And not only that, they encouraged it.

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

* * *

Any investigation must include this information as part of a review of those in Congress and the Bush administration who reviewed and supported this program. To get a complete picture of the enhanced interrogation program, a fair investigation will also require that the Obama administration release the memos requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney on the successes of this program.

More to the point, is it really appropriate for Senators and Representatives who knew about these programs and supported them to turn around and investigate them? After all, there were some 30 meetings that included the leadership and other members of both parties. ShouldnÂ’t they be subjects of the investigations rather than the investigators? After all, if these techniques really violate American values, and if they really did authorize them, donÂ’t they share at least as much responsibility for them as the Executive Branch officials who the Left now wants to pillory?

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

LetÂ’s set aside the question of morality. LetÂ’s ignore the question of Roe v. Wade. DoesnÂ’t a proposal that doctors who perform surgical procedures away from a hospital be required to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case something goes wrong a pretty reasonable requirement for the state to impose?

The Indiana House of Representatives has passed a bill to require doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges.

The House voted 73-20 for the bill April 15. The legislation also would mandate that a doctor inform a woman that her unborn child may feel pain during an abortion, according to The Indianapolis Star.

The measure will return to the Senate, which previously passed it on a 44-6 vote but will need to act on the new version containing House-approved amendments, according to LifeNews.com.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana said only one of the seven doctors in the state who perform abortions has admitting privileges, The Star reported.

Supporters of the bill said it was needed in order to protect women who have problems after abortions.

"This bill is about patient safety," said Rep. Matthew Bell, R.-Avila. "I think it's the right statement to make when we care about the quality of care received by the patients."

Sadly, IÂ’ve seen ambulances leave abortion facilities with a woman inside of them. DoesnÂ’t it benefit them for the doctor who was doing that procedure to be able to admit them and oversee their care? And isnÂ’t it disturbing that so few can?

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Let’s see – you knocked up their daughter. That would have been a problem. Then you and the daughter split after the birth of the child. Clearly another stress on the relationship. But then you started trash-talking the family on nationwide television. Yeah, that would certainly stretch things to the breaking point.

The father of Sarah Palin's grandchild said Wednesday night that he might pursue legal action against the Alaska governor's family, who he says has cut off communication with him and are no longer letting him see their son Tripp.
Levi Johnston said during an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" that he has hired an attorney in hopes of compelling former fiancé Bristol Palin to honor his visitation rights.
Johnston last saw his four-month-old son "a couple weeks ago," he said, adding that going over to the Palin household to see Tripp is "an uncomfortable thing."
Despite his threat of legal action, Johnston insists that he does not "want to stir anything up."

Dude, you stirred things up when you went on Tyra and all the other shows. You stirred them up more with the Larry King interview. In what strange alternative universe do you live that you believe that giving those interviews (in which you did trash-talk the Palin family) did you believe that the relationship would be improved?

Now do I think that there needs to be some custody and visitation agreement made? Yeah, I do – as well as child support arrangements, too. After all, have you been supporting the son you so want to visit?

NOTE TO LARRY KING: Asking where the baby was conceived is a new low for your show, which is already among the trashiest on television. Have you no sense of decency, sir?

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Could you imagine the uproar – and the accusations of racism – if Rush Limbaugh or some prominent conservative politician or activist used this term to refer to Barry Hussein?

“Clean coal is a dirty lie,” says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it “indentured servants” of the coal industry.

Come on, Junior, you pathetic shadow of a great father. Just come on out and use the term you really wanted to direct at Obama. Call him “boy”, “Stepin Fetchit”, “darkie”, “coon”, or the one you were probably looking for -- you know, the one that starts with "N".

RFK Jr. is, like the rest of his generation of Kennedys, but a pale shadow of the three great young men of the last generation who died for this country. They are, instead, disgraces to the family name, just like their Uncle Teddy.

Posted by: Greg at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, she directs money so that it will flow into her hubbyÂ’s pockets.

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

If this were a Republican, weÂ’d be hearing all about the conflict of interest represented by this legislation. But since Feinstein is a Democrat, it is simply one more case of business as usual by one of Nancy PelosiÂ’s Democrats.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Since the Obama Regime has seen fit to release the legal memoranda regarding enhanced interrogations, We the People really ought to be given access to the intelligence gained through its use so as to make a fair judgment about whether or not the methods used were effective and appropriate.

"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.

Cheney said he's asked that the documents be declassified because he has remained silent on the confidential information, but he knows how successful the interrogation process was and wants the rest of the country to understand.
"I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

Now bBarack Obama has already said that the intelligence received from these techniques is no good, so there can be no harm to the national security of the US if it is released – unless, of course, Barack Obama is a bald-faced liar who is intentionally seeking to deceive the American public. After all, there is credible evidence that waterboarding and other techniques did provide good intelligence for the crusade against Islamofascism. So come on, Mr. President – declassify the information and let us judge for ourselves whether you speak the truth.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

HereÂ’s hoping that Obama is a quick study.

Obama is not the first president to discover that facile changes in U.S. policy don't crack long-standing problems. Some of his new strategies may produce results with time. Yet the real test of an administration is what it does once it realizes that the quick fixes aren't working -- that, say, North Korea and Iran have no intention of giving up their nuclear programs, with or without dialogue, while Russia remains determined to restore its dominion over Georgia. In other words, what happens when it's no longer George W. Bush's fault? That's what the next 100 days will tell us.

With perhaps one exception (the Maersk Alabama), IÂ’ve been unimpressed with ObamaÂ’s foreign policy efforts. HeÂ’s offended allies, degraded the nation, and shown weakness in the face of enemies like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Will he finally see that strength, not weakness, is the path to success?

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, if you want some actual proof that Rick Perry said nothing particularly objectionable when he restated Thomas Jefferson’s premise that the people have the right to alter or abolish their form of government – or even dissolve the times that bind them to one another – here it is. Rather than speak about anything actually offensive in Perry’s words, the local hack columnist from the Houston Chronicle is reduced to complaining about so-called “code words”.

Perry again showed his lack of regard for the not-so-subtle nuances of history when he expressed his anger at the federal government by chopping the air with his fist and chanting: “I’m talking about states’ rights, states’ rights, states’ rights!”
He said the constitutional protection of states’ rights unfortunately “have melted away over time.”
The crowd loved it, but there is a large segment of Texas citizens who know bitterly that the term “states’ rights” was long militantly employed to fight the melting away of such “rights” as state sanctioning of slavery, enforcement of school segregation and, in Texas, the definition of political parties as private associations permitted to exclude non-whites primaries.
There are certain rights of states that deserve to be protected, but a politician who wants to be leader of all the people doesnÂ’t use terms so tightly bound to such an ugly history.

Now columnist Rick Casey certainly was within his rights to criticize Perry’s statement. He even had some good points among his earlier analysis. But in the end, he decided to play the race card. Casey, not Perry, decided to take statements that had not one word about race in them and transform them into a call for a return to slavery, segregation, and the denial of voting rights. That is fundamentally dishonest on his part – as is his attempt to take the evils imposed upon Texas by the Democrat Party for over a century and use them as a basis to undermine the essential nature of the federal system created in our nation’s Constitution.

Mr. Casey, statesÂ’ rights are an essential part of our constitutional order. While that term has been abused in the past by some in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, that does not mean that all mention of or appeal to that concept is illegitimate. What is illegitimate, though, is an attempt to turn the discussion of tax policy, the extent of federal power, and the nature of our federal union into some sort of covert appeal to racism.

Posted by: Greg at 04:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

Disagree with the all-powerful leader? Well, it is clearly a sign of mental illness!

[T]he limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it's pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring.

Got that – if you are “a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist” (and there is no distinction in her book), you are suffering from a mental illness or neurological disorder. Clearly you need to be hospitalized and/or medicated for your own good and that of society. And Nurse Janeane will be glad to help you get checked in for treatment at the Lavrentiy Beria Psikhushka for the Treatment of Anti-Social Personalities.

Posted by: Greg at 04:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

You know that report slurring veterans and conservatives as potential terrorists? Well, it appears that the report was issued despite objections from civil rights officials within the department.

Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department did not agree with some of the language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway.
The intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week said some military veterans could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or commit lone acts of violence. That prompted angry reactions from some lawmakers and veterans' groups.
Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency's civil rights division. Kudwa would not specify what language raised the concerns.

Remember – this report defined as right-wing extremism “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” No telling what sort of supervision that those of us who believe in gun rights, oppose abortion, and want control of our borders – in other words, Republicans.

Fortunately, some Senate Republicans are holding Janet NapolitanoÂ’s feet to the fire.

Dear Secretary Napolitano,
We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.
While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.
First, your report states that “rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.” Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.
Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHSÂ’s independent data.
Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.
In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.
Sincerely,
David Vitter (R, Louis.)
Sam Brownback (R, Kansas)
Jim Demint (R, So Car.)
Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma)
Richard Burr (R, No. Car.)
Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska)
James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)

HereÂ’s hoping that we see some more speak out about this unprovoked attack on American conservatives by the Obama Regime.

And for those who want to connect this report to the FBI’s Operation Vigilant Eagle, there is a clear difference. That program was targeted at specific, identified individuals with known associations with white supremacists and extremist groups. The DHS report goes much further, identifying as suspicious those who hold mainstream political views – and openly admitting that there are no actual threats or activities identified that by intelligence sources that justify this concern.

Posted by: Greg at 04:33 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 799 words, total size 6 kb.

And yet another chapter in the saga of the first hundred days of the most corrupt administration in US history.

Steven Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's auto task force, was one of the executives involved with payments under scrutiny in a probe of an alleged kickback scheme at New York state's pension fund, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A Securities and Exchange Commission complaint says a "senior executive" of Mr. Rattner's investment firm met in 2004 with a politically connected consultant about a finder's fee. Later, the complaint says, the firm received an investment from the state pension fund and paid $1.1 million in fees.
The "senior executive," not named in the complaint, is Mr. Rattner, according to the person familiar with the matter. He is co-founder of the investment firm, Quadrangle Group, which he left to join the Treasury Department to oversee the auto task force earlier this year.

I believe that is called “pay to play” – and if this situation does not involve criminal activity it certainly skirts the line. After all, SEC probes don’t just happen – there has to be some substantive evidence to get them started. The “consultant” in this case has been credibly accused of selling access – and Rattner was meeting him and paying him, which seems to have led to a hefty profit for Rattner and his firm. Shades of Obama-buddy Tony Rezko!

In this case the mere appearance of an impropriety seems to qualify as an impropriety in and of itself.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

HereÂ’s the headline at ThinkProgress (which would be better named EmoteRegress).

Rep. Mark Kirk suggest shooting Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn because of higher taxes.

And here’s the “offending” quote.

“I think that the decision to raise taxes by 50 percent in Illinois is political suicide,” Kirk said of Quinn’s proposal to raise the tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction. “I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes by that degree.”

Do you notice what’s missing? You know, an actual suggestion that anyone actually kill Pat Quinn (who, I would like to note, I know and respect from my younger days in Illinois politics). With reports like that one, I can only assume that the folks at ThinkProgress are preparing to trademark the phrase “Inacurate and Unbalanced” as their new motto.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, there is one statistic that would make me think so.

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd appears to have looked everywhere but his home state to fuel what pundits anticipate will be one of the most hotly contested races in the nation in 2010.
The five-term incumbent reported raising just $4,250 from five Connecticut residents during the first three months of the year while raking in $604,745 from nearly 400 individuals living outside the state.
While incumbents often turn to special interests for early campaign fundraising, Dodd's out-of-state total seems unusually high and comes at a time when he has been plagued by poor approval ratings among state voters.

During his last run for Senate, Dodd got 30% of his donations from Connecticut residents. Now it is well-below 1%. Numbers that low don’t seem to bode well for his reelection – maybe that special insider loan arrangement that broke some months back is going to make him really vulnerable.

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve noticed in recent weeks a number of bumper stickers on local cars here in Houston that read “Secede”. While I don’t see that as very likely, I don’t have a particular problem with the notion that secession is a legitimate option for a state that is part of a federation, especially if its people are in favor of such a course of action. After all, Jefferson noted that the people are ultimately the source of legitimacy for government (which they themselves establish for the protection of their rights) and that

. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing sacrosanct about the current design of government. Indeed, JeffersonÂ’s words certainly imply the legitimacy of secession. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence clearly notes that at times

. . . it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. . . .

So as you can see, there is nothing particularly un-American or subversive about secession – unless, of course, one argues that the Declaration of Independence itself is un-American and subversive. And Mr. Lincoln’s war notwithstanding, nowhere does the Constitution state or imply that the people of the several states surrender their right to alter or abolish their form of government or sever the political ties that bind them to the rest (the decision of the Supreme Court in Texas v. White notwithstanding).

Not, mind you, that I believe that secession is a proper goal for any state at this time, much less that it is a desirable one. But in light of certain statements from my stateÂ’s governor yesterday, I feel it important to not that connection to the principles that underlay our nationÂ’s struggle for independence.

So let's see exactly what did Rick Perry say?

Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

Now first off, he isnÂ’t suggesting secession according to what I read. It seems to me that he is offering a theoretical, hypothetical argument similar to what I have stated above. Secondly, it is perfectly in keeping with his recent support for a resolution asserting TexasÂ’ rights under the Tenth Amendment, and I believe that is what he was probably asked about to begin with. But note, please, that he begins his answer with a clear caveat that there is absolutely no reason to dissolve the ties that bind Texans to the rest of the American people. So for those who have gotten your knickers in a knot, might I suggest that you simply dial down your outrage a notch and calmly consider what he has actually said?

Besides, as pointed out elsewhere, he also noted that there were multiple scenarios under which some separation might happen. IÂ’d argue that one of those might be the equivalent of an amicable divorce, with both Congress and the Texas legislature jointly agreeing to the split. Or maybe even a constitutional amendment explicitly overruling the precedent in the wrongly decided Texas v. White.

Oh, and for the record – while I defend Rick Perry here on this one point, it in no way signals a shift in my previously stated intention to support Kay Bailey Hutchison when she challenges Perry for the nomination for governor next year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 711 words, total size 5 kb.

As usual, the Washington Post attacked the Second Amendment today, urging more limitation on the right of the people to keep and bear arms – you know, the right that the Bill of Rights says shall not be infringed. This time they argued that one reason for banning guns in National Parks is the lack of crime there.

But I am particularly fond of this retort to that argument from k_romulus, one of those who took the time to comment on that absurd argument.

And I love how the Ed Board complains that guns should be banned in "urban areas" like DC because of "too much" crime, and also banned in remote outposts like National Parks because of "too little" crime. Sounds like Goldilocks to me, but without the "just right." LOL!
4/16/2009 10:04:49 AM

So you see, banning guns is the all-purpose answer for the Post. Too much crime? Ban guns because they are the cause of it. Too little crime? Ban guns because they aren’t needed. I wonder – is there anyplace where the Washington Post feels there is just the right amount of crime to let the American people fully exercise their Second Amendment rights?

Posted by: Greg at 09:58 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Shame on Georgetown for caving in to this.

Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”--symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com.

Sorry, but if you come on a Catholic campus, you are going to have to see crosses and the name of Jesus. If you don’t want that, then don’t come. Ditto appearances at any other Christian institution. After all, Barry, you are merely the President of the United States, and sic transit gloria mundi. But the glory of the risen Christ will never pass away – and God should never be hidden to curry favor with Caesar, especially not when Caesar is speaking in God’s forum.

I’m curious – will the Obama Regime make similar demands to cover up religious imagery when visits Muslim institutions as a part of his giant suck-up to Islam?

Posted by: Greg at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, Janet Napolitano has made a good, if half-hearted, start to atoning for her departmentÂ’s insulting, un-American tarring of political activists and military personnel as potential terrorists.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized to veterans after a report issued by her department said troops returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at risk for being recruited by right-wing extremists.

"To the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed," she said during an on-air interview on FOX News Thursday, a day after veterans' groups and members of Congress blasted her for the report, which they said libeled members of the armed forces.

"This was an assessment, not an accusation," Napolitano continued. "It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States. And all this was meant to do was to give law enforcement what we call 'situational awareness.'"

"The last thing I want to do is offend or castigate all veterans. To the contrary, let's meet and clear the air," she said.

"I'm not running away from it, but I will say it was an assessment. It was not an accusation, and quite frankly, these are products that are produced and shared with law enforcement on a routine basis."

Unfortunately, this report contains no specific information to back up its claims of a right-wing threat of terrorist activity. What’s more, the report tars holders of mainstream political positions – indeed, anyone who believes in the GOP platform adopted last summer – as extremists and potential terrorists. That stands in sharp contrast to previous reports that had a specific focus on actual groups threatening or engaging in violent or criminal activity. And for that reason, Napolitano’s apology does not go far enough. Indeed, her willingness to stand by this report is a sign of her unfitness for the position she holds (or any other position of public trust).

So tell me, where is the apology to the rest of us? And what action will be taken to prevent such shoddy, poorly documented political hit pieces from being issued by DHS in the future? Who is going to lose their job or be demoted over this outrage? Does the buck stop anywhere?

Posted by: Greg at 09:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

Liberals again stifle open discussion and debate on a college campus with threats and violence.

UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event.

Tancredo was brought to campus by a UNC chapter of Youth for Western Civilization, a national organization of students who oppose mass immigration, multiculturalism and affirmative action.

Before the event, campus security removed two women who delayed Tancredo's speech by stretching a 12-foot banner across the front of the classroom. It read, "No dialogue with hate."

I agree. There can be no dialogue with the sort of Leftist hate displayed at UNC. And if police cannot keep order, it may be time for the average citizen to act to defend the exercise of First Amendment rights through the prudent exercise of Second Amendment rights. After all, how many of these violent thugs would attempt to shut down speakers if they knew that their force would be met with force?

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

When I saw this report this morning, I was somewhat taken aback.

There will be no tea-dumping in the Potomac River -- that's illegal -- but organizers of today's national tea party tax protest found out this morning that so is their plan to dump a million tea bags in Lafayette Square to demonstrate displeasure at government spending and tax policies.

Protesters, using a rented truck to haul the million tea bags, began unloading their cargo at the park this morning but were told by officials that they didn't have proper permits and must move the tea. They complied with the order but are still considering what to do with the load.

SO what we have here is a case of government denying permits for speech that challenges the government. I guess this is a part of the hope and change we can believe in – and can’t help but note that if this same thing had happened with left-wing protests during the Bush years there would have been massive rioting and complaints of the quashing of political dissent.

And I wonder, too – what would Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty have done?

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

The Obama Regime certainly couldnÂ’t have leaked that report to discredit its domestic critics, could it?

DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."

A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.

"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.

The problem, though, according to NewsBusters’ analyst Noel Sheppard is that these reports don’t end up in the press within days of their completion – especially when their appearance is closely timed with planned peaceful political activities by folks who share the very characteristics described in the report. And given some of the shoddy data and weak connections in the report, that makes it even more suspicious. So how did this report make its way into the press, and was it a set-up. Seems to me that there is need for some serious investigation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.

Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius.

First the venal.

President Barack Obama's health secretary nominee got nearly three times as much political money from a controversial abortion doctor as she told senators.

The Health and Human Services Department said Monday that the omission was an oversight that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius would correct.
In a response to questions from the Senate Finance Committee made public last week, Sebelius wrote that she received $12,450 between 1994-2001 from Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.

But in addition to those campaign donations, records reviewed by The Associated Press show that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000-2002 to a political action committee Sebelius established while insurance commissioner to raise money for fellow Democrats.

Sebelius did not tell senators about that additional money, although Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., asked specifically about any Tiller donations to her PAC.

Now I realize that financial irregularities are nothing new to the Obama Regime. But in this case Sebelius directly lied to Senators during her confirmation hearings about her connection to a man who will perform abortions up to any point before the umbilical cord is snipped. How can she be trusted – especially after her efforts to spare her donor from criminal investigations? Obama must withdraw her nomination, or the Senate must reject her.

On the other hand, there is Janet Napolitano whose department has now released a report declaring folks with mainstream conservative positions to be potential terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

Got that? Oppose abortion? Napolitano’s agency has just declared you to be a potential terrorist. Support increased border security and oppose amnesty for illegals? You need to be watched as a potential violent extremist. Believe in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution? You are a potential danger to the United States. Think that the Second Amendment gives you the right to own guns? You could be about to engage in domestic terrorism. Oh, yeah – and you are especially a concern if you are a veteran. And what is the evidence for this assessment? Well, by the admission of the reports author in the text of the report itself, NONE WHATSOEVER.

Now there is an attempt to claim that past reports have looked at left-wing groups, but there is a difference – those reports had to do with groups that had actually engaged in domestic terrorism here in the United States, and were limited to those groups. That isn’t what happened here.

That this report was produced and disseminated is, my friends, an utter disgrace. It tars a great many patriotic Americans as potential extremist terrorists simply for supporting things that are part of the platform of the Republican Party. Not only is does it unreasonably question the patriotism and loyalty of a good 40-50% of the American public, it also is precisely the sort of thing that will stoke the fears not just of the small fringe of extremists, but of a great many mainstream conservatives. As head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano is responsible for the production and dissemination of this garbage. If she does not have the decency to resign in disgrace, Obama needs to fire her to retain any credibility whatsoever with conservatives in America.

Posted by: Greg at 12:00 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 5 kb.

Like father, like son – it now appears that Rep Jesse Jackson, Jr. will be shown to be every bit as lacking in ethics as his father. After all, he was prepared to shake folks down to the tune of between $1.5 and $5 million in contributions to Rod Blagojevich in order to get Obama’s Senate seat.

Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr. went to see the Illinois governor in December to press for an appointment to the United States Senate seat being vacated by Barack Obama. Mr. Jackson took along a black binder filled with letters of support, poll numbers and lists of his accomplishments over 13 years in Congress.

* * *

The Chicago Tribune reported Friday that the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is known for the energy and sweep of his investigations, had subpoenaed several people who had helped Mr. Nayak set up the fund-raiser to benefit Mr. Blagojevich. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on Monday that Mr. BlagojevichÂ’s people had been told that Mr. Jackson would raise up to $5 million in campaign cash for Mr. Blagojevich.

Interestingly enough, he was hitting up his daddyÂ’s donors to get the cash. I wonder if they will contribute to JuniorÂ’s legal defense fund instead.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

IÂ’ve argued this point for some time now, and IÂ’m glad to see a prominent voice speak in agreement with my point.

There was never a good reason for any members of Congress to create a group whose sole criterion for membership was race (or ethnicity in the case of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus). The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) is so color-based that even congressmen representing majority-black districts who are not themselves black (such as Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn.), who applied for membership) are not allowed to be members. Such a group, if it existed anywhere else in America, would properly be declared racist and would be either legally or morally forced to shut down.

Imagine the likely hubbub over the creation of a Congressional White Caucus if you have any doubt as to how wrong the existence of such groups really is.

It is just too bad that it took the CBCÂ’s kowtowing to Castro to get people to look at the essential wrongness of the groupÂ’s existence.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Some argue that it the sign of an impending hit piece. I see this as potentially something less.

Earwigs report that New York Times reporter Bill Yardley was in Juneau this past week. He's said to be working on a story about how Sarah's governance has changed since the VP race.

Seems to me that we will all find out in the end, and that it could be a reasonable article about how the experience of running for VP has changed the formerly obscure governor. But it does strike me as a good thing that while the media is keeping an eye on government officials, there are those who are keeping an eye on the media.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

So says Michael Barone, in regard to the tens of millions of dollars in union dues spent by union leaders to push for what amounts to coerced unionization.

The unions are blaming this on selfish big business. The real problem is that it's hard to defend a law that effectively abolishes the secret ballot. When nobody's looking and it's not for real, politicians may vote that way. But not when it's for keeps. Moreover, as General Motors and Chrysler spiral toward bankruptcy, it's not apparent that adversarial unionism is healthy for the economy. It's not clear that imposing federal arbitration on the private sector is a recipe for economic growth. Certainly it's not a recipe for innovation or flexibility at a time when businesses need them more than ever.

Union sympathizers are now talking about fallback positions. But it's not clear that a bill with minor changes that does not effectively abolish the secret ballot and impose federal arbitration will produce the vast increase in unionization that union leaders seek. There's not much polling showing that vast numbers of private sector workers yearn for union representation.

Let’s boil it down to its essence – the card check process, when brought to the attention of the American public, was pretty hard to defend. After all, when your fall-back argument is that the secret ballot isn’t really necessary in a free society, you are not going to get much sympathy in this country. And with the massive expenditure of dues as a part of the union effort to eliminate the secret ballot being available as an example of how unions spend the dues of their members, I can’t imagine that there will be a change in interest in unionization any time soon.

Posted by: Greg at 07:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

Ther eis just something about political commentary from the British press. They don't hold back the way our commentators do. That is how you get a gem like this.

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

The rest of Gerald Warner's column is equally as withering. I won't excerpt more because I'd have to leave out too much of his brilliant writing.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems really obvious to me -- if the state allows someone a license to carry a concealed handgun, no state agency should be permitted to turn around and declare that concealed carry is not permitted unless there is an overriding public safety/order basis for it. Courthouses are a legitimate exception, but college campuses are not. The Texas legislature is considering precisely that issue.

Legislation allowing state university students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus appears to have enough pledged support from lawmakers to pass the full Texas House.

The bill would prohibit public universities across Texas from creating rules that forbid concealed handgun license holders from carrying their pistols into a classroom, but it would allow private institutions to exempt themselves.

Chances for passage in the House — if it gets there — look strong, as 76 members have signed on to support the bill, authored by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland.

The House Public Safety Committee already has signed off on the measure. Now, it needs to get scheduled for debate in the full House.

Of course we know from empirical evidence that those with a CCL are the least likely to misuse a handgun, so the argument for banning guns on campus is a crock. Besides, we've already seen how well those bans have performed in preventing mass murder on campus, haven't we?

The Houston Chronicle, though, offers its usual anti-gun take on the matter.

But the most troubling, irresponsible one of all is a bill to allow concealed weapons on college campuses. Authored by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, it seems to have enough support to pass the House. In the Senate, 13 of the 31 members have promised their support for an identical bill authored by Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.

ItÂ’s a horrifying thought. It is our fervent hope that cooler heads in the Senate will prevail and block its passage. Students have enough on their plates without having to worry that horsing around, drinking or otherwise acting like a college student could result in an unintended tragedy.

Of course, that this has not happened away from campus is simply discounted -- but the paper offers the following as compelling evidence that college students should not be permitted to possess the means to defend themselves from crime while on campus.

There are excellent reasons why all major car rental agencies require that a driver be at least 25, or pay a hefty premium if younger. Psychologists are well aware that the ability to foresee the consequences of oneÂ’s behavior is still developing long past adolescence.

Which, of course, explains why younger voters supported Obama in record numbers. So maybe there is a good argument there for restricting the right to vote, like the right to keep and bear arms, to those over 25. Heck, we can do away with all the protections of the Bill of Rights until the kids are 25 -- along with the right to marry, drive, own real property...

Unless, of course, one believes that adults should have the full rights of adulthood, even if they are college students. And that includes the right to keep and bear arms that is protected by both the US and Texas constitutions.

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

One local blogger offers up the following indictment of the GOP.

So Karl Rove keeps files of his enemies' off-party-line talking points and Rep. Spencer Bachus as a list of Socialist members of Congress (there are apparently 17).

Seems to me that he is grasping at straws.

Let's see -- Rove keeps files of quotes as a part of his opposition research. Horrors! At least he doesn't have the contents of 900 illegally obtained FBI files like the Clintons did.

And as for 17 socialists in Congress -- we have one, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is one openly. We have others associated with openly socialist groups. Their activity isn't illegal, nor does Bachus seek to treat it as such. So what is the problem?

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Yeah, once again raising the specter of voter disenfranchisement, the NY Times has run an editorial urging the that the federal government more strictly enforce the "Motor Voter" law.

States started out with some enthusiasm, but in recent years compliance has fallen sharply. Project Vote and Demos, public-interest groups that work for voting rights, studied the implementation of the motor voter law nationally from 1995 to 2007. In a 2005 study of 103 people leaving a Department of Jobs and Family Services office in Ohio, only three reported being given voter registration forms. Surveys conducted outside of public assistance offices in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland and other states found similar problems.

Not surprisingly, the motor voter law is proving to be far less effective in registering voters than it should be. According to the report by Project Vote and Demos, the number of people registering from public assistance agencies fell 79 percent between 1995 and 1996 — the first years for which data were collected — and 2005 and 2006, the most recent reporting period.

You see, for the liberal editors of the Gray Lady (it would be more accurate to call it the Pink Lady, given the paper's socialist tilt), the real purpose of the law is to push voter registration forms into the hands of public aid recipients -- the most likely to vote Democrat -- rather than the general public. Merely having the forms available at the office -- sitting on the counter -- isn't enough. the paper wants them actively given to each applicant.

Now here's the problem with the law, one I've mentioned before and which explains why I prefer to call it the "Auto Fraud-o" Law. The legislation makes it virtually impossible to reject a registration form, and difficult to detect voter fraud. For example, when I lived in Illinois when I got married, but the wedding was in my wife's home town in Pennsylvania. I had just presented my Illinois driver's license and given my Illinois address to the clerk in the office that issued our wedding license when she turned to me and asked, pursuant to the law in question, whether I would like to register to vote. Flabbergasted, I pointed out that I was not a Pennsylvania resident. In response, she told me that I could use my mother-in-law's address and there would be no problem with me voting absentee -- that the law made it illegal for her to refuse my registration if I gave that other address. Given that I believe in the principle of "one person, one vote", I chose not to engage in election fraud. But the thing is, the law would have facilitated, not prevented, my doing so if I wanted to. So rather than supporting more enforcement of the law, I'd urge its repeal.

Posted by: Greg at 01:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 481 words, total size 3 kb.

Good grief – Ted Stevens will be 90-years-old in 2014. Returning him to office would make no sense, especially since he is ethically challenged even if he is not a criminal. Besides, the explanation for this filing shows precisely why we in the GOP need to reject him completely.

Former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has filed a statement of candidacy for the 2014 election, but an aide cautions against reading too much into the move.

Campaign treasurer Tim McKeever says the filing does not mean Stevens has decided to seek re-election. He says it simply was done to accept donations that came into the campaign after the November election.

In other words, it is all about the money. And with that said, IÂ’d like to urge that every conservative and Republican direct their dollars and their votes to more worthy recipients.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The current meme from the loony Left in this company is that those of us on the right are encouraging violence and murder with our dissent against the Obama Regime and our questioning of the intentions and policies of Barry Hussein and his merry band of socialists. And certainly any talk of the people rising up against a government that is out of control is presumed to be a call to overthrow the government by violent means -- not, of course, that such a course of action was a bad thing when engaged in by men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and a host of others we call "Patriots" and "Founding Fathers".

Interestingly enough, those making such claims are the same folks who spent the last eight years heaping abuse upon President George W. Bush and undermining our nation's fight against the jihadi swine who want to destroy our nation. You know, the same people who claimed that their dissent was the highest form of patriotism -- but now label ours as treason.

The hypocrisy of these folks is pretty obvious -- but i somehow doubt that we will live to see the level of hypocrisy reached by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, April 7.

And in Worsts: Glenn Beck tells viewers to rise up, take the country back, and defend their guns against the ban that is all in his head. So a psychotic shoots three policemen because he fears a gun ban, and Beck sees no connection between these things.

Got that -- Beck, who has repeatedly emphasized that what he is urging people to do is engage in peaceful political activity, is responsible for the deeds of someone who is psychotic. You see, in the world of Keith Olbermann it isn't what conservatives actually say that matters.

So tell me -- if Beck's words constitute incitement to murder, what would you say about this little bit from a past Olbermann show?

Click the picture and you'll see that it is a "humorous" attempt to play on the use of the word "rush" by a gun enthusiast at a shooting event. Or is it really a coded effort by Olbermann to incite the murder of America's top radio talker? Under the interpretation he puts on Glenn Beck's words, that case can certainly be made. Or would he argue that figurative language is somehow worse than actually depicting the attempted murder of another human being? We know the answer to that one,my friends.

And that, my friends, is but the latest act of Hypocrisy from Keith Olbermann -- the Worst Person In America!

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

According to Randi Rhodes, you bet they did.

BRIAN LAMB: Go back to the meeting, how long were you there?

RANDI RHODES: Where?

LAMB: With the Senators?

RHODES: I think they gave me an hour or so. And it was very – we ate lunch, which of course, I didn‘t eat, because I was terrified. But 30 Senators showed up. I was amazed. For me it was like, I kept saying, when I got on the air, I talked about it and I said it was like being at Walt Disney World. Do you ever got to like the good Disney hotels in Disney and you see your favorite characters? Like Mickey comes out and Donald comes out. I go, well I watch C-SPAN, so like these are my characters – these are my TV characters. And it was like, you know, here comes (INAUDIBLE). And you know, let‘s face it a lot of Senators aren't recognized by people.

I was going oh my God, that‘s (INAUDIBLE). Oh my God, that's Dick Durbin. Oh my god, that's Dorgan. Oh my God, that's Tom Daschle. Oh my god, and, you know, everybody knows Hillary, obviously, she was First Lady of the United States. But how many recognize Barbara Mikulski and know that she makes a mean crab cake.

You know, so it was fantastic. I was too nervous to eat. I guess they liked me. And so then they organized a lunch at Mary Landrieu's house. And I was invited to this lunch. And again, it was, you know, democrat senators with an interest in media and getting our message out. And they thought that – they had had 30 people that they had spoken two, and it came down to two that they really liked and thought could do it. And it was me and this guy at Schultz.

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 5 kb.

It all comes down, I suppose, to a matter of perspective. If, as did our Founders, one presumes that private property belongs to the individual, then one recognizes that government must have a compelling reason for interference with the fundamental right to the that property. On the other hand, if one presumes that the right to oneÂ’s property is subordinate to some pre-existing claim to that property by government, then any resistance to its confiscation by government is somehow immoral or unpatriotic. That was the argument by Joe Biden during this past fallÂ’s presidential campaign, and it is the argument today by the New York Times in todayÂ’s editorial about the estate tax.

Last week, as the unemployment rate hit a 25-year high and nearly one in 10 Americans was receiving food stamps, 10 Democrats in the Senate joined all 41 Republican senators to cut estate taxes for the wealthiest families. The provision would funnel an additional $91 billion over 10 years to the heirs of megafortunes, money that would otherwise have been paid in federal taxes or donated to charity.

With economic pain and suffering on the rise, how do the senators justify a big tax cut for multimillionaires? By asserting that an estate tax cut is just what struggling Americans need.

The response of the NYT editorialists to every argument made by proponents of cutting (and frankly, I believe the proper policy should be eliminating) the estate tax is those arguments are “swill”. But the real argument to be made on this one is that the estate tax should be cut or eliminated because the estates of the dead – no matter how rich they are – should not be looted by government bureaucrats. It is, dare I say it, the private property of the deceased and his/her heirs.

Look at the argument – the legislation “would funnel an additional $91 billion over 10 years to the heirs of megafortunes, money that would otherwise have been paid in federal taxes or donated to charity.” I call “Bullshit!” It would not funnel a penny of tax dollars to anyone – indeed, it would put an end to the government acting like the crew looting the possessions of the dead Ebenezer Scrooge in Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. But the editorial, couched in the rankest terms of class warfare, argues that allowing the families of the dead to keep their family property is somehow a raiding of the national coffers and a picking of the pockets of the poor. Again, I cry “Bullshit!”

The cash and properties in those estates have been taxed – indeed, they have probably been taxed more than once. The estate tax is simply the government taking one more bite at the apple on the grounds that “they have too much money”. Such a policy is, dare I say it, a fundamental attack on the very principles upon which our nation was founded. And even though I am one who has no prospects of becoming rich, nor of inheriting from some mega-rich relative (trust me, I’ve searched my family tree looking for a rich uncle or three), I do recognize the fundamental injustice of special taxes on people based upon their economic status (what of “equal protection of the law”, liberals?). Reducing or eliminating this ghoulish confiscation of assets is a therefore not only a good policy, it is the most moral policy.

Posted by: Greg at 12:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

As many of you know, I am opposed to gay marriage. I believe it unnecessarily re-configures a long-standing social unit of our society in a way that is unnecessary and inappropriate. I’ve long supported amending the constitutions of the several states and of our federal republic to limit marriage to one man and one woman, and have supported any effort that would overturn unprincipled court decisions that take the power to define the institution from the people. It isn’t that I have a problem with homosexuals of either gender (ask my best friend, who is quite openly gay, as well as my closest lesbian friend) – rather it is that I am a traditionalist when it comes to the definition of the institution of marriage.

But the action of the Vermont legislature today in becoming the first state to legitimately choose to redefine marriage through the democratic process, is different.

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim DouglasÂ’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

I disagree with the decision of the Vermont legislature. I question whether or not the people of the state actually support this move, and would like to know more about what polling data shows. I would support an effort by the people of the state to undo the decision. But my hat is off to those who achieved success the right way in Vermont today. It is my hope that supporters of gay marriage in other states will emulate their example of using the democratic process rather than the judicial process to accomplish their goal. That stands in contrast to the method used in Iowa, and the refusal of pro-gay marriage legislators to allow the people of Iowa to decide the matter by amending the state constitution, which is a repudiation of the democratic process.

H/T Gay Patriot

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

A few weeks ago, I was privileged to attend the funeral and burial of a fine and decent man whose life experience included serving as a crewman on a landing craft during the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. I remember him speaking of his experiences that day, and of the men who he watched die that day seeking to liberate Europe. And while he was a Yellow Dog Democrat, I know that the words of President Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D-Day were quite moving to him.

That is how a real president -- a real patriot -- honors American fighting men who gave their lives for freedom.

And then there is Barack Obama.

White House officials travelled to France at the start of March to discuss a visit by Mr Obama to Omaha Beach, the site of the American Cemetery, established in 1944 just after D-Day and where 9,387 American personnel are buried. Among them is Theodore Roosevelt Jr the eldest son of the 26th US President.

French officials and senior American military officers walked with White House staff through the cemetery discussing how the two presidents might follow the same route. But even before their trip, the White House had decided that Mr Obama would not travel there this week.

"It wasn't going to happen," said an American official in Washington. "We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda.

Got that – they went through the motions of discussing a visit to a cemetery full of our honored dead, but never seriously considered doing so. Utterly shameful.

H/T Debbie Schlussel

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 3 kb.

The Left claims that the Right does – simply because we oppose gun control and support the Second Amendment.

On the other hand, the Left supports an actual cop killer – who lost another bid to get a retrial after some 28 years after he murdered a police officer in cold blood.

Death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal lost his bid for a new trial in the killing of a city police officer after the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it will not take up the case.

Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther and one-time radio reporter, had claimed prosecutors improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted him of murdering white Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

* * *

The 25-year-old patrolman had pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother on a darkened downtown street. Prosecutors say Abu-Jamal saw the traffic stop and shot Faulkner, who managed to shoot back. A wounded Abu-Jamal, his own gun lying nearby, was still at the scene when police arrived. Authorities considered the evidence against him overwhelming.

Who on the Left supports this cop-killer? YouÂ’ll find plenty of prominent liberals (and no significant conservatives) here. So remember which side really supports cop-killing.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

It certainly is for one.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting D.C. delegate to the House who aspires to be its voting representative, has made clear that she regards questions of constitutionality as irrelevant and that she thinks members of the House and Senate do, too. "I don't think members are in the least bit affected in their votes on the question of its constitutionality," she said just last week. "People vote their politics in the House and in the Senate."

Tell me, Eleanor, on what other points do you find the Constitution irrelevant? There is plenty of good legal argumentation against the constitutionality of the DC Representation bill, and not much in its favor. Indeed, the Attorney General had to reject the best legal advice of the top lawyers in the Justice Department in order to get an opinion from another part of the Justice Department that said, in effect, “well, we can defend it if we have to.” What other parts of the Constitution will the jettison if it suits their politics?

Posted by: Greg at 12:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

As much as I hate ticket scalpers, I donÂ’t see this as an issue that Congress should be dealing with during a time of major economic upheaval.

Sen. Charles Schumer on Sunday unveiled a proposal aimed at giving fans a better chance to buy hot concert tickets at face value before ticket resellers scoop them up and raise the prices.

The proposed legislation would set a two-day waiting period from when tickets go on sale through normal channels before a ticket reseller can buy the tickets to put on the secondary market, Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a statement.

"The bottom line is we need to create a fair system where fans get first crack at good seats at a reasonable price," Schumer said.

Really, Chuckles? Fair as defined by who? Oh, yeah – by you and your constituents who couldn’t get ticket to see an over-the-hill rocker whose best work is at least two decades behind him.

But more to the point – don’t you have something more important to do during the Obama Economic Crisis?

Posted by: Greg at 12:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

You folks know my views on Barack Obama -- probably a nice guy in person, but not someone who I am inclined to support politically. But I do have to agree with the decision of one drugstore chain to ban the sale of this product.

It isn't about politics. It isn't about race. It is just plain about good taste -- or lack thereof in the case of this product. What more needs be said?

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ll be the first to say that the comment isn’t funny and isn’t appropriate – but the response is way over the top, perhaps indicating serious emotional instability on the part of Terry McAuliffe.

During a recent appearance on behalf of Bob McDonnell — the Republican candidate for governor — Huckabee wisecracked that if McDonnell's supporters bump into someone who isn't planning on voting for the Republican, they should "let the air out of their tires and do not let them out of their driveway on election day."

The joke is a Huckabee favorite: he recited it countless times at campaign stops nationwide during his failed bid to win the Republican nomination in 2007 and 2008.

Nevertheless, McAuliffe — who made more than a few surrogate appearances of his own on behalf of Bill and Hillary Clinton — is accusing of Huckabee of inciting "voter suppression."

"Let's be clear," he said in a statement. "There are no jokes to be made about denying people the right to vote in this country. It's not a laughing matter. This is a right that people fought and died for, so as public figures, we must be sure that we are setting the standard."

McAuliffe, who has made a point of highlighting his creation of a voting rights institute when he led the DNC, accused McDonnell of "standing by silently as Mike Huckabee encourages his supporters to suppress the vote."

Oh come on – like anyone really believed that was anything more than a lame attempt at humor that we’ve been hearing for a couple of years out of Huckabee. But more to the point, it isn’t Republicans who are documented as engaging precisely the tactics Huckabee joked about.

IÂ’ll side with the Huckster on this one.

“As someone who served as a Governor for 10 years, I can say if these are the type of things Terry McAuliffe worries about and make him break down and cry, then he won’t last 10 days as Governor much less four years and he doesn’t deserve the people of Virginia’s vote.”

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 3 kb.