikes, costing about $250,000 annually, were granted after the governor's "emergency" declaration in August of a looming fiscal crisis that required the state to cut spending and impose a "hard" hiring freeze.

One raise was approved as recently as last month - when Paterson claimed the budget deficit had reached an unprecedented $15.5 billion.

Is it time to remove yet another corrupt Democrat from the Governor’s mansion in New York – this time for feathering the nest of his closest staff after taking back the raises of every other state worker?

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 2 kb.

And these are all promises that, in and of themselves, would cost the government nothing and would likely lead to the savings of millions of dollars. But they would have meant changing the “business as usual” culture that exists inside the Beltway, so they have been thrown under the bus by Barry Hussein and his administration

7 Broken Promises in Record Time

1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it “impossible” for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. YouÂ’ll know whatÂ’s in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.

And to think that these were all supposed to be things that would result in more open, honest government that would “restore” the confidence of the American people in their institutions. But now that he has the power, such things matter less than the wielding of that power.

H/T Sweetness & Light

Posted by: Greg at 11:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Just a reminder that the government has no money of its own – only the money it takes from the people.

The Seattle City Council is expected Tuesday to approve a surcharge on city water customers to help cover the cost of a $22 million court-ordered rebate to water customers.

In other words, the city of Seattle ripped-off the customers of its city-owned water system and was ordered to repay them for things which should have been covered by the cityÂ’s general fund. So rather than rebate the cash from the general fund (from which the initial expenditures should have been funded rather than by increasing water bills), the city will raise the cash by increasing the water bills!

I donÂ’t know about you, but this sure seems to me to be a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the court that ordered the rebates.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Texas Rainmaker offers us a look at how a debate between the great Communicator and the second-rate neophyte currently in the Oval Office might sound.

I began blogging a bit over four years ago to find an outlet for my grief at the death of the greatest president of my lifetime. This just reminds me how far the country has descended away from its founding principles in the two decades since Ronald Reagan left office.

Posted by: Greg at 07:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

As a percentage of GDP, this pork-laden exercise in mono-partisanship will bring the US Deficit to at least 13.5% of the nation's GDP -- more than doubling the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP at any point in living memory!

Congratulations, Democrats, for bringing the Era of Fiscal Irresponsibility to an entirely new level heretofore unseen in our nation's history -- and after less than one month of controlling the legislative and executive branches!

H/T Ace, Gateway Pundit Power Line

Posted by: Greg at 07:28 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's see.

One out because he's corrupt (Richardson).

One out because he's a tax cheat (Daschle).

One disgraced and discredited because he's a tax cheat (Geithner).

One disgraced and discredited because he supported the Marc Rich pardon and pardons for terrorists (Holder).

Yeah, Obama and his crew sure can vet those Cabinet picks.

And once they found one with some actual principles, he withdraws because he can't go along with the bad policies and corruption of the Obama Administration.

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination to be President Obama's commerce secretary on Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" over issues like the economic stimulus package and the census.

"It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg of New Hampshire said in a written statement.

Republicans have been largely unified in their opposition to an economic stimulus bill that now totals $789 billion. They say it is full of government waste and won't create enough jobs to turn the economy around.

And in the past week, the GOP has stoked controversy over Obama's plan to share oversight of next year's census, which is carried out by the Census Bureau, part of the Commerce Department -- though Gregg said that was only a "slight" factor in his decision to withdraw.

I applaud Judd Gregg, who I don't always agree with when he goes maverick but who I certainly respect. He recognizes that his independence would be gone the minute he was confirmed.

Barry Hussein claims he is surprised by Gregg's move. Could it be due to the fact that the Senator has shown that there is, indeed, honest politicians out there -- something that an Illinois Democrat like will have never encountered in the course of his meteoric rise from obscurity to mediocrity in the highest office in the land.

Posted by: Greg at 02:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, Barry Hussein is in the (White) House, so anyone in opposition to his plans and programs is engaged in acts of treason and domestic terrorism, according to “liberal” radio host Mike Malloy.

"They're worse than useless. These are terrorists. These are domestic terrorists. They want the country to fail, for GodÂ’s sake. They want exactly what anyone who attacked this country on September 11, 2001 wanted. The real internal terrorists are the Republicans, I mean, isn't that clear? Rush Limbaugh is a bigger threat to this country than Osama bin Laden. He's a bigger threat than anybody that the CIA can invent. He's a bigger threat than any terrorist that ever leveled its sights against the United States, Limbaugh is, so why isn't he arrested and sentenced for treason?"

Get that, folks – dissent is now domestic terrorism and treason. Seeking to undermine the unwise and irresponsible policies of a president with a D after his name makes one worse than Osama bin Laden. And to think that for the last eight years I heard that speaking ill of our nation’s leaders and trying to thwart their policies – up to and including publishing classified information that materially aided the enemy in the field – was more patriotic than giving support to the nation in time of war.

So get ready, folks. The day is coming when the First Amendment will be excised from the Bill of Rights as incompatible with Obamism – and speaking words which oppose the plans of the libtelligentsia for the United States will constitute “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Odd, isn’t it, that this is directly contrary to the views of the men who wrote Article III, Section 3 in such a manner as to preclude making the holding and expression of dissenting opinions on policy matters the cause of a prosecution for treason.

Posted by: Greg at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like Obama was not really serious about ending American dependence on foreign sources of oil.

A day after his Interior secretary signaled plans for a cautious approach to oil and natural gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf, President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he's "holding out for a more comprehensive strategy" for U.S. energy development before approving offshore drilling along the East Coast.

In a meeting with reporters for The Virginian-Pilot and 15 other newspapers, Obama touched on a wide range of topics, from drilling to military strategy and efforts to revive the economy.

On drilling, he said it would be short-sighted to rely on offshore oil and gas development to solve the nation's energy problems or stimulate the flagging U.S. economy. Offshore resources are "not going to come online quickly enough," he asserted.

I know no one who argues that the only thing to do is drill offshore – or that we should rely on drilling for oil alone. But there is no legitimate reason for not tapping those reserves if we are to end the dependence on foreign oil that has caused such problems. Unless, of course, one is sold out to the far left of the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

If this precedent in Iowa is allowed to stand and expand, it might be.

An Iowa State trooper who was investigated after it was shown that he forwarded an e-mail showing mug shots of people wearing Obama t-shirts has been suspended for 30 days.

Sgt. Rodney Hicok was at home and off-duty when he forwarded the e-mails, said an official with the Iowa Department of Public Safety Bureau and Professional Standards.

The e-mail made disparaging remarks about 15 people in the photos and referred to Obama as having "quite a fan base."

Hicok was not making a racial statement, the official said, but, rather, a political statement.

Hicock was also forced to make an apology for what the state acknowledges was his private, off-duty political speech regarding the President of the United States and his supporters.

Now I initially was not disturbed by this decision. After all, I wondered if he might have obtained the mug shots using his official position. Had that been the case, some punishment might have been appropriate.

But I did a little further digging (actually, I clicked the link at the end of the story that took me to the original story about the investigation). Look where he obtained the mug shots in question, and then tell me that this email was in any way a legitimate basis for any sort of punishment.

The e-mail has a photo that was originally posted on TheSmokingGun.com, according to the ISP, and it was forwarded by Hicok to colleagues inside and outside the department.

No misconduct there – the images in question came from a website that posts documents in the public domain. On what basis, therefore, is punishment being meted out against this trooper? Political speech is, by any standard, fully protected by the First Amendment – even if you are a police officer and even if the target you lampoon is the President and his supporters.

Unless, of course, the “Era of Hope’N’Change” includes the contraction and retraction of our civil liberties...

H/T Gateway Pundit, Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 3 kb.

Soldiers are not cops. Marines are not cops. Sailors are not cops. Airmen are not cops.

Hopefully no one is surprised by those statements. After all, we know that they are fighting men and women.

But the decision by our inept new president to treat terrorists as criminals rather than enemies may mean that all of those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay may need to be released – because if they are going to get civilian trials with all the protections accorded the Americans arrested for crimes in this country, then all evidence and confessions obtained heretofore will have to be thrown out. Why? Because the terrorists taken on the field of battle were not read their Miranda rights by the fighting men who captured them and were not accorded rights given criminal suspects under the Bill of Rights and relevant Supreme Court interpretations thereof.

Accused in a 2002 grenade blast that wounded two U.S. soldiers near an Afghan market, Mohammed Jawad was sent as a youth to Guantanamo Bay. Now, under orders by President Obama, he could one day be among detainees whose fate is finally decided by a U.S. court.

But in a potential problem, Pentagon officials note that most of the evidence against Jawad comes from his own admissions. And neither he nor any other detainee at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was ever told about their rights against self-incrimination under U.S. law.

The Miranda warning, a fixture of American jurisprudence and staple of television cop shows, may also be one of a series of constructional hurdles standing between Obama's order to close the island prison and court trials on the mainland.

A procession of similar challenges -- secret evidence, information from foreign spy services and coerced statements -- also could spell trouble for prosecutors.

All of these problems illustrate the larger difficulty that lies ahead as the nation moves from the "law of war" orientation used by the Bush administration in dealing with detainees to the civilian legal approach preferred by Obama.

Yep, Barry Hussein has really screwed the pooch on this one. By muddying the distinction between war and criminal justice, he has virtually guaranteed that the enemy will be released to return to the field of battle where he can kill more American soldiers – and civilians.

Are there aspects of the Bush policies on the detainees that reasonable people can quibble over? Yeah, I suppose there are. But the one thing that sensible folks cannot dispute is that he – like FDR during WWII – recognized that fighting a war is very different from fighting crime, and that dealing with the enemy is very different from dealing with lawbreakers. Barack Obama does not understand that – and having campaigned on a promise to undo the Bush policies and treat terrorism as an exercise in criminal justice rather than national defense, he will be hard pressed to step back from his absurd plans. Even if that means that America will be objectively less safe from terrorism than it was during the Bush years.

Andrew McCarthy offers a fantastic analysis of the other flaws of ObamaÂ’s proposed solution to the problem of Gitmo in a fine article in National Review.

UPDATE: Allahpundit points to this little gem from Sarah Palin back during the campaign.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

Turns out she hit it right on the head. And it only took the LA Times five months to show that her concerns were dead on.

Posted by: Greg at 01:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 4 kb.

Once again, dissent is not patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.

After all, Alec Baldwin has done so much more on behalf of America than John McCain.

To John McCain. You need to keep quiet, John McCain. You lost. . . . You gotta shut up, John McCain.

Yep, that's right -- a bona fide war hero who has spent his entire adult life in service to the United States had better shut up because some punk actor tells him to -- simply because the war hero doesn't support the policies of the current administration.

Of course, maybe John McCain should be grateful that Baldwin didn't call for a lynch mob to drag him out of his home as Baldwin did in the case of Congressman Henry Hyde.

Posted by: Greg at 05:27 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Because after all, dissent is no longer patriotic in the Era of Hope'N'Change.

Now that America has a liberal President, it is apparently no longer acceptable for a private citizen to express disagreement with the White House in Keith OlbermannÂ’s world. On ThursdayÂ’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Olbermann delivered his latest "Special Comment" rant, this time calling for former Vice President Cheney to "leave this country," and made a suggestion that Cheney, who recently criticized President ObamaÂ’s plans for handling counterterrorism, should somehow be "made to desist" from such criticism. Olbermann: "You, Mr. Cheney, you terrified more Americans than did any terrorist in the last seven years, and now it is time for you to desist, or to be made to desist."

The Countdown host, who never showed any concern that his tirades against the Bush administration would "undermine" the war on terrorism, accused Cheney of "trying to sabotage" Obama’s "efforts against terrorism," and made a number of vulgar implications in attacking Cheney – including twice pronouncing the former Vice President’s first name with emphasis as if to call him by a vulgar word; saying that he would tell Cheney to "shove it"; and asking which "orifice" Cheney was pulling numbers from about the recidivism rate of former Guantanamo detainees.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

After several plugs, during which he claimed that "his [CheneyÂ’s] policies contributed to the worst attack ever on American soil," and said he would tell Cheney to "shove it," Olbermann began his "Special Comment":

Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country. The partisanship, divisiveness, and naiviete to which he ascribed every single criticism of his and President BushÂ’s delusional policies of the last eight years have now roared forth in a destructive and uninformed diatribe from Mr. Cheney that can only serve to undermine the nationÂ’s new President, undermine the nationÂ’s effort to thwart terrorism and undermine the nation itself.

The MSNBC host soon read a quote from CheneyÂ’s interview remarking that "When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry." Olbermann shot back: "More concern, Mr. Cheney? What delusion of grandeur makes you think you have the right to say anything like that?"

Where shall we begin dealing with the words of this loud-mouth buffoon who claimed to be a patriot while actively seeking to tear down the previous occupant of the Oval Office in language significantly less respectful that those used by the former vice president?

1) What "delusion of grandeur" makes Cheney think he has the right to say what he said? Well, aside from having some three decades more experience in the field of national security than Mr. Obama does (which certainly qualifies Dick Cheney as more of an expert on such matters than either Obama or Olbermann), I suppose it might be this:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That settles the question of what Dick Cheney thinks gives him the right to speak his mind freely in this country, wouldn't you agree? And furthermore, the notion that Dick Cheney should be "made to desist" from making such comments is advocacy of the wholesale violation of his civil liberties, you friggin' brownshirt. Clearly YOU are more concerned about the rights of terrorists than you are about the rights of Americans -- making you objectively pro-terrorist, Keith.

2) "Flatly, it may be time for Mr. Cheney to leave this country." What's that, Keith? Good God! That isn't even "America: Love it or leave it." It is "America: Support Obama or get out." What next, Ubermoron? Forced deportation? Or internment in reeducation camps like those found in Red China during the Cultural Revolution for those of us who fail to support Dear Leader Hope'N'Change?

3) Weren't you one of the folks who argued throughout the last administration that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Why, then, do you seek to suppress speech that said standard shows to be objectively more patriotic than your felating of the current regime? Could it be that you rally believe that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism only when the president has an R after his name"?

You know, we hear a lot about the "Fairness Doctrine" and "hate speech in media". Seems to me that any hearings on talk radio should be expanded to include the cable propaganda outlets like MSNBC -- with Keith Olbermann as the prime example of what hte speech in media really looks like.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 6 kb.

Once again, a rich liberal insists that the government should force him to pay more taxes.

IÂ’m the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, IÂ’m very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and IÂ’d like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third.

Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans.

Of course, there is a flaw in Reed HastingsÂ’ logic. As we well know, increased taxes lower the amount of revenue received. Also, experience shows us that changing the way in which such compensation packages are taxed simply results in changes in how that compensation is received to legally avoid the taxes.

But if Hastings really feels that he isnÂ’t paying enough, there is an option available to him. Since 1843 there has been a fund established under the US Treasury department for individuals to patriotically give more to the US government. All Hastings really needs to do is write a check for the money he believes he is undertaxed, payable to the United States Treasury, and mail it to the following address:

In effect, Hastings will be raising his own taxes. That way he can celebrate his success by paying what he believes he owes this country – without, of course, imposing his own sense of guilt and/or moral superiority on the rest of America.

Anyone want to speculate upon the odds of his actually writing that check?

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

Otherwise the world as we know it will come to an end!

President Barack Obama says the time for talk on an economic recovery package is over and "the time for action is now."

Speaking at the Energy Department, Obama made a fresh plea for the stimulus plan that the Senate is debating. He cited the latest bad economic news of jobless claims as another reason for quick action.

He said: "The time for talk is over, the time for action is now."

Republicans and some Democrats have expressed reservations about the growing price tag of the package—more than $900 billion. Senate Democratic leaders hope to have a bill completed by Friday.

Earlier today, Obama warned that failure to pass an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into an even longer, perhaps irreversible recession, as senators searched for compromises to whittle down the enormous bill.

Of course, it could be that the real reason is that Congress and the American people might become more aware of this information from the no-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

In other words, the “stimulus” plan is a long-term drag on the economy. But that doesn’t matter to Obama, Pelosi and Reid – they have left-wing constituencies that need rewarding right now!

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks in Kentucky have been freezing and dying for a week since ice storms devastated the state, but Barack Obama only got around to making a disaster declaration on February 5.

President Barack Obama on Thursday issued a major disaster declaration for Kentucky in the wake of a deadly ice storm, ordering federal aid to supplement local recovery efforts.

Gov. Steve Beshear sought the major disaster status earlier this week. The storm has been blamed for 27 Kentucky deaths.

My guess is that Barry Hussein was too busy scarfing down the leftover waygu beef from his Super Bowl shindig do be bothered to act on behalf of those impacted by the storm. After all – Kentucky voted Republican, and the media hasn’t bothered giving the human suffering there much coverage, so there was no political up side to immediate action.

More at Gay Patriot.

Posted by: Greg at 12:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, it is only the publicÂ’s money, so why should government officials actually disclose how they are planning on spending it?

"Yes, we do, we have our list, we've been talking to people. We did not put that out publicly because once you start putting it out publicly, you know, the newspapers, the media is going to be ripping it apart," Daley said.

"It's very controversial. Yes, we have ready projects from the Board of Education to the City Colleges to the Park District to the CTA and the city of Chicago. Oh yes. Us and New York decided not to do that. We thought we could go directly into the federal bureaucracies and the different departments," the mayor added.

Besides, with all Daley’s dirtbag cronies in the current administration (up to and including the one in the Oval Office), he probably figure he can go back to operating like his father did – with no accountability whatsoever. Transparency in government be damned.

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

You know, wait for the kid to be born alive and then leave it to die. What in a more civilized time was called INFANTICIDE.

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

* * *

One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

Remember, Barack Obama voted against making this illegal back when he was in the Illinois Legislature. He firmly believed then, and believes now, that a woman who pays for a dead baby is entitled to a dead baby, even if the “product of conception” is so inconsiderate as to survive the attempt to exterminate it in the womb.

Now there are several issues here that need consideration.

1) If this incident took place in 2006, why have no charges been brought for 2 ½ years?

2) Why havenÂ’t Florida authorities shut this abortuary down, instead of just yanking the abortionist's medical license?

3) Isn’t this just one more indication that only the lowest quality “medical professionals” are involved in the abortion industry?

4) Is anyone troubled by the fact that Ms. Williams has filed suit against the clinic that killed her baby after she had already paid them to kill the child?

Barry Hussein holds a primetime press conference on Monday night. Will any of his fan club the reporters have the courage to ask him about this incident and his prior actions in opposing the punishment of those who leave babies to die so as to prevent women from being “punished with a baby”?

Posted by: Greg at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 3 kb.

Failure to disclose income as required by House rules and federal law FOR THREE DECADES.

A new report says that Rep. Charles B. Rangel failed to disclose what became of thousands of dollars in assets over the past three decades.

The report identifies 28 separate instances within the past 30 years where he failed to report in congressionally-mandated filings on personal assets. The report from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation was based on a review of Rangel's filings from 1978 to the present.

The researchers write, "Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold."

I wonder when Queen Nancy will act to remove this unethical alligator from the congressional swamp?

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Invading a speech and shutting down the speaker is not democracy, no matter how loudly the hooligans in question make the claim that it is.

houting "This is what democracy looks like!" about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was addressing an economic forum and accused him of ignoring the concerns of working-class New Yorkers.

A few minutes into the mayor's speech at a Manhattan hotel, the demonstrators charged in, chanting and waving signs that said, "Mayor Bloomberg, talk to us about the future of NYC!"

Protesters said the demonstration was organized by a coalition that advocates for communities. They said Mr. Bloomberg has ignored the concerns of working-class New Yorkers, favoring the rights of rich developers instead.

Organized by :a coalition that advocates for communities”? I wonder – could that be ACORN? It seems possible – but why aren’t we told for sure?

I'm curious -- is this the kind of Hope'N'Change the Community-organizer-in-Chief told us we should believe in?

Posted by: Greg at 04:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

I donÂ’t often urge that convicts be pardoned. And these days, when Wall Street crimes are in the news again, this one is probably goes against the grain of popular sentiment. But sometimes a person who has served his sentence and then engaged in exemplary civic-minded behavior ought to receive a pardon out of gratitude for his good works. And one such person is Michael Milken, the one-time junk bond king.

In the 16 years since his release from prison, disgraced junk-bond king Michael Milken has beaten prostate cancer, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for medical research and reshaped an image tarnished by a 1990 conviction for securities fraud.

* * *

Milken. . . recovered from the disease and started a foundation that has raised more than $350 million for cancer research. He has also donated millions more for scholarship and education programs, and launched the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

I don’t minimize Milken’s earlier misdeeds. But like Chuck Colson, we see in Milken a man who really has been changed by his experience and demonstrated that he is truly rehabilitated. He has no right to a pardon – which is, after all, a privilege extended by the president – but Milken has become the model of what we ought to want to see more of our citizen become.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

If Tom Daschle’s “limousine liberal” venality and Nancy Killefer’s penny-ante tax offenses disqualify them from posts that include spending tax dollars, how can Tim Geithner stay on in a position that includes collecting those tax dollars?

Not only did Geithner neglect to pay his taxes, he turned a buck by doing so—accepting payments from his employer for the very purpose of offsetting those taxes. When he took the money, he signed a statement promising to pay the taxes and then ignored his obligations—for years. Protected by a statute of limitations, he did not pay his 2001–02 taxes until his nomination made them a public issue.
If Daschle’s tax problems should bar him from managing the federal health-services bureaucracy and Killefer’s preclude her from scrutinizing the budget, how is it that Geithner’s transgressions—the worst of the lot—are insufficient to disqualify him from managing the same Internal Revenue Service whose attentions he evaded?

I argued against GeithnerÂ’s confirmation when his misdeeds first came to light. Now that two other appointees have been forced out over tax issues, the argument against his serving as Secretary of the Treasury is even more compelling. Perhaps he and President Obama need to learn the lesson of the little parable that my father kept taped to his bedroom mirror when I was a kid.

Sometime when you're feeling important;
Sometime when your ego's in bloom
Sometime when you take it for granted
You're the best qualified in the room,
Sometime when you feel that your going
Would leave an unfillable hole,
Just follow these simple instructions
And see how they humble your soul;
Take a bucket and fill it with water,
Put your hand in it up to the wrist,
Pull it out and the hole that's remaining
Is a measure of how you will be missed.
You can splash all you wish when you enter,
You may stir up the water galore,
But stop and you'll find that in no time
It looks quite the same as before.
The moral of this quaint example
Is do just the best that you can,
Be proud of yourself but remember,
There's no indispensable man.

Secretary Geithner may be a great guy, and may have many skills and qualifications for his office – but his transgressions are such that he is and should be disqualified from holding a position that oversees the collection of taxes. After all, even if he is “uniquely qualified” for the post, his failure to pay taxes ought to be uniquely disqualifying for the job.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 01:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

It might, because nationalizing the health care system will kill off private sector medical care, including abortuaries.

Follow the logic for a moment. LetÂ’s say Progressive (socialist) Democrats are successful at unleashing their command and control utopia on the civilian population. The long term result will be the death of private medicine (among many other private markets). No problemo, some say, because healthcare is a right and only the government can properly secure that right at any cost.

The unintended consequence would be that over the long run, the only place where an abortion would be available is inside the national health system, leaving only the black market for women who wish to remain anonymous and undocumented by the state, (think very young scared girls and cheating spouses).

Then take it one step further, and consider for a moment how long state run abortion services would remain in business after the political pendulum swings back in the conservative direction (or do you think that Republicans will never be in power ever again?) At that point, the pro-lifers will only have to turn off the spigot at one source to eliminate most safe abortion options.

WhatÂ’s more, the cutoff of funds will be quite popular with Americans, a clear majority of whom believe that the government ought not be paying for abortions regardless of whether or not they support abortion being legal. And unless we are going to have the courts reverse decades of jurisprudence and begin ruling that government is obligated to fund the exercise of fundamental rights (in which case I want my domain name and computer paid for under the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press), there will be no recourse.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.