Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has again said she is not interested in running for President of the United States.

Asked on NBC and on "Fox News Sunday" whether she would run for president in 2008, Rice said she is flattered but would decline.

"I'm not somebody who wants to run for office. I haven't ever run for anything," Rice told NBC. "I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy, American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time."

Pressed by host Tim Russert, Rice said, "I don't know how may ways to say no."

"So," asked Russert, "no ...?"

A few seconds of silence followed. "Tim," Rice said, "I don't know how many ways to tell people that I have no interest in being a candidate for anything. ... No."

She told Fox host Chris Wallace, "I'm quite certain that there are going to be really fine candidates for president from our party, and I'm looking forward to seeing them and perhaps supporting them."

Dr. Rice, what you fail to understand is that it is your reluctance that many of us find most attractive. You are not one of those folks who has spent decades creating a public persona and engaging in issue-triangulation to position yourself for a presidential run. You have instead become a cool, competent professional with the sort of expertise and experience that will make you a superb President. That is why we back you, not someone (like John McCain, for example) who long ago divested himself of his immortal soul in pursuit of higher office. That is why your support is strongest down here in the grassroots, not in the halls of power.

Frankly, Madam Secretary, I don't want you to come out and declare yourself a candidate. I want you to stay in your current office, doing what you do so well on behalf of this country. Because ultimately, I believe you when you say that you do not WANT to run for anything.

But what you must realize is that the movement we have here is a Draft Condi movement -- and we will settle for nothing less than a spot for you on the 2008 GOP ticket, preferrably at the top. And I have no doubt that, when you hear the call of your nation to high elected office, you will respond to that call and fulfill your duty to the American people.

It is a call to greatness, Dr. Rice -- and a call that I believe you must, in the end, heed for the sake of America.

Posted by: Greg at 08:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

When a group affiliated with the Minutemen tried to meet in a Chicago suburb yesterday, a protest against them was organized. I've got no problem with that, even though the organizers of the protest spew lies about the Minutemen and their goals.

The problem arose when one group of protesters tried to prevent American citizens from assembling to engage in political speech designed to encourage the government to act against the scourge of border-jumping immigration criminals.

About 500 people marched in Arlington Heights Saturday to protest a group fighting illegal immigration, in what led to five arrests and the shutdown of several streets for hours as 150 riot gear-clad police officers stood by to keep the peace.

Picketers said the Chicago Minuteman Project, a local branch of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps — a private group that patrols the United States-Mexico border — is anti-immigrant and racist because it specifically focuses on Mexican immigrants.

Five protesters were arrested on misdemeanor charges and later released on bond.

Those attending what was billed as the “America First Summit” Saturday at Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., said they’re not racist but that they’re worried about lax border security and the economic impact of illegal immigration.

“We need secure borders; we’re a country at war,” said Rosanna Pulido of Chicago, a co-founder of the Chicago Minuteman Project. “We have a big problem here in Chicago and in Illinois.”

I'm not going to dispute Ms. Pulido at all -- I teach at a school where about 1 in 5 students are either here illegally or the children of illegals. Hospital emergency rooms are overcrowded with illegals, and the cost is absorbed by those of us with insurance -- and by taxpayers who pick up the tab for the unpaid bills. And I will not get into the crime problems that come with the illegals.

But objecting to such problems makes one a hater, according to those who came out to protest.

Khem Nuth, organizing director for the immigrants coalition, which brought about 200 people to the protest, said she is concerned that her groupÂ’s message got lost in the scuffles.

“We were there to protest the racist Minutemen” and ask U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk whether he supports the Minutemen because of his votes in favor of the Patriot Act, Real ID Act, and a law requiring local police departments to fight illegal immigration, Nuth said.

“I don’t know how much of that was lost because of what happened today,” she said. “We wanted to let the community know that we protested the Minutemen being there, and I think that message was sent.”

Yeah, Khem, imagine that -- requiring that the police actually enforce the law. What are these horrible people thinking! I hope your message didn't get lost in the acts of violence that occurred -- I want peole to see how outrageously stupid your folks are and how absurd your position is.

And after all, it is your rhetoric that leads to violent action by some in your coalition -- calling folks racist for daring to hold the opinion that the US shoudl control its borders provokes the extremists on your side. After all, the Left believes that racists should be silenced. That is why you get this sort of activity.

Most of the protesters were peaceful, if loud, shouting slogans through bullhorns and banging on drums. But a small group of “anarchists” came looking for trouble, Arlington Heights Police Sgt. Richard Marcinkowski said.

That trouble began when protesters tried to block people from entering a school door on Walnut Avenue. As officers tried to move them out of the way, protesters linked arms and a scuffle ensued.

Officers retreated and called for reinforcements from the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System, which sent more than 100 officers from Deerfield, Des Plaines, Elk Grove Village, Glencoe, Lake Bluff, Lincolnshire, Palatine, Schaumburg, Skokie and Wheeling.

Police also closed several blocks of Euclid, Ridge and Walnut avenues to traffic and posted camouflage-clothed spotters on the academyÂ’s roof.

Marcinkowski said police planned to arrest the people who were trying to block the school entrance. But when five busloads of people arrived at 11 a.m. for their own protest, “some people learned they were targeted for arrest and tried to leave the area” by blending in with more peaceful marchers, he said.

When police did move in at 11:45 a.m., while the crowd marched west along Euclid Avenue, a riot almost broke out as officers pulled two women out of the crowd while other marchers screamed, “Let them go!” and stepped into the street.

Now I do have one problem with the attitude of the police and their spokesman.

Marcinkowski said some of the Minutemen baited protesters by demanding to use the Walnut Avenue entrance even though several other doors were available. “In my opinion, we had two unreasonable factions here, and we were caught in the middle,” he said.

No, Sgt. Marcinkowski, it is not unreasonable for a peaceful group to demand to be allowed to use the main door to a facility they have rented. It is not unreasonable for them to expect the police to keep order and to arrest those who are attempting to suppress their civil rights. Tell me, sir, would you have told the NAACP they couldn't use the front door if teh Klan had shown up and engaged in the behavior the pro-criminal Left was engaged in yesterday? I didn't think so. You would have engaged in proper police procedure, thrown up a heavy security cordon around the area, arrested anyone who dared to try to block the door, and made sure that the the rights of the NAACP were respected -- as you clearly failed to do yesterday for the Minutemen until the situation got out of control.

Posted by: Greg at 07:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 983 words, total size 6 kb.

I can't help but be struck by the contrast that exists between two events today. They show how some groups are a little more free, a little more equal, and endowed with a few more rights than others.

Our examination begins in Toledo, Ohio. It seems that black gangs have been terrorizing the community -- especially (according to some) the white residents of the community. An outside group decided to protest the seeming impotence of government in handling the problems of the perceived racist activity and went through all the legal hurdles to receive permission to engage in First Amendment protected speech. Unfortunately, the group was the "National Socialist Movement" (AKA the American Nazi Party), a disgusting group of racists and white supremacists who are rejected by all decent people, and which I condemn wholeheartedly.

So what happened when the march and rally were about to happen? Black gang members crawled out of the woodwork, engaged in acts of violence against the police and damage to the property of local business owners. The city's response was to trample the free speech rights of the Nazis, and cancel their event.

One member of the black community made this very frightening argument, one that I'm sure the Nazis will be able to use to make the argument that the rights of white people are in danger from lawless blacks.

Keith White, a black resident, criticized city officials for initially allowing the march.

"They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.

Mr. White (I won't get into the irony of that name) seems to believe that only the rights of those he agrees with are entitled to respect.

Let's move a bit east, to Washington, DC. Another group of racists rejected by anyone with a hint of moral values, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, sponsored a rally on the Mall to commemorate the not -nearly "Million Man March" held in 1995. The rhetoric heard from the platform of the Millions More Movement included the usual overblown crap about racism in America, and one speaker even referred to those with white skin as the enemy of his people. It was. in short, a racist rally designed to incite hatred and division -- every bit as much as the Nazi rally in Ohio.

Dozens of speakers -- academics, activists and media pundits -- took the microphone at the National Mall for a few minutes each. A speaker from a black gay group, added to the roster at the last minute, also spoke.

Organizers did not speculate on the size of the crowd, and police would not offer an estimate. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority said subway ridership by noon was 152,000. On the day of the march 10 years ago, ridership reached just over 804,000.

Participants said they were inspired by the gathering. Rapper Ryk-A-Shay, 24, joined relatives from North Carolina for the drive to Washington. "Any time we as a people can come together it's a beautiful thing," she said.

Yet there is one notable difference. No mob of whites stepped forward to engage in violence to stop the rally. No one that I am aware of suggests that this black supremacist rally should have been banned or that whites would have been justified in making sure it was shut down by any means necessary. It was, in fact, covered live by white-owned networks, so Farrakhan's message of racial hate would be heard from coast to coast.

Now tell me, friends and family of all races, ethnicities, and religions -- has free speech become a "black thing" reserved for them and denied to whites? Or will some responsible black leader step forward and condemn the suppression of the free speech rights of the Nazis in Toledo by a group of African-unAmerican criminals and the authorities who aided and abetted them?

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 4 kb.

One would assume that a prosecutor would need to actually have the document that proves his case before he gets an indictment. Not Ronnie Earle -- who is lacking a key document in his case against Tom DeLay and therefore plans on using a similar document that apparently is not connected to the activities for which DeLlay was indicted in an attempt to prove his guilt.

Travis County prosecutors admitted Friday they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money-laundering indictments against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and two of his associates.

The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House.

So the only thing that they are lacking in the case is -- proof.

But not to worry, there is this OTHER document that htey will substitute for the one that would actually prove that Delay and his associates committed a crime.

Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates.

But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a "similar" list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme.

A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s.

I would argue that what we have going on is less like the McCarthy hearings and closer to Stalin's show trials of the 1930s. After all, McCarthy's central premise about Communist infiltration of the government has since been proven essentially correct by records released after the fall of the Soviet Union. Stalin, on the other hand, simply wanted to bring down his political enemies and rivals.

Dick DeGuerin, who is defnding DeLay, makes this observation.

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin of Houston, was not present in court Friday. But he later said the lack of a list "destroys" District Attorney Ronnie Earle's case against the three men.

"That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said.

Thes indictments need to be dismissed, and Ronnie Earle and any lawyer from the Travis County DA's office involved in the case or investigation need to be disbarred or face other serious sanctions. You cannot indict someone based upon evidence you do not have.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

Before I was married, turning on the light in the kitchen of my seedy old apartment (in a 125-year-old building that had once served as a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying.

Well, an article in yesterday's Washington Post (which has the ethics of a saloon and bordello) sent the roaches scurrying over at the DC City Council (which some would argue is the moral equivalent of a saloon and bordello).

D.C. Council members, swamped with irate calls and threats to boycott D.C. bars and restaurants, introduced emergency legislation yesterday that would override the police department's controversial and little-known zero-tolerance policy for drinking and driving.

"We need to remedy this immediately," said council Chairman Linda W. Cropp (D), who is running for mayor.

Council member Adrian M. Fenty (D-Ward 4), another mayoral candidate, called the current situation "absurd."

D.C. police have said that District law gives them the authority to arrest drivers with blood alcohol levels above .01.

Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), a sponsor of the emergency legislation, said the measure no longer would allow that unless there was evidence of significant impairment.

"I just want to make sure that we clarify what our intent is. And our intent is certainly to get people who are intoxicated off our roads," she said. "But our intent is not to intimidate people who may have a glass of wine."

So what has been proposed in this legislation?

According to the D.C. Code, a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above is presumed intoxicated and may be arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Every state has in recent years set the same level -- acting quickly once Congress threatened to withhold highway dollars if they didn't.

In most states, including Maryland and Virginia, a driver with a blood alcohol level of less than .05 is generally presumed not intoxicated. The D.C. Code states, however, that drivers with "less than .03" percent blood alcohol are not presumed not intoxicated -- a provision that makes it easier to prove low blood alcohol cases in court.

The emergency legislation proposed by Schwartz, Cropp and council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) would strike that language from the code. Instead, they propose bringing the District in line with the states and adding language to make clear that drivers with less than .05 blood alcohol are presumed not intoxicated.

Between .05 and .08, is a "neutral zone," Schwartz said, where no presumption about intoxication is made. And blood alcohol content may be considered with other factors to prove a driver's impairment.

Sounds like common sense to me.

Posted by: Greg at 03:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 441 words, total size 3 kb.

Congressman Melvin Watt wants the Voting Rights Act renewed and strengthened because, he claims, white voters are racist. The North Carolina Democrat bases his position on old data and the new racism espoused by the African-American establishment.

"Race has to be taken into account to factor out the people on the other side" who would refuse to vote for a minority candidate because of their race," Watt said. He added that he thinks much voting is based on race, not partisanship.

Watt told Cybercast News Service that his views are based on a 1980s blind poll of North Carolinians, which he said revealed that 30 percent of whites would not vote for a black candidate under any circumstances.

Watt told the commission that if another poll were conducted today, "there would be a substantial majority of white voters who would say that under no circumstances would they vote for an African American candidate." He later amended his comments, allowing that "some of them would."

So based upon one really old study that showed a minority would not vote for a black candidate, Watt concludes that today a majority would refuse to do so – and points to “the other side” as those who would refuse to vote for minority candidates. This flies in the face of what experience has shown, as the GOP has elected folks like JC Watts in a predominantly white district in Oklahoma and Michael Steele as Lt. Governor of Maryland. Steele is the preferred candidate of the Maryland GOP for Senate in 2006, and many Republicans are excited about the possibility of having Condoleezza Rice on the GOP ticket in 2008. I can only conclude that Watt is incorrect with regard to the Republican Party.

Is Watt perhaps thinking that it is white DEMOCRATS who will refuse to give their vote to an African-American? Does he believe that his own party is made up of unreconstructed white racists? And if he does, why wonÂ’t he come out and say it clearly? Has Watt sold out his own race, becoming an Uncle Tom who whores the votes of his people in return for a crumb of political power?

Or is Watt simply a liar?

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

John Kerry may be pro-choice on abortion and Catholic theology, but he certainly opposes giving public employees a choice on whether or not their union dues can be used for political purposes.

Kerry was the second leading national politician this week to weigh in on California's Prop. 75 ballot initiative, which would require unions to get approval from members before using dues for political causes.
"This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said.
"They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans," said the Massachusetts senator, who was speaking to reporters at a fire station with Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Kerry, however, lied in that statement. Proposition 75 would simply require that a worker give his permission before his dues were used for politicking rather than negotiation and representation. Unions would still be permitted to give make endorsements and devote resources to campaign for candidates – but the members would have the right to opt out of supporting the political activities of the union while still retaining the right to vote on their contracts. Currently, the only for a public employee to avoid forced contributions to candidates they oppose is for the employee to opt to pay the union an agency fee of about 80% of regular dues and forfeit their right to vote on the union-negotiated contract while still being bound by its terms.

(Move Coverage on the issue of Prop 75 and the California Teachers Assosiation over at Right on the Left Coast -- specific posts are here, here, here and here -- as well as all these others.)

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 3 kb.

John Kerry may be pro-choice on abortion and Catholic theology, but he certainly opposes giving public employees a choice on whether or not their union dues can be used for political purposes.

Kerry was the second leading national politician this week to weigh in on California's Prop. 75 ballot initiative, which would require unions to get approval from members before using dues for political causes.
"This represents part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to create an unfair playing field, to change the balance of democracy in America," Kerry said.
"They are willing to try to take away the democratic rights of working Americans," said the Massachusetts senator, who was speaking to reporters at a fire station with Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Kerry, however, lied in that statement. Proposition 75 would simply require that a worker give his permission before his dues were used for politicking rather than negotiation and representation. Unions would still be permitted to give make endorsements and devote resources to campaign for candidates – but the members would have the right to opt out of supporting the political activities of the union while still retaining the right to vote on their contracts. Currently, the only for a public employee to avoid forced contributions to candidates they oppose is for the employee to opt to pay the union an agency fee of about 80% of regular dues and forfeit their right to vote on the union-negotiated contract while still being bound by its terms.

(Move Coverage on the issue of Prop 75 and the California Teachers Assosiation over at Right on the Left Coast -- specific posts are here, here, here and here -- as well as all these others.)

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 3 kb.

That seems to be the Kennedy family motto – whether they are laws regarding vehicular homicide, security checkpoints at airports, sexual assault, or environmental regulations.

Professed environmentalist Max Kennedy is due in court on the Cape today to answer chargeshe violated town conservation rules by clear-cutting a coastal bank on his Hyannisport property.

Kennedy, son of Ethel and the late Bobby Kennedy, was found responsible for cutting the vegetation in violation of restrictions the town Conservation Commission had set. He was assessed a $150 fine, which he did not pay, and he has to appear today for an arraignment.

``He is supposed to show up,'' said town conservation agent Darcy Karle. ``As a courtesy I contacted his attorney and told him that Mr. Kennedy needed to show up and pay the fine or a warrant for his arrest would be issued.''

Do we need to tell you this is not Kennedy's first run-in with the town conservation types? Kennedy, an avowed tree-hugger who formerly ran the Watershed Institute at Boston College and briefly flirted with a congressional run in 2001, was fined twice in 1998 for clearing brush and trees on his Cape property.

To build a touch-football field. Of course.

Kennedy is also currently in violation of wetlands protection laws for a pier he built off the back of his Maywood Avenue home. Karle said Kennedy constructed the pier without first submitting the proper paperwork, and that lights on the end of the dock are in violation.

Kennedy had asked for a hearing on Sept. 27 to answer to all the charges, then didn't show up.

Kennedy is currently under orders to replant shrubs on the bank and to remove the too-bright lights at the end of his pier. His attorney did not return our call. But do stay tuned . . . .

I guess such rules are only for the common people – but America’s royal family can get away with murder – and raping the land.

Posted by: Greg at 12:02 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

Fresh off their series of sob stories about teens and young adults sentenced to life without parole for heinous murders, the New York Times laments the harshness of laws that disenfranchise convicted felons – including those still in jail.

The United States has the worst record in the democratic world when it comes to stripping convicted felons of the right to vote. Of the nearly five million people who were barred from participating in the last presidential election, for example, most, if not all, would have been free to vote if they had been citizens of any one of dozens of other nations. Many of those nations cherish the franchise so deeply that they let inmates vote from their prison cells.

The basis for the position taken by the Times? International standards and a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. American constitutional law and history simply are not good enough for them. No doubt the editors of the Times are longing for the day when, as in this last termÂ’s Simmons case, a bare majority of Supreme Court justices remove another policy decision from the hands of the people on the basis of laws which are alien to our tradition but popular among the wwine-and-brie set in the tonier parts of NYC.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Washington State GOP leasers are concerned about the failure of public officials to address documented voter fraud and double registrations brought to light by the fraud and incompetence laden gubernatorial election.

Just one month before voters decide the future of King County's Democratic executive, Ron Sims, Republican Party leaders yesterday accused his administration of failing to remove thousands of duplicate registrations from the voter rolls.

GOP officials and Republican members of the Metropolitan King County Council said they officially will challenge the registrations of about 2,050 voters Monday.

In all, they said they found nearly 3,400 voters they suspect are registered twice with the county's Elections Office. They say they are challenging only those they can fully document.

As I recall, following the 2000 election debacle, the GOP went to great lengths to correct problems uncovered in Florida. Washington Democrats, on the other hand, are less interested in fair elections than in hanging on to power in an illegitimate fashion.

Posted by: Greg at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Larry Elder makes this observation of George W. Bush and his policies regarding the poor and minorities.

Bottom line, under President Bush, the nation has seen the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted spending since President Lyndon B. Johnson. Indeed, much to the chagrin of fiscal conservatives, President Bush's budgets -- even excluding defense and homeland security spending -- make him the biggest spending president in 30 years.

But, Bush doesn't care about the poor.

There's a saying: We don't care how much you know, until we know how much you care. If one measures compassion by "outreach," the president placed more minorities and women in his government and with power positions than any president before him. If one measures compassion by spending, the president owes no one an apology.

None of this matters, of course, as long as you're a Republican. If "love means never having to say you're sorry," being a Republican means always having to say it.

But facts, of course, are irrelevant when it comes to liberal charges of racism, sexism, and hard-heartedness.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Under state law, citizens may contribute up to $4950 to mayoral candidates. But under federal law, congresscritters are limited to raising only $2100 for such candidates. Looks like John Kerry may have crossed the line.

A Sept. 15 E-mail from Kerry to potential Ferrer donors failed to note that the former presidential candidate is barred from hitting up Ferrer supporters for more than $2,100. That could violate the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

"Under a reasonable reading of the regulations and the advisory opinion, the lack of a disclaimer violated the rule about soliciting soft money," said Larry Noble, of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Kerry's missive had links to a page on Ferrer's Web site that allows donors to select amounts up to $250 - or write in a figure.

In New York, donors to a mayoral candidate may contribute up to $4,950. But as a senator, Kerry's solicitations are limited by federal rules, and according to a Federal Election Commission opinion, he must "expressly qualify or limit" his request with a disclaimer to make it clear he's only soliciting funds that comply with federal law.

This is just one more example of the stupidity of campaign finance laws. He is forbidden from soliciting LEGAL donations. Time to repeal all of the campaign participation restriction laws.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

It must suck to be this guy -- everyone will be gunning for him in 2006.

The son of Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle plans to run for the Texas House.

Jason Earle will campaign for House District 47 in Southwest Travis County.

The district's current representative Terry Keel said he won't run for reelection. Instead, he is seeking a seat on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Earle will formally announce his candidacy at 10 a.m. Tuesday at Pease Elementary School in Central Austin.

Gee -- thanks dad!

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that producer Stephen Bing has made a small contribution to a group opposing the non-partisan redistricting of California legislative and congressional seats. The measure is designed to stop Democrat gerrymandering of districts that keeps Republicans from coming close to winning the number of seats their voting strength suggests they should hold.

Hollywood producer Stephen L. Bing has donated $4 million to oppose Proposition 77, which would strip legislators of the power to draw the boundaries of their districts.

The donation - the largest, single contribution from an individual in the special election campaign - was given to a committee headed by University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Daniel Lowenstein, a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

The committee's backers include Democratic members of California's congressional delegation. Some members' jobs could be in jeopardy if voters approve Proposition 77 on the Nov. 8 ballot. The initiative would authorize a panel of retired judges to determine legislative and congressional boundaries, rather than legislators.

The group had previously raised only $1.4 million -- meaning that Bing's donation is equivalent to nearly triple the amount previously raised by the group.

I'm curious -- if corporate donations, no matter how small, are corrupting of politics, and if unlimited donations to individual candidates are corrupting of politics, what can one say about this sort of contribution to a Democrat front organization?

And what's in it for Bing? What favors will he get in return from the group's supporters among the Democrat legislators?

It seems to me that the money should be returned, in the spirit preserving good government and clean campaigns -- at least if liberals really believe that campaign donations are corrupting of the political process.

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Bill White has said the following regarding Proposition 2 (as set forth in Texas HJR 6), which would insert the traditional definition of marriage overwhelmingly supported by Texans int he state Constitution.

Houston Mayor Bill White took no official stance but suggested the amendment is divisive.

"As mayor, I avoid commenting on state and federal laws and policies I do not influence," White said. "I intend to vote 'no' on the proposed state constitutional amendment to protest its use as a wedge issue."

Gee -- how is it divisive to pass a law that is overwhelmingly supported by virtually every demographic group in the state of Texas? Isn't the division actually being cause by those who would impose their values on the state of Texas through the courts, against the will of the people of Texas? You know, those who seek to force the overwhelming majority of Texans to act contrary to their religious beliefs for the benefit of no more than 5%?

Despite the Chronicle's attempt to paint the issue as divisive, by this time next mont it will be clear that Texans are united in opposition to homosexual marriage. -- and it will be clear who is sowing division.

Oh, and by the way, don't forget that there are nine proposed amendments on the November ballot. You can find them here.

Posted by: Greg at 12:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

This time they were in Paris, and their weapon of choice was a cream pie.

French anti-fur activists said they struck Anna Wintour, editor of the U.S. edition of Vogue, in the face with a cream pie on Saturday to protest against her support for the use of animal fur by the fashion industry.

Wintour, dressed in a fur-trimmed black jacket, was hit in the face with a tofu cream pie as she left the Chloe fashion ready-to-wear show at the Tuileries Gardens in central Paris, members of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said.

It was the second such attack this year on Wintour, an unapologetic fur supporter decried by animal rights groups as a "pelt pusher."

"Wintour is fur-bearing animals' worst enemy because her magazine continues to feature dozens of pages of pro-fur editorials and advertising each year," PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor told Reuters by phone in Paris.

"She takes big glossy advertisements for fur and she refuses to run any anti-fur ads, even paid ones, so she's a big fur supporter," Taylor said.

Wintour was unavailable for comment on the incident.

I'd like to encourage Ms. Wintour to purchase a firearm, and to make use of it the next time she is so approached. It is time to meet their acts of violence with a response that will catch their attention -- and the attention of their survivors.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

The DeLay camp is alleging unethical and illegal conduct by Ronnie Earle in securing the second indictment against the Majority Leader after initially securing an indictment for a crime that did not exist.

"During the five-day period of Sept. 29, 2005, to Oct. 3, 2005, Ronnie Earle and his staff engaged in an extraordinarily irregular, and desperate attempt to contrive a viable charge and get a substitute indictment of Tom DeLay before the expiration of the statute of limitations on Oct. 3, 2005," the motion states.

The motion claims that Earle and his staff "attempted to browbeat and coerce" a grand jury to change its decision to no-bill DeLay on a separate money-laundering charge. In addition, the motion says that the prosecutors "unlawfully attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure" of that no-bill.

Richard Bernal of Austin, foreman of the grand jury that didn't indict DeLay, said he had no comment on the allegations in DeLay's motion. He said he had not spoken with DeGuerin or anyone on DeLay's legal team.

On Oct. 3, a newly sworn-in grand jury indicted DeLay on money-laundering and conspiracy charges. Earle said then those indictments were based on "additional information" that had come to his attention.

The motion also accuses the district attorney's office of inciting the foreman of the first grand jury to talk "publicly, and on the record, to the media, in an effort to bias the public and sitting grand jurors."

That foreman, William M. Gibson Jr. of Austin, has given interviews to reporters. He has not discussed the evidence against DeLay but has said that Earle did not pressure the jurors to vote to indict.

On Thursday, Gibson, 76, told Austin radio station KLBJ that Earle's staff said "that we were free to talk to the media if we wanted to, that the media was a very good source of information for everybody."

On Friday, the retired state insurance investigator told the Houston Chronicle that Earle did not incite him to talk.

He said he answered questions when reporters called but didn't divulge any secret information.

"I don't think I did anything wrong," said Gibson.

Now let's look at this very closely. After three years and (if I remember correctly) six grand juries, Ronnie Earle finally got DeLay indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in 2002. The problem was that the statute did not go into effect for nearly a year after DeLay's actions -- and DeLay's participation in the conspiracy was his failure to attempt to stop a financial transaction that the PAC's lawyers said was legal and commonplace. By the time the flaw was discovered, the grand jury had been dismissed because its term had expired. That grand jury was told it was free to talk to the press about the case, according to its foreman, a partisan Democrat who admits that his decision to indict was based upon press reports and other information that was not (and could not have been) presented to the grand jury.

By the next day, the indictment had been torn to shreds by a great number of commentators and analysts, including many who oppose Tom DeLay. The Travis County DA therefore sought an additional indictment to backstop the first, and presented the same evidence to another grand jury that was about to expire, hoping to get an indictment that the pliant first grand jury refused to give him. Earle expected the second indictment to be forthcoming, because they would not have heard all of the contradictory evidence given to the first grand jury during its term, just the evidence that Earle cherry-picked to make his case. But an indictment wasn't forthcoming, and the grand jurors no-billed the case. Ronnie Earle was visibly angry and attempted to pressure the grand jurors into doing his biddingdespite their conviction that ther ewas no basis for charges. He then instructed them that grand jury secrecy rules applied to them even after their term was up and that they could not speak to the media.

Over the weekend, Earle and his employees called the members of the expired grand jury to discuss the "additional evidence" that was presented to the second grand jury -- which appears to be a violation of grand jury secrecy, since it involved the discussion of the activities decisions and deliberations of that grand jury with individuals who were not a part of that or any other sitting grand jury -- and polled them on whether they would have issued an indictment on specific charges. This action certainly crosses ethical boundaries,and probably legal ones as well.

On October 3, Ronnie Earle presented the same evidence to the a brand new grand jury -- supplemented by the opinions of the members of the defunct grand jury which had indicted on a charge that didn't exist. These opinions were the "new evidence" which constituted the basis for presenting the evidence to the third grand jury in less than a week. The third grand jury was persuaded in a matter of hours to return an indictment on charges that could bring life in prison for one of Ronnie Earle's biggest political targets to date, despite the fact that one grand jury had found no evidence of a crime and the other had only been willing to return an indictment on a much less substantial charge. Why? Because Earle presented material that was not evidence, but rather a statement of opinion of the former grand jurors. Thus the Travis County DA secured an indictment by saying that he and the other grand jury had made a mistake, and here's how we want you to fix it

In short, what we have here is an example of the old saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wants it to -- but only if he has access to a sufficient number of grand juries to do so.

(More at Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 6 kb.

The man who claims that corporate cash is corrupting to politics seems to have taken a fair amount of it himself.

Rep. Tom DeLay said District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who is prosecuting him for trying to involve corporate money in Texas politics, has taken such contributions himself.

"It's real interesting he has this crusade against corporate funds. He took corporate funds, and he's taken union funds, for his own re-election. That's against the law," Mr. DeLay told The Washington Times yesterday.

A review of Mr. Earle's campaign-finance filings in Texas shows that he has received contributions from the AFL-CIO, including a $250 donation on Aug. 29, 2000. He also has received contributions listed on the disclosure forms only as coming from the name of an incorporated entity, often a law firm.

Mr. Earle has said repeatedly that state law bars corporate and union contributions. Attempts to reach Mr. Earle yesterday for comment, including a phone message left on his assistant's voice mail detailing Mr. DeLay's charge, were unsuccessful.

So not only is he a politically motivated, partisan grand jury shopper, but he is also one of the very sort of corrupt politicians who he regularly rails against as being corrupted by corporate money.

Posted by: Greg at 11:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

I do wish folks would realize that private companies have the right to set certain standards on their property, and to refuse to serve those who engage in unacceptable behavior and speech.

Take this case.

A Portland woman's flight home was stopped short in Reno, all because the message on the T-shirt she was wearing.

Lorrie Heasley claims it's a freedom of speech privilege, but airline officials say the message brings safety concerns.

Heasley, "There are bigger problems in the country, I can't believe people can be so petty."

Heasley boarded her flight Tuesday morning in Los Angeles, headed for Portland, Oregon with a stopover in Reno. But when Southwest Airlines employees asked her to cover her shirt, her stop over became a stop off her flight.

"I was told that basically that I had to cover my shirt, or I was told if I cover the shirt I can basically stay on the plane."

So she covered the shirt, but during a nap while passengers were boarding in Reno the cover came off. And Southwest employees insisted, change the shirt, or change flights. "I didn't feel that I should have to change my shirt, because we live in the United States, and it's freedom of speech and it was based on the move "The Fockers", and I didn't think it should have offended anyone."
But it did.

The shirt had pictures of members of the Bush Administration, and a phrase based on the movie "Meet the Fockers," but with one crucial vowel changed.

Oh. You seem to think that you have the right to subject a captive audience to an obscenity. Wrong. The airline was well within its rights to tell you to change the shirt or go elsewhere. After all – it was protecting the rights of all the other passengers. I might have more sympathy with you if the objection wee based upon your infantile politics rather than your infantile form of self-expression, but the airline made the correct call here. For that matter, it would have even been acceptable, legally, to have required that you to remove the political speech, since it was by private directive rather than government mandate.

Let me give an example. Many years ago, I worked for an amusement park that used the Looney Toons characters as part of its theme. It had a policy of asking patrons who wore Disney character clothing to the park to change the clothing or turning the shirt inside out. One could argue that it was a bad idea, but it certainly was not a violation of any constitutional right – that would have required public action.

The moonbats are, of course, out in full force on the usual liberal sites. They have, of course, no leg to stand on – especially since liberals are usually the first to call for censorship of offensive speech.

Posted by: Greg at 11:09 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, here is another “animal rights” “activist” who does not have a clue.

Peter Daniel Young, 28, told The Associated Press during a jailhouse interview that serving time will be nothing compared to what caged animals suffer.

"As bad as it could get, it will never be as bad as it was for those mink," Young said. "I would do it all over again."

Now I’ll grant you that your jail sentence is not likely to end with you being skinned and turned into an article of clothing, but I think your time will be mighty unpleasant none the less. I’m curious – do you prefer the name “Susie” or “Michelle”?

Actually, I apologize for that question – I shouldn’t be joking about your place on the food chain in the Wisconsin state penal system (heh-heh-heh – I typed “penal”).

I guess what is particularly amusing is your self righteous belief that there was something noble and courageous about your actions.

Prosecutors believe Young and an accomplice were acting on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front when they broke onto mink farms in Iowa, South Dakota and Wisconsin in 1997 and freed about 7,000 mink. The FBI considers groups like ALF among the nation's top domestic terrorist threats.

Young, 28, scoffed at the comparison.

"If saving thousands of lives makes a terrorist, then I certainly embrace the label," Young said. "I would have been just as fast to act if those cages had been filled with human beings."

Yeah, that’s the ticket – those nasty little rodents are identical to human beings. No doubt you find the industrial-scale murder that went on at Auschwitz to be no more evil that what goes on at that farm. That, Peter, is why your ideology is utterly bankrupt, and why you can only succeed in imposing your ideological preferences by campaigns of violence and property destruction, not by persuasion. After all, sane people recognize the difference between human beings and animals, and recognize that human life does have an innately higher value that that of other creatures. If you cannot recognize that human beings are different, then you clearly have a problem. Quick – a boy and a puppy are in the middle of a road with a truck rushing at them at 70 MPH. Which should you save, or does it make a difference?

"Most people are just appalled I'd be put in prison for freeing the animals," he said. "I wish nothing short of the end of the entire (fur) industry ... they kill for what they do."

Actually, you moron, most folks are not troubled at all that you are going to be put in prison for engaging in breaking and entering, malicious vandalism of private property, and the attempted destruction of a business. Personally, I am appalled that you are not facing two years in prison for each mink that was turned loose.

Oh, and by the way, you do realize that those 7000 farm-bred mink could not survive in the wild, and would therefore died an equally horrible death – and that you are responsible for that. Did you wan all the local predators of the immorality of eating these confused and defenseless creatures?

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.

A little more on the activities of Ronnie Earle, Partisan Witch Hunter.

A Texas prosecutor tried to convince a grand jury that Representative Tom DeLay gave tacit approval to a series of laundered campaign contributions, and when jurors declined to indict, he became angry, according to two people directly familiar with the proceeding.

The grand jury was one of three that considered whether there was probable cause to indict DeLay. Two other grand juries did indict the former House majority leader, who had to step aside temporarily under Republican rules.

Both indictments focused on an alleged scheme to provide corporate political donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The two people interviewed, who commented anonymously because of grand jury secrecy, said Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle became visibly angry when the grand jurors last week signed a document declining to indict, known as a ''no bill."

One person said the sole evidence Earle presented was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor, in which DeLay said he was generally aware of activities of his associates. He is charged in an alleged money- laundering scheme to funnel corporate donations to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law.

The person said that Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay ''didn't say 'Stop it,' he gave his tacit approval."

After the grand jurors declined to go forward, the mood ''was unpleasant," the other person said, describing Earle's reaction.

In other words, the grand jury that heard all the evidence determined there was no crime in DeLayÂ’s activities, but that was not good enough for Ronnie Earle. He therefore went to a grand jury that heard only cherry-picked elements of the case to secure the indictment that the better-informed grand jury refused to issue.

Posted by: Greg at 11:05 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

1 yeah he sure is a witch hunter, given the 12 of his 15 political prosecutions have been democrats. you are an ass. Fucking moron.

Posted by: at Thu Oct 6 12:36:58 2005 (jU/el)

2 I see you got the MoveOn.org talking points.

The problem was that the Democrats are all in the far past, and were all folks who were running against candidates he supported. He used his office to bring charges against his political enemies at a time when they were still in the Democrat Party.

If you were someone who lived in Texas, or who had done a little research, you would know that.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Oct 6 14:00:00 2005 (wfdL5)

3 If Texas were the last inhabitable place on this earth I'd rather fucking die than live in that laboratory for shitty government.

Posted by: at Thu Oct 6 15:10:03 2005 (Oqxq2)

4 If the 12 out 15 who were indicted as Democrats, then that means Democrats break Texas laws at frequency 4 times greater than Republicans? If you take DeLay out (by which he didn't do anything in the first place) and Hutchinson, then it'd be a frequency of 5 times greater where well known Texan Democrats would have the tendency to break Texas laws in politics.




Nameless coward are you?

Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Oct 6 16:01:47 2005 (o58ig)

5 Actually, the laboratories for shitty government are found in New Jersey and Louisiana.

Posted by: RHymes With Right at Thu Oct 6 16:54:29 2005 (N3x4T)

6 Delay is a attack dog and it shows by his reaction that whole bunch rove delay and the white house attack whenever something pops out that catches them in wrong doing Outing a CIA agent is treason but will anything be done about it ?

Posted by: ikele 76 at Sat Oct 8 06:08:27 2005 (xW3w3)

7 This is insanity, M. Rhymes-- if conservative shit-gimps like yourself are honestly sure that Delay hasn't done anything wrong, why not just allow him to go to court and clear his name?

Posted by: James H. Pierce at Sat Oct 8 08:31:07 2005 (foso/)

8 Ok Rhymes lets accuse you of say Pedophilia and if your innocent it will be proved in court... maybe

Posted by: Mike Haskins at Sat Oct 8 08:43:56 2005 (REJwo)

9 Excuse me I ment Pierce

Posted by: Michael Haskins at Sat Oct 8 08:46:17 2005 (REJwo)

10 I love it when the Leftists show up spewing profanity and poorly punctuated talking points. But I think I will answer their points.

1) What do you expect him to do when he is indicted on a charge that did not even exist at the time he supposedly did the act -- sit quietly by and allow the prosecution to continue? Did you expect him to remain quiet when the prosecutor engaged in unethical -- and likely illegal -- activity with regards to securing the indictment? In such a case it is appropriate to go on the offensive.

2) Last time I checked, treason is clearly defined in Article III of the US Constitution, as is the standard for proving it. Insofar as i can tell, no one in the plame case has made war on the United States, adhered to the enemies of the United States (well, maybe Wilson did) or given them aid and comfort. I do not believe there are two witnesses to the same overt act. Therefore there could never be a conviction that would pass Constitutional muster.

3) Why not let DeLay go on trial? Simple -- because I don't believe that someone should have to defend themselves from a legally insufficient indictment. Such indictments are the stock-in-trade of the American Left -- witness the Ray Donovan trial during the Reagan Administration for an earlier example.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Oct 8 09:06:11 2005 (F3Bvt)

11 Funny how the left doesn't question why it took 3 years and 6 grand juries to finally come up with an indictment on a conspiracy charge? And yet that couldn't stick for obvious legal reasons. And a 7th grand jury was contrived for the sake of tacking a "money laundering" charge on top of the conspiracy charge in just a day.

Seems to me the evidence weighs more against Ronnie Earle at political hacking and prosecutorial misconduct than there is evidence of DeLay of money laundering. Earle's actions alone seemed to have did him in where he has tried for so long to come up with a charge just enough to get DeLay to step down as the House majority leader. Knowing full well that even if DeLay does clear his name, he would unable to return to his seat in time.

Now, looking in the past, not only did he indict Kay Bailey Hutchison within days after she won her Senate seat (the first such seat occupied by a Republican since 1875), but he also "investigated" or indicted Democrats who managed to get on his wrong side, like Gib Lewis, who once ran against Earle for office, and Bob Bullock, the Democrat political mentor of President Bush.

At a recent Democrat fundraiser, Earle compared Tom DeLay to a bully. Such a thing is not only in bad taste, but is probably also illegal, since the ABA's Canon of Ethics prohibits extra-judicial statements concerning "the character...of the accused" or "any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the evidence, or the merits of the case." Apparently, Earle is using his power to prosecute DeLay in the media before he tries to prosecute him in court. The potential for contaminating the jury pool is mind-boggling. It would be nice to bring down Ronnie Earle on ethics charges. Such a thing could happen -- Tom DeLay is a tough fighter and Ronnie Earle just may have met his match.
(from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1493863/posts)

For Earle's antics alone on how he abused the court system and should be disbarred.

Send in your complaints regarding Earle to the Texas Bar Association demanding he be disbarred.

The required grievance form, download the document here:

http://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/attydiscipline/howfile.html


Address to send it:

http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=3961&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

It ain't over folks. Just as when bloggers do find the truth as they did on Rather's fakey Bush Memo case, they'll get to the bottom of it and show the true light of Earle's poltical hacking career.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Oct 8 10:38:44 2005 (CQ3Yp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Earlier this week, Rep. Charlie Rangel made the following statement regarding Vice President Dick Cheney.

On Friday evening, Rangel was asked in a follow-up talk on the station if he thought Cheney should step down.

"He should never have stepped up in the first place," Rangel said. "He's too old for the job and doesn't have the experience."

Cheney, responding, offered the following observation about Rangel, who is some 11 years older than the Vice President.

Months of verbal attacks from Rangel turned into a back and forth on Monday when the 64-year-old vice president said Rangel is "losing it," later adding that "Charlie is a lot older than I am, and it shows."

Now Rangel is waxing indignant over Cheney's comment -- arguing that Cheney ought to be ashamed of himself for attacking him for being a senior citizen!

"I think it ends when he apologizes for attacking me as a senior citizen. It's true that I'm much older than he is, but that has nothing to do with mental alertness," Rangel said.

I guess its true -- there are much more permissive standards for Democrats than Republicans, especially if the Democrat is black.

(Hat Tip -- Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 01:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 2 kb.

When a media source like the Austin American-Statesman makes such criticisms of a liberal, you know that the person in question has really engaged in extreme actions.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has added several more acts to the already circus-like investigation of alleged Republican campaign funding illegalities.

The latest act unfolded on Tuesday afternoon when Earle disclosed that he had gone grand jury shopping on Friday after an indictment against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, which was returned last Wednesday, was questioned for its legality.

Working on its last day, a second grand jury declined to indict DeLay on Friday.

Earle's office said it received new information over the weekend, so it went to yet a third grand jury empaneled on Monday, the last possible day under the statute of limitations. That grand jury returned the new indictments.

Earle's panicked rush lends credence to those who complain that he is a partisan playing politics with the grand jury, and it gives ammunition to critics who argue that he has been hapless in his three-year probe.

Earle has been shopping for a friendly grand jury for years, and finally got one that could be led by the nose to indict his political foe with just a couple of hours worth of cajoling after the earlier one refused to give him what he wanted. It is time for a judge to dismiss the whole thing – and for Ronnie to be dismissed by the people of Travis County.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Ronnie Earle certainly raised the stakes with this charge, and in the process made it even more clear how partisan this indictment is.

While DeLay kept up his drumbeat on television and radio about partisan prosecution, the biggest effect of the new indictment on the criminal case was to make the case harder for prosecutors to prove. Most of the underlying allegations remain the same, but prosecutors now must prove DeLay conspired to launder money, a first-degree felony that carries a maximum life term. The previous conspiracy charge was a state-jail felony with a two-year maximum.

"They've upped the stakes," DeGuerin said.

The reindictment also consolidated DeLay's case with that of two associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, on the same charges, according to a statement from Earle's office.

First, the goal now is to destroy Tom Delay personally, not just politically, for daring to stand up to Earle’s political thuggery. Second, by consolidating the cases Earle is seeking to make sure that the jury gets confused as to who did what, making it more likely that the jury will convict DeLay of something because “he must have done something if he is on trial with these other two guys.”

The other interesting detail is that Earle ran the new indictments past members of the expired grand jury over the weekend, after their term was over.

Prosecutors ran the idea of a money-laundering indictment against DeLay by the previous grand jury by phone over the weekend, sources close to the investigation said.

I’m curious – doesn’t that violate ethical and legal restrictions on disclosing material from an investigation and of grand jury proceedings to those outside the process, since the folks consulted were no longer part of a live grand jury? Isn’t that simply one more indication of how far this unethical little weasel from Travis County will go to overthrow the will of the majority of Texans – and the voters of the 22nd Congressional District?

UPDATE: National Review’s Media Blog has an interesting analysis of the new charges and why it may be that Ronnie Earle is again overreaching in an attempt to get a conviction where no actual criminal activity took place. It is also noted that the transaction that took place is substantially similar to other transactions that took place involving groups on both sides of the political fence – with the Democrats converting twice the dollar amount as the Republicans did.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

Ronnie Earle certainly raised the stakes with this charge, and in the process made it even more clear how partisan this indictment is.

While DeLay kept up his drumbeat on television and radio about partisan prosecution, the biggest effect of the new indictment on the criminal case was to make the case harder for prosecutors to prove. Most of the underlying allegations remain the same, but prosecutors now must prove DeLay conspired to launder money, a first-degree felony that carries a maximum life term. The previous conspiracy charge was a state-jail felony with a two-year maximum.

"They've upped the stakes," DeGuerin said.

The reindictment also consolidated DeLay's case with that of two associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, on the same charges, according to a statement from Earle's office.

First, the goal now is to destroy Tom Delay personally, not just politically, for daring to stand up to Earle’s political thuggery. Second, by consolidating the cases Earle is seeking to make sure that the jury gets confused as to who did what, making it more likely that the jury will convict DeLay of something because “he must have done something if he is on trial with these other two guys.”

The other interesting detail is that Earle ran the new indictments past members of the expired grand jury over the weekend, after their term was over.

Prosecutors ran the idea of a money-laundering indictment against DeLay by the previous grand jury by phone over the weekend, sources close to the investigation said.

I’m curious – doesn’t that violate ethical and legal restrictions on disclosing material from an investigation and of grand jury proceedings to those outside the process, since the folks consulted were no longer part of a live grand jury? Isn’t that simply one more indication of how far this unethical little weasel from Travis County will go to overthrow the will of the majority of Texans – and the voters of the 22nd Congressional District?

UPDATE: National Review’s Media Blog has an interesting analysis of the new charges and why it may be that Ronnie Earle is again overreaching in an attempt to get a conviction where no actual criminal activity took place. It is also noted that the transaction that took place is substantially similar to other transactions that took place involving groups on both sides of the political fence – with the Democrats converting twice the dollar amount as the Republicans did.

Posted by: Greg at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

Essentially the same accusation -- except that this time Ronnie Earle got a newly empanelled grand jury to ifix the flawed indictment issued last week, using a new grand jury that had not heard most of the evidence provided to the old grand jury.

Why do this?

The new indictment comes hours after DeLay's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the first case. That motion was based on the argument that the conspiracy charge against DeLay was based on a law that wasn't effective until 2003, the year after the alleged money transfers.

“Since the indictment charges no offense, and since you have professed not to be politically motivated in bringing this indictment, I request that you immediately agree to dismiss the indictment so that the political consequences can be reversed,” attorney Dick DeGuerin wrote in a letter to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case is out of the country on vacation and couldn't rule on the motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place, said Colleen Davis, a law clerk to Austin attorney Bill White, also represents DeLay.

Ronnie Earle is such an incompetent partisan hack that he could not even get the law or the facts correct the first time he managed to get an indictment (out of six grand juries that heard evidence). Now he rushed a new grand jury into an indictment that is not any more substantial, but does at least cite the correct statutes.

When the judge gets back in the country, it is time for these charges to be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

Posted by: Greg at 12:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah. Just heard about that. Totally disgusting. 7 different grand jury just to try and level a charge against Tom DeLay? That smells bad as a freshly dropped manure.

What's more, it's funny how Democrats are throwing around that Liberal Ronnie Earle is non-partisan because he indicted 12 Democrats and 3 Republicans during his 28 years as D.A.? Does that mean Democrats break Texas laws with a frequency 4 times greaters than Republicans?



Look at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Earle

Interesting people he tried to indict, even among those who sat together for lunch.

Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) Members David Bradley (Republican), Bob Offutt (Republican), and Joe Bernal (Democrat) - Earle initiated a criminal investigation against three SBOE members in 2002. Earle accused the board members, who are elected from districts in Texas, of violating the state's "Open Meetings" law when the three met for lunch at a restaurant in Austin, Texas on the day of an SBOE meeting. The law requires a public meeting when elected bodies assemble in a quorum of three or more persons to conduct business. The SBOE members responded that they were simply eating lunch. Earle turned the investigation over to Travis County Attorney Ken Oden, who in turn indicted the members on misdemeanor counts.

Eating at a cafe for lunch is called a quorum? Yet, this cafe was a public place. Mr. Earle sounds much too eager and probably wanted to punish the Democrat who ate lunch with two other Republicans? Interesting to say the least.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon Oct 3 12:39:30 2005 (CQ3Yp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Would someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton feels a need to cut her ties with this marketing person?

A marketing adviser was dropped by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign Monday after a newspaper reported she made disparaging remarks about her fellow New Yorkers who were killed on Sept. 11.

Gia Medeiros, an expert on corporate teen-marketing, "worked on a project that has been concluded; she will not be doing any additional work for us," said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis.

Medeiros was paid $73,462 by the Clinton campaign.

The New York Post reported Monday that Medeiros told a Boulder, Colo. group some weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that not all of those killed were good people.

"All of those people who died that day, those folks who we've heard toasted as angels and heroes and martyrs, well, they weren't all good people. I used to live in New York. I know it," she said.

"One friend of a friend had a husband who died. When I asked about their relationship, my friend said, `Terrible. He worked too much, drank too much, was never home with her or the kids.' They don't say that in the obituaries," Medeiros said.

Yeah, it is a bit tacky to have said it, but it is also true. Not every martyred victim of the 9/11 attacks was a great person. Some were drunks, others were adulterers, and some were criminals of one sort or another. While the vast majority of those killed that day were good and decent folks, we cannot deny that there were also some truly unpleasant folks who died when the Towers fell. Acknowledging that fact takes nothing away from the atrocity committed that day. Rather, it reminds us that those who died were a cross-section of American humanity, warts and all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Would someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton feels a need to cut her ties with this marketing person?

A marketing adviser was dropped by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign Monday after a newspaper reported she made disparaging remarks about her fellow New Yorkers who were killed on Sept. 11.

Gia Medeiros, an expert on corporate teen-marketing, "worked on a project that has been concluded; she will not be doing any additional work for us," said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis.

Medeiros was paid $73,462 by the Clinton campaign.

The New York Post reported Monday that Medeiros told a Boulder, Colo. group some weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks that not all of those killed were good people.

"All of those people who died that day, those folks who we've heard toasted as angels and heroes and martyrs, well, they weren't all good people. I used to live in New York. I know it," she said.

"One friend of a friend had a husband who died. When I asked about their relationship, my friend said, `Terrible. He worked too much, drank too much, was never home with her or the kids.' They don't say that in the obituaries," Medeiros said.

Yeah, it is a bit tacky to have said it, but it is also true. Not every martyred victim of the 9/11 attacks was a great person. Some were drunks, others were adulterers, and some were criminals of one sort or another. While the vast majority of those killed that day were good and decent folks, we cannot deny that there were also some truly unpleasant folks who died when the Towers fell. Acknowledging that fact takes nothing away from the atrocity committed that day. Rather, it reminds us that those who died were a cross-section of American humanity, warts and all.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Columnist Donald Lambro offers this analysis of the charges against Tom DeLay, and notes that the "conspiracy" was to engage in a common, apparantly legal practice.

Close examination is needed of what, if any, laws were broken. The fund-raising PAC formed by Mr. DeLay (and run by his two associates) raised money to help elect Republican candidates to the Texas legislature in 2002. These funds came from many sources, including donors who gave as individuals within the contribution limits set by law.

This money was apparently mingled in the PAC account with corporate contributions, allowable under Texas law for party administrative expenses. The PAC sent a check from that fund to the RNC in Washington for party-building activities. The RNC, as it does among many states, contributed funds to help Texas Republicans win elections.

The indictment sees all this as an illegal money-laundering. But Mr. Baran and other attorneys I have talked to say that charge is weak at best, because no one can prove corporate money mingled in an account flush with individual contributions was ever used to help elect the Texas candidates.

"The defense is going to be that the corporate money contributed to the Republican Party was not used for the contributions to the candidates. And that's true," Mr. Baran said. "Then the question becomes would the Texas contributions be made at all, but for the corporate money. And that's where the tie-in and alleged laundering comes in."

It is illegal under Texas law to use corporate money to defeat or elect candidates for public office. But campaign finance law experts note that until the McCain/Feingold finance reform took effect in 2002, it was common in both parties to exchange corporate money for "hard money" from individual donors.

Mr. DeLay says his PAC cleared the transactions with its lawyers and the RNC did likewise. And even The Washington Post, no fan of Mr. DeLay, editorialized that while this looked like an end run around the corporate contribution law, the "more difficult question is whether it was an illegal end run."

I can't wait to see Ronnie Earle get his head handed to him again. After all -- given the fingibility of dollars, it is impossible to prove that the money used for these contributions was anything other than donations from individuals -- or that what this PAC did was substantially different than what every other PAC, Republican or Democrat, did to make their influence go further.

Posted by: Greg at 11:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Charlie Rangel has been an embarrassment to the United States for decades. His recent statements have shown him to be in the throes of senile dementia.

For the second time in a three months, he has questioned if Dick Cheney is up to the office of Vice President based upon his age and health.

In an interview in August on NY1, the New York City-based all-news channel, Rep. Charles Rangel suggested that Cheney might be too sick to perform his job.

On Friday evening, Rangel was asked in a follow-up talk on the station if he thought Cheney should step down.

"He should never have stepped up in the first place," Rangel said. "He's too old for the job and doesn't have the experience."

Later in Friday's interview, Rangel finished off a list of problems he had with Bush administration policies by adding: "I would like to believe he's sick rather than just mean and evil."

Fine, Charlie, we'll give up Dick Cheney -- but given that he is over a decade younger than you are (64, as opposed to your 75) it seems that you need to lead by example.

And if Rangel will not resign, when will the Democrats (supposedly the party of the old folks and every other special interest group) condemn him as a bigot?

Posted by: Greg at 02:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

Could it be that actual (as opposed to alleged) corruption isn't all that impotant if the perps are Dems?

Two political action committees linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been charged with attempting to circumvent to legal limits on campaign giving, the Federal Election Commission has ruled.

According to the March 2004 FEC finding, Pelosi appears to have violated the same kind of arcane campaign finance regulation that spurred the indictment of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay this week.

The San Francisco Chronicle explained at the time:

"The FEC ruled that two Pelosi political action committees created to help Democrats in the 2002 elections were related instead of being independent and therefore violated a rule against giving more than the maximum $5,000 annual contribution."

Pelosi, of course, continues to hold her leadership position, while Tom DeLay has had to relinquish his based upon an accusation.

And to think that the Democrats howled when the GOP attempted to change its internal rules on leadership positions to match those of the Democrats. They insist that the GOP meet a higher standard than they do -- because the GOP is the party of ethics and the Democrats are the party of corruption.

(Hat Tip -- GOPBloggers and Blogs for Bush)

Posted by: Greg at 02:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

I've refrained from writing about the charges against my congressman, Tom DeLay. I think that too many others have done an excellent job analyzing why the charges are flawed and why Delay will likely be acquitted if he ever goes to trial.

Today, though, the Washington Post began an offensive to bolster political hack Ronnie Earle's public image.

Earle has an eccentric streak, clearly, sometimes in the service of projecting a squeaky-clean image. He once filed charges against himself for submitting a campaign finance report a day late. He asked a judge to fine him, His Honor obliged, and Earle was out $212.

Still, Earle can defy pigeonholing. Buck Wood, an Austin lawyer and friend of Earle's, says the prosecutor is "definitely a moderate," and that he's "not involved in the Democratic Party."

Raised on a cattle ranch in the tiny north Texas town of Birdville, Earle served briefly in the Texas House before being elected district attorney. A self-described "radical moderate," he has faced little serious opposition in his reelection campaigns. This comports with commonly heard descriptions of him -- adjectives such as "maverick," "idealist" and "crusader."

Indeed, Earle is a former Eagle Scout more interested in social policy than in collecting death-penalty convictions. He has taught a course at the University of Texas at Austin on "reweaving the fabric of community." Starting in the mid-1980s, he insisted that some of his prosecutors work in the same building as social workers and police officers in an effort to curb child abuse before it occurred.

And he has never hesitated to use his job as a bully pulpit. In a speech two weeks ago before a state lobbying group, Earle said, "corporate money in politics" has become "the fight of our generation of Americans. . . . It is our job -- our fight -- to rescue democracy from the money that has captured it."

Such pronouncements are typical Earle, says Texas Rep. Terry Keel (R), who served under Earle for nearly nine years before seeking public office himself.

"Ronnie has a very deep philosophical belief about good and evil," Keel said. "He sees corporate involvement in politics as an evil to be attacked at any costs."

And the profile even has an extended anecdote that is designed to show how Ronnie Earle is a fearless prosector who won't back down when he is right -- even if he ultimately cannot get at the corrupt officials he is seeking to bring down.

Ronnie Earle, the Texas prosecutor vilified by Rep. Tom DeLay as a "rogue district attorney" and an "unabashed partisan zealot," has heard worse.

There was the time, for instance, that a prominent Texas Democrat vowed to murder him.

"He would hold all these press conferences and say terrible things about me," Earle said, referring to Bob Bullock, the future lieutenant governor whom Earle investigated for allegedly misusing government resources in the 1970s.

"I know at least twice people took guns away from him when he said he was going to kill me."

Earle, a Democrat, was laughing as he recounted the story in the Travis County district attorney's office last week. And like many sagas in Earle's career, the Bullock episode comes with a footnote.

Earle couldn't persuade the grand jury to indict Bullock, who was then the state's comptroller and struggling with a drinking problem. But years later, once Bullock had sobered up, the two men were recounting old times at Bullock's kitchen table.

"You know years ago when you investigated me?" Earle recalled Bullock telling him. "I was guilty as hell."

Now two things struck me with this story. First is the fact that Bullock "just happened" to go on to serve as lieutenant governor -- under George W. Bush (the two offices are elected separately in Texas). Second is that Bullock has been dead for six years, and so cannot defend himself against Earle's claims of murderous designs and confession of criminal wrong-doing.

But that, of course, is how Ronnie Earle works -- he'll attack a political opponent with all sorts of extreme accusations and let them stick to the target like brambles in a briar patch.

It has taken several years and six grand juries to get this nothngburger of an indictment. But we can expect more stories of this "courageous maverick prosecutor" in the weks and months to come.

Posted by: Greg at 01:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 738 words, total size 5 kb.

Curt Levey has a great piece in National Review explaining that the "living Constitution" theory so beloved of liberals may have died.

May the living Constitution rest in peace. The concept is utterly without meaning as a legal standard and, instead, is a recipe for unrestrained judicial power. Because the Constitution is a contract between the people and their government, its modification should require the consent of the parties to the agreement. Thus, a living Constitution can be analogized to an automobile lease agreement that the car dealer feels free to modify as his notions of a fair deal evolve.

I've used a similar analogy -- how many folks would sign a "living mortgage" that allowed the bank to change the terms over time without the consent of the borrower?

Posted by: Greg at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

After President Bush briefed reporters about Hurricane Rita, a reporter asks him "Sir, what good can you do going down to the hurricane zone? Might you get in the way?"

After a sensible response, another reporter (maybe the same one) yells "Well, critics are saying this is an overcompensation for the response to Katrina."

Just. Can't. Win.

Posted by: Rhodey at 12:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Hey all -- Rhodey here from The Colossus of Rhodey. Greg is still in transit, evacuating from the incoming Hurricane Rita, so he said I could throw a few posts in here every now and then until his return.

Those Air America nutcases just can't seem to get a decent analogy right. And that's putting it nicely. AA's Randi Rhodes recently compared to the evacuation of people from Hurricane Katrina to the Holocaust:

CALLER (continuing): The thing that really killed me was the fact that when they bussed some of them out of the Dome. They loaded them on the bus, and they wouldn't tell them where they were going.

RANDI: Yeah. What is that?

CALLER: That is like when you transfer prisoners to one --

RANDI (interrupting): Actually, you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of a little visit I made to the Holocaust Museum, and I saw these cattle cars.

CALLER: Yes!

RANDI: And they took people to go on them, but they didn't tell them where they were going.

CALLER: Yes! They do that to prisoners. If they're taking prisoners from one high-security prison to another, they do not --

RANDI: So, what are you supposed to do? Just do a "faith-based evacuation"? (Changing voice, as if an evacuee) "I'm sure he wouldn't send me to Auschwitz."

CALLER: Yeaaw! But why were these people patted down? There was an assumption of criminality made because they were poor and they were black --

RANDI: Check this out. Let's just -- Think about it this way. People were taken one place. Their children were taken another place. THIS IS SO MUCH LIKE THE HOLOCAUST. I can't even -- You know, it's like, you're not supposed to forget the Holocaust so that it can't happen again. And here you have people being loaded onto transportation vehicles, not being told where they're going, and their children are being taken someplace else ...

If you've ever wondered why, given that President Bush's approval ratings are dismal, the Left just cannot gain any ground on him or other conservatives, just consider this idiot Rhodes and the other cretins that gab on Air America.

Posted by: Rhodey at 09:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems to me like this FEC attempt to cripple the Club for Growth should wake up every American who believes that citizens have a right to participate in the electoral process.

The Federal Election Commission yesterday filed its first court challenge against so-called "527 groups," suing a powerhouse Republican advocacy group for violating campaign-finance laws from 2000 to 2004.

The FEC charges that the Club for Growth raised and spent at least $4 million more than the limit, and so the group should have had to register as a political committee and abide by donation and spending limits. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

"This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law," said Michael E. Toner, the commission's vice chairman.

The 527 groups, named for the part of tax code that governs them, played a major role in the 2004 election, the first under the campaign finance rules that Congress passed in 2002. Those rules were intended to eliminate so-called "soft money," the large donations that political parties and interest groups used to flood the airwaves with issue ads.

Instead, the parties have to rely on limited "hard dollar" contributions.

The FEC justifies this action by saying that the Club for Growth refused to make a compromise agreement with the agency.

In the complaint, the FEC said it tried to work out an agreement with the club, but the organization would not agree to a remedy. The FEC is considering action against other 527s.

Any compromise would, of course, include limits upon the organization to engage in robust and unfettered political speech of the type envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think that the group’s president, former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, has it right when he describes this action as an act of war against the First Amendment. To compromise, which would effectively be a surrender, would be a betrayal of the Club for Growth’s limited government principles.

I think the solution that needs to be adopted here needs to be framed along the following language.

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

Short, simple, and in harmony with our nation’s founding documents, this standard would make it clear that the FEC has only one task – closing up shop and ending its unconstitutional interference with the political speech of Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

It seems to me like this FEC attempt to cripple the Club for Growth should wake up every American who believes that citizens have a right to participate in the electoral process.

The Federal Election Commission yesterday filed its first court challenge against so-called "527 groups," suing a powerhouse Republican advocacy group for violating campaign-finance laws from 2000 to 2004.

The FEC charges that the Club for Growth raised and spent at least $4 million more than the limit, and so the group should have had to register as a political committee and abide by donation and spending limits. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

"This litigation is an important test case on when 527 groups are required to register with the FEC and follow hard-dollar restrictions in federal law," said Michael E. Toner, the commission's vice chairman.

The 527 groups, named for the part of tax code that governs them, played a major role in the 2004 election, the first under the campaign finance rules that Congress passed in 2002. Those rules were intended to eliminate so-called "soft money," the large donations that political parties and interest groups used to flood the airwaves with issue ads.

Instead, the parties have to rely on limited "hard dollar" contributions.

The FEC justifies this action by saying that the Club for Growth refused to make a compromise agreement with the agency.

In the complaint, the FEC said it tried to work out an agreement with the club, but the organization would not agree to a remedy. The FEC is considering action against other 527s.

Any compromise would, of course, include limits upon the organization to engage in robust and unfettered political speech of the type envisioned by the Founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think that the groupÂ’s president, former Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, has it right when he describes this action as an act of war against the First Amendment. To compromise, which would effectively be a surrender, would be a betrayal of the Club for GrowthÂ’s limited government principles.

I think the solution that needs to be adopted here needs to be framed along the following language.

Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .

Short, simple, and in harmony with our nation’s founding documents, this standard would make it clear that the FEC has only one task – closing up shop and ending its unconstitutional interference with the political speech of Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

In recent weeks, we have heard that it is racially discriminatory public policy for the GOP to insist that photo ID should be required to vote. So what does the private bi-partisan Commission on Federal Election Reform urge as one of the tools to make sure the exercise of the right to vote easier and more secure?

Warning that public confidence in the nation's election system is flagging, a commission headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III today will call for significant changes in how Americans vote, including photo IDs for all voters, verifiable paper trails for electronic voting machines and impartial administration of elections.

Now I like some of these proposals, but not all of them. But notice, please, the call for photo ID. Are we to believe that those on the commission who supported this recommendation, including Carter, are crypto-racists who want to disenfranchise black voters? Or are they patriots who are seeking to ensure that Americans can vote in an easy, secure manner?

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like we have one senator who cannot understand basic concepts from Economics 101.

Righteously incensed over the price of gas, government on all levels is springing into action.

Congress has been busiest of all, conducting hearings, holding news conferences and drafting legislation. One bill being written by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would make price gouging a federal offense and heavily fine violators. Another bill to be introduced in the House will call for increased fuel efficiency, and still another, to be introduced in both houses, would impose a windfall profit tax on oil companies.

So, we are now going to have a federal law dictating gas prices? Does this mean that we will see the ever-efficient federal government telling us what acceptable profits are, no doub via an efficiet bureaucratic structure akin to the Post Office?

And listen to Senator Cantwell's reasoning for her bill.

"We need to make price gouging illegal," Cantwell said Wednesday. "We need to make sure that there is a federal price-gouging law on the books, so that in times of national emergencies, oil companies aren't tempted to rake in outrageous profits."

Cantwell is seasoned by her experience with the West Coast electrical crisis of 2001, when Enron traders manipulated the market in California and drove prices to record highs across the West.

In that case, she says, government regulators insisted that spiraling prices were the result of normal market forces. Only years later was it proven that energy traders manufactured the crisis.

Cantwell sees a parallel in the price of gas.

"Oil barons are making $200 million a day in profits," she said. "There is absolutely no reason for gas to go up in Washington as the result of a hurricane."

The problem is that there were sound economic reasons for prices to go up after the hurricane. The reason was an increase in demand and a perceived decrease of supply.

Let me explain.

As Katrina smashed into the Gulf Coast, we were told to expect a decrease in production, combined with shortages. Suddenly, the value of inventory on hand went up as the expected cost of replacing that inventory also increased. A prudent businessman in such a situation raises his prices accordingly because of questions regarding the supply of his product. In this case, that meant an increase in gas prices based upon an expected increase in wholesale gas prices.

At the same time, hearing of a potential shortage, people all over the country rushed out to buy gasoline. I know I did after getting a frantic concerned ( I am reliably informed by said wife that she was NOT frantic, therefore I retract the earlier characterization in the interest of marital bliss) call from my wife about possible shortages due to the expected disruption of production in the New Orleans area. And as anyone who got a C or higher in Economics 101 knows, increased demand leads to higher prices. Station owners raised prices accordingly.

But let's look what happened.

During the last week of August, I was paying $2.52 a gallon at the corner station. By the end of that week, gasoline was up to $2.99 at the same station due to market forces. The the following Monday, they had dropped back to $2.85 -- and one local station had gas for $2.79. Yesterday I could buy gas at the place on the corner for $2.57. Given recent oil price fluctuations and minor supply disruptions, this is not an unreasonable increase from what the prices were three or four weeks ago, especially considering we are all now aware that there is no real shortage, simply a perceived one that created a panic-induced spike in prices. In other words, Adam Smith's invisible hand has worked just like it is supposed.

Maria Cantwell, of course, doesn't get this. She sees these price increases as the nefarious actions of unethical businessmen and women -- she calls them "oil barons". I call them capitalists -- and I call her a socialist. She wants us to live in a land of governent controlled prices. I prefer to live in a land of free markets. But then again, I can understand the basics of economics, and Cantwell can't.

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 711 words, total size 4 kb.