If liberals believe that questioning judges and their rulings is an attack that threatens the independence of the judiciary, why are their attacks on Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, Judge William Pryor, and other sitting judges who have been nominated to the Circuit Courts of Appeals and their rulings acceptable? After all, donÂ’t such attacks threaten the independence of the judiciary?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Crackpots. American Taliban. The Gestapo. Reactionary. Religious zealots. Extremists.

Those were some of the constructive, positive terms applied by supporters of Senator Ken Salazar to religious people and groups who oppose his position on judicial filibusters. Those supporters denied their language was derogatory.

"Some individuals (here) feel that way, and that's their right," said Denver's former director of public safety, Butch Montoya.

So I guess it isn’t the right of people who disagree with them to do so. Disagreement makes one a member of the crackpotextremistreactionaryreligiouszealotAmericanTalibanGestapo, and merits abusive language from these “mainstream” religious and political leaders.

The language of these folks was so extreme that Salazar even rejected their support.

"Obviously, people on all sides of this issue have strong feelings," Cody Wertz said. "But I can say for sure that Senator Salazar would not associate himself with those remarks."

A spokesman for Focus on the Family noted the intellectual vacancy of the arguments presented at the press conference.

"Holy smoke, I'm glad they didn't call us the Antichrist," said Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family. He was referring to a slur Salazar directed at the organization earlier but has since said he was sorry for. "If they had an intellectual argument, they'd use it, but the left is without argument, so they resort to name-calling. That demeans the process."

Probably the most damning quote of the day came from former state senator Polly Baca. She meant it as praise for Salazar, but it just indicates how unprincipled that he and his supporters are.

"Ken has a very deep-seated faith that grounds his values and that drives his behavior," Baca said. However, that doesn't mean one's faith should necessarily drive one's public life, she said.

In other words, none of them believe in anything strongly enough to act upon it. Some might call that being a hypocrite, but I believe the term that Christ used was “lukewarm.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Crackpots. American Taliban. The Gestapo. Reactionary. Religious zealots. Extremists.

Those were some of the constructive, positive terms applied by supporters of Senator Ken Salazar to religious people and groups who oppose his position on judicial filibusters. Those supporters denied their language was derogatory.

"Some individuals (here) feel that way, and that's their right," said Denver's former director of public safety, Butch Montoya.

So I guess it isn’t the right of people who disagree with them to do so. Disagreement makes one a member of the crackpotextremistreactionaryreligiouszealotAmericanTalibanGestapo, and merits abusive language from these “mainstream” religious and political leaders.

The language of these folks was so extreme that Salazar even rejected their support.

"Obviously, people on all sides of this issue have strong feelings," Cody Wertz said. "But I can say for sure that Senator Salazar would not associate himself with those remarks."

A spokesman for Focus on the Family noted the intellectual vacancy of the arguments presented at the press conference.

"Holy smoke, I'm glad they didn't call us the Antichrist," said Tom Minnery, vice president of Focus on the Family. He was referring to a slur Salazar directed at the organization earlier but has since said he was sorry for. "If they had an intellectual argument, they'd use it, but the left is without argument, so they resort to name-calling. That demeans the process."

Probably the most damning quote of the day came from former state senator Polly Baca. She meant it as praise for Salazar, but it just indicates how unprincipled that he and his supporters are.

"Ken has a very deep-seated faith that grounds his values and that drives his behavior," Baca said. However, that doesn't mean one's faith should necessarily drive one's public life, she said.

In other words, none of them believe in anything strongly enough to act upon it. Some might call that being a hypocrite, but I believe the term that Christ used was “lukewarm.”

Posted by: Greg at 11:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

Last time I checked, a sincere apology usually implies that you believe you did wrong. Did Half-Truth Harry Reid lie last week?

If Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada still feels remorse for calling President Bush a loser, he didn't show it on Tuesday.

In a news conference, Reid was asked if his comment about Bush would make it more difficult to negotiate with Republicans.

"I tell people how I feel about things. I don't try to hide how I feel," Reid said.

"Maybe my choice of words was improper, and I have indicated that maybe they were, but I want everyone here, I repeat, to know I'm going to continue to call things the way that I see them, and I think this administration has done a very, very bad job for this nation and the world."

So, Harry, were you lying when you called the president a loser, or when you apologized -- or both?

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Some jabs are too good to ignore. This one from Francis J. Beckwith over at Southern Appeal is one of those.

According to the Washington Times: "Republicans were particularly outraged when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, referred to Justice Owen and other Bush nominees as 'neanderthal.'" In order to extend the irony, perhaps Kennedy should have called her fat, ugly, the son of a bootlegger, and that she once drove drunk and left the occupant of her car to drown in a body of water adjacent to the bridge into which she crashed. Look, if Ted Kennedy gave a California condor a ride home it would consistute a violation of the endangered species act.

Ouch!

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the liberal outrage if this were a senior GOP lawmaker doing this to a female candidate at an event, rather than the actual perpetrator and victim in this case?

Openly gay U.S. Rep.Barney Frank got caught blatantly fondling an up-and-coming politician's buttocks at a public event. According to gay weekly the Washington Blade, the frisky Frank was escorting rising gay politico Mike Evans into the VIP section at Philadelphia's Equality Forum when he boldly seized the opportunity to cop a feel from the younger man. The tush-grabbery was caught by alert photogs covering the event, and the pictures soon surfaced on the Internet. A rep for Frank, who is in a relationship with his domestic partner, Sergio Pombo, declined PAGE SIX's request for comment.

I’m serious here – folks on the Left would be having conniption fits if Tom DeLay were to feel-up some GOP cutie at a public event. But as we saw years ago with Barney’s live-in male prostitute, being a high-ranking gay Democrat means never having to say you are sorry.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Could you imagine the liberal outrage if this were a senior GOP lawmaker doing this to a female candidate at an event, rather than the actual perpetrator and victim in this case?

Openly gay U.S. Rep.Barney Frank got caught blatantly fondling an up-and-coming politician's buttocks at a public event. According to gay weekly the Washington Blade, the frisky Frank was escorting rising gay politico Mike Evans into the VIP section at Philadelphia's Equality Forum when he boldly seized the opportunity to cop a feel from the younger man. The tush-grabbery was caught by alert photogs covering the event, and the pictures soon surfaced on the Internet. A rep for Frank, who is in a relationship with his domestic partner, Sergio Pombo, declined PAGE SIX's request for comment.

I’m serious here – folks on the Left would be having conniption fits if Tom DeLay were to feel-up some GOP cutie at a public event. But as we saw years ago with Barney’s live-in male prostitute, being a high-ranking gay Democrat means never having to say you are sorry.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

Folks from Planned Parenthood are complaining about the refusal of pharmacies to carry so-called “emergency contraceptives”.

A pro-abortion group says its survey of 920 pharmacies across Missouri found that only 29 percent of them stock emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill.

"Women in rural Missouri are most at risk of not having access to this birth control," said the NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation, which conducted the survey.

More details will be announced Tuesday at a news conference in Jefferson City, the foundation said. Those details include "statistics on pharmacies that refuse to order the legally prescribed medication for female customers," the press release announced.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved the prescription-only sale of emergency contraception, pharmacies are not required to stock any particular medication.

So let me get this straight – pharmacies and pharmacists are making a choice not to participate in what they view as a form of abortion, and so the nation’s leading ”pro-choice” group is troubled. Could it be that their label is a lie – given that they object to any choice that doesn’t involve the facilitation of the slaughter of the unborn -- and they are really pro-abortion?

Now I understand that it can be inconvenient to have a pharmacy refuse to stock a particular medication. It recently took us 10 days to fill one of my wife’s pain prescriptions because we had trouble finding a pharmacy in the area that stocked the medication. In talking with a couple of the pharmacists, I discovered that they do not even carry other medications, in particular Oxy-Contin (which she has never been prescribed), because doing so simply subjects them to additional scrutiny from state and federal regulators. In other words, they exercise their right to decide what medications they will and will not stock, according to their best professional and business judgments. It really isn’t the place of the state to force them to carry a medication.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Folks from Planned Parenthood are complaining about the refusal of pharmacies to carry so-called “emergency contraceptives”.

A pro-abortion group says its survey of 920 pharmacies across Missouri found that only 29 percent of them stock emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill.

"Women in rural Missouri are most at risk of not having access to this birth control," said the NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation, which conducted the survey.

More details will be announced Tuesday at a news conference in Jefferson City, the foundation said. Those details include "statistics on pharmacies that refuse to order the legally prescribed medication for female customers," the press release announced.

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved the prescription-only sale of emergency contraception, pharmacies are not required to stock any particular medication.

So let me get this straight – pharmacies and pharmacists are making a choice not to participate in what they view as a form of abortion, and so the nation’s leading ”pro-choice” group is troubled. Could it be that their label is a lie – given that they object to any choice that doesn’t involve the facilitation of the slaughter of the unborn -- and they are really pro-abortion?

Now I understand that it can be inconvenient to have a pharmacy refuse to stock a particular medication. It recently took us 10 days to fill one of my wifeÂ’s pain prescriptions because we had trouble finding a pharmacy in the area that stocked the medication. In talking with a couple of the pharmacists, I discovered that they do not even carry other medications, in particular Oxy-Contin (which she has never been prescribed), because doing so simply subjects them to additional scrutiny from state and federal regulators. In other words, they exercise their right to decide what medications they will and will not stock, according to their best professional and business judgments. It really isnÂ’t the place of the state to force them to carry a medication.

Posted by: Greg at 11:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

If you really need to ask yourself if the Democrats are the de facto Socialist party in the United States, the fact that Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders – a self-described Socialist – caucuses with the party should have been sign enough. But this new development should make it even clearer.

Breaking party lines, former Gov. Howard Dean said Monday he supports Rep. Bernard Sanders' bid for the U.S. Senate, saying the Independent makes a "strong candidate."
"A victory for Bernie Sanders is a win for Democrats," Dean said in a telephone interview Monday.

So, the head of the DNC is acknowledging it – a victory for an avowed Socialist is a victory for the Democrats. What’s more, Sanders’ staff acknowledges it as well.

"I think Gov. Dean and Congressman Sanders share an interest in beating back a very aggressive reactionary agenda of President Bush and congressional Republicans," Weaver said. "We intend to win this seat and Bernie will be a strong voice against the Bush agenda."

So, my fellow Americans, let’s be real clear here – a vote for the Democrats is a vote for Socialism and against the American way of life. And that comes from no less than Screamin’ Howard Dean, the nation’s top Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 11:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

Today marks four years since the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the appellate bench. As of this date, she still has not been given an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Today her former colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, Senator John Cornyn, spoke on behalf of her nomination.

I know Priscilla personally, because we served together on the Texas supreme court. Throughout her life, she has excelled in virtually everything she has ever done. She was a law-review editor, a top graduate from Baylor Law School at the remarkable age of 23, and the top scorer on the Texas bar exam. She entered the legal profession at a time when relatively few women did, and after a distinguished record in private practice, she reached the pinnacle of the Texas bar — a seat on the Texas supreme court. She was supported by a larger percentage of Texans than any of her colleagues during her last election, after enjoying the endorsement of every major Texas newspaper.

Unsurprisingly, then, the American Bar Association, after careful study, unanimously rated her well qualified to serve on the federal bench — their highest rating.

Unsurprisingly, she enjoys the enthusiastic support of a bipartisan majority of senators.

Yet a partisan minority of senators now insists that Owen may not be confirmed without the support of a supermajority of 60 senators — a demand that is, by their own admission, wholly unprecedented in Senate history. Why? Simple: The case for opposing her is so weak that changing the rules is the only way they can defeat her nomination.

Cornyn goes on to demolish every argument against the confirmation of Priscilla Owen. When will the Democrats be forced to stop playing politics with our nationÂ’s courts? When will Priscilla Owen be given an up or down vote? It needs to be soon.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

It seems that the same porous-border policies that led to an increase in border jumping has also resulted in an increase in violent home invasions in the Tucson area. Why? Because of the vast quantity of illegal drugs smuggled in from Mexico, and the number of “safe houses” set up in residential neighborhoods to store the illegal goods.

Residential robberies in metro Tucson are on a record-setting pace.

Funded by the growing trafficking of Mexican marijuana, smugglers are setting up stash houses throughout the metro area. Rival drug traffickers may target those homes, looking to steal cash or pot or to recover stolen marijuana that can be sold on the street for as much as $500 a pound.

What that means, law officers said, is that more innocent people are at risk of being hurt or killed because traffickers may mistakenly break into their home.

"You have incidents when the bad guys hit the wrong house, or the target moved out a month or so ago ... that's the real danger," said Pima County sheriff's Lt. Michael G. O'Connor, head of the crimes against persons section.

Sometimes in these terrifying robberies with violence or threats of violence, also known as home invasions, the robbers hit a residence based on nothing more than a street rumor, said Eugene V. Mejia, a retired police detective sergeant who worked for TPD from 1974 to 2000.

Acting on rumors leaves plenty of opportunity for mistakes. Robbers, for example, may have the right house number but go to the wrong street.
Upping the stakes, robbers often are high on drugs during the break-ins.

How bad is the problem? While Tucson and Pima County used to get fewer than 50 such crimes reported a year 15-20 years ago, the number is now up to nearly 250. How many more go unreported by criminals who donÂ’t want police scrutiny of their activities? And we wonÂ’t get into the deaths or serious injuries that often accompany these home invasions.

Who says we donÂ’t need to secure the border?

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What we need to do is arm everyone. Then eliminate punishment for killing someone who broke into your house. We'll see how many break-ins there are after several get shot and killed on the spot.

Posted by: Elliott at Mon May 9 17:37:56 2005 (oG0U1)

2 While I don't condone giving everyone a firearm, can we all see R with a pistol?? , I do agree there need to be more Laws on the books like the one just passed here in FL.

It gives people protection for protecting themself.

No longer can someone be sued for protecting themself because a relative/family member/spouse of a criminal decides to sue them for killing/wounding the bread winner.

Sorry never knew crime was considered a "Bread Winning Job".

Posted by: Scubachris at Tue May 10 02:27:17 2005 (AktpP)

3 There are lots of criminals because it IS a bread winning job; you've heard the expression that crime doesn't pay? Wrong. The proof is in the number of crimes. No doubt people will argue that crime results from dysfunctional families, poor schools, a crime-gene -- and who knows but that some of this isn't true. So what? When people go to jail in Japan, they hardly ever go back in the slammer a second time once released. The Japanese do not engage in hand slapping; more like body slamming -- so criminals get the message. American's seem to encourage criminal behavior because we tolerate it.

Posted by: Mustang at Tue May 10 03:00:45 2005 (nP7cz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Here's a great piece on my favorite among the Bush nominees denied a vote by the Democrats. It provides some interesting details about her life, and some intriguing quotes from one of her opinions that show her to be a crusader for justice under the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

In her dissent [in People v. McKay], Brown even lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court and - pay close attention, my liberal friends - criticized an opinion written by its most conservative member, Justice Antonin Scalia, for allowing police to use traffic stops to obliterate the expectation of privacy the Fourth Amendment bestows.

"Due to the widespread violation of minor traffic laws, an officer's discretion is still as wide as the driving population is large," she wrote. In her view, court decisions have freed police to search beyond reason not just drivers of cars but "those who walk, bicycle, rollerblade, skateboard or propel a scooter."

She reserved special scorn for judges who permit police to discriminate while advising the targets of discrimination to sue to challenge their oppressors. "Such a suggestion overlooks the fact that most victims ... will barely have enough money to pay the traffic citation, much less be able to afford an attorney. ... To dismiss people who have suffered real constitutional harms with remedies that are illusory or nonexistent allows courts to be complacent about bigotry while claiming compassion for its victims," she wrote.

"Judges go along with questionable police conduct, proclaiming that their hands are tied. If our hands really are tied, it behooves us to gnaw through the ropes."

And this is the woman that Half-Truth Harry Reid says wants to take us back to before the Civil War. Hardly -- this is a woman who is very much in line with the spirit of the Civil War-era Amendment that sought to make blacks full participants in American liberty, and whose philosophy is in keeping with that of Dr. King.

Confirm her now -- by any means necessary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

Jonathon Pollard is a convicted spy. In 1984 & 1985 he spied on the US for Israel, betraying his country for money. Now his lawyers are making specious claims of torture against the United States in a disgusting attempt to make the Israeli government declare him a "Prisoner of Zion" -- a category previously reserved for those persecuted because of their religion.

Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen who spied for Israel, has been subjected to electric shock, sleep deprivation and other "cruel and extreme" forms of torture while serving a life sentence in American prisons, his lawyer said Sunday.

A petition filed with Israel's Supreme Court says Pollard was kept naked for more than a year in solitary confinement in subzero temperatures. It claims his jailers also soaked him with ice water, forced him to sleep on a bare concrete slab, and lied to him that the Israeli government had arranged his release.

I believe this to be a lie. Pollard deserves to dance at the end of a rope for his betrayal of America. But even if the accusations are true, that still doesn't put him in the same category as the Jewish refusniks of the 1970s and 1980s.

For my previous statements on this treasonous piece of filth, click here.

Posted by: Greg at 01:02 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

I want to know how a representative of a party that believes "Bush is a Nazi" is legitimate political speech, has a congressman give an interview to a gay website in which he calls the vice president an "ass-kisser", and whose Senate leader calls the president "a loser" in front of a class full of high school kids could have the guts to go on the air and make such a hypocritical radio address.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a leading Democrat in the fight over judicial nominees, urged President Bush to intervene and rein in the strongest conservative critics of Democratic opposition to some candidates.

Schumer, D-N.Y., delivered his party's weekly radio address today, in which he decried "a whiff of extremism in the air the likes of which we haven't seen in decades."

Without naming any, Schumer criticized "small groups ... trying to undermine the age-old checks and balances that the Founding Fathers placed at the center of the Constitution."

But he didn't stop there. He made it very clear that criticism of the Democrats and their filibuster strategy is "un-American."

In his radio appeal, Schumer sought to draw Bush more directly into the fray by urging the president to denounce some conservatives who have used harsh language to criticize the Democrats.

"I am making a heartfelt plea to you, Mr. President. When you came to Washington, you said you wanted to change the climate in D.C.," Schumer said. "Those stating these abhorrent views count themselves as your political allies. One word from you will bring a halt to these un-American statements. That would be a way to strengthen democracy here at home."

So, would you count Senator Reid's statement that Justice Janice Rogers Brown "is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days" as an abhorrent view, or an un-American statement? or is that sort of crap just politics as usual from the Democrat leadership?

Now Senator, I would like you to answer a simple question -- on what basis do you believe the president has the power or authority to "rein in" the speech of any American? That sounds pretty antithetical to the First Amendment to me. Does the Senator propose setting up a "Senate Un-American Activities Commitee" to police these organizations -- thereby adding "Schumerism" to the political vocabulary of the United States?

Frankly, Chuckles, in the end I don't give a rat's ass if President Bush does as you ask on this matter (not that I think he will give your whine more than a moment's notice) -- I'll exercise my rights as an American to denounce you and your ilk. Your attempt to invoke the heavy hand of government censorship against your critics and political opponents is reprehensible -- and, might I also add, abhorrent and un-American.

Additional commentary from Right-Sided and Red State.

(Hat Tip -- Americablog)

Posted by: Greg at 08:24 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Senator Harry Reid needs to resign. He has shown himself not to have the temperament and the judgment necessary to serve in the US Senate, much less to be the leader of the minority party.

Speaking to a classroom full of high school juniors, the Nevada Democrat insulted the president of the United States.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.”

Inappropriate, Senator, in what was supposed to be a non-partisan educational setting. That you would even consider making that comment shows that you are deficient in judgment. We don’t care that you called Karl Rove to apologize later – the comment should have never been made.

And as if that wasn’t enough, you engaged in additional character assassination against the President’s judicial nominees.

Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion. He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.

Really, Senator Reid, this black woman, the daughter of a sharecropper raised in the segregated Democrat-run South wants to recreate the days when blacks were slaves? Would you care to offer even a shred of evidence to support that outrageous slander, sir? And which of them has said they would try to dismantle Social Security? As for Roe, its overturn would leave the decision on the legality of abortion to the states – precisely the same place you say that the decision should be on recognizing homosexual marriage. Not one of these nominees is unqualified – at least not according to the ABA, the approval of which you folks on the Democrat side argued was the gold standard for judicial nominees in 2001 – so there is no legitimate basis for opposing them. I somehow bet you left that little bit out when you were presenting your so-called facts to these students.

But there will be no Reid resignation, and no denunciation of the Senate minority leader by the Democrats. That is because Senate Democrats don’t have any ethics when it comes to this issue. They want what they want and will get it any way they can, even if it means raping the Constitution to get it. And if it means letting Half-Truth Harry Reid skate again, then so be it.

Additional commentary fom Blogs For Bush, Hard Starboard, Red State, Iowa Voice, The Mighty Righty, and Say Anything.

UPDATE -- The White House responds.

"The president has worked to change the tone in Washington by elevating the discourse and reaching out to find common ground to get things done," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan said.

"It has been a challenge and it has been disappointing that we haven't been able to make more progress on that front. I think the American people want their elected leaders to elevate the discourse and to reach out across partisan lines and that's what the president will continue to do," he said.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Harry -- and you too, Chuckles.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 5 kb.

Senator Harry Reid needs to resign. He has shown himself not to have the temperament and the judgment necessary to serve in the US Senate, much less to be the leader of the minority party.

Speaking to a classroom full of high school juniors, the Nevada Democrat insulted the president of the United States.

"The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid said in response to a question about President Bush's policies. "I think this guy is a loser.”

Inappropriate, Senator, in what was supposed to be a non-partisan educational setting. That you would even consider making that comment shows that you are deficient in judgment. We don’t care that you called Karl Rove to apologize later – the comment should have never been made.

And as if that wasnÂ’t enough, you engaged in additional character assassination against the PresidentÂ’s judicial nominees.

Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion. He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.
"I don't want them. I think they're bad people," Reid said of the nominees
He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
"She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days," Reid said.

Really, Senator Reid, this black woman, the daughter of a sharecropper raised in the segregated Democrat-run South wants to recreate the days when blacks were slaves? Would you care to offer even a shred of evidence to support that outrageous slander, sir? And which of them has said they would try to dismantle Social Security? As for Roe, its overturn would leave the decision on the legality of abortion to the states – precisely the same place you say that the decision should be on recognizing homosexual marriage. Not one of these nominees is unqualified – at least not according to the ABA, the approval of which you folks on the Democrat side argued was the gold standard for judicial nominees in 2001 – so there is no legitimate basis for opposing them. I somehow bet you left that little bit out when you were presenting your so-called facts to these students.

But there will be no Reid resignation, and no denunciation of the Senate minority leader by the Democrats. That is because Senate Democrats donÂ’t have any ethics when it comes to this issue. They want what they want and will get it any way they can, even if it means raping the Constitution to get it. And if it means letting Half-Truth Harry Reid skate again, then so be it.

Additional commentary fom Blogs For Bush, Hard Starboard, Red State, Iowa Voice, The Mighty Righty, and Say Anything.

UPDATE -- The White House responds.

"The president has worked to change the tone in Washington by elevating the discourse and reaching out to find common ground to get things done," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan said.

"It has been a challenge and it has been disappointing that we haven't been able to make more progress on that front. I think the American people want their elected leaders to elevate the discourse and to reach out across partisan lines and that's what the president will continue to do," he said.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Harry -- and you too, Chuckles.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 605 words, total size 5 kb.

Does Tony Blair even have a mandate? Given the figures put forth in this article, I would have to say that the answer is “No.”

Labour received only 36.6 per cent of the vote, and with the turnout at just over 60 per cent, this meant barely 22 per cent of eligible voters cast a Labour ballot.

"This shows our voting system is bust," society spokesman Ken Ritchie said.
"It's quite absurd that a party with little more than a third of the votes should receive around 55 per cent of the seats and therefore be able to out-vote parties representing nearly two voters out of three."

Never has the case for electoral reform in Britain been so strong. The electoral boundaries are distorted, with the smallest constituency, Scotland's Western Isles, having only 21,900 registered voters while the largest, the Isle of Wight, has 106,300.

The Liberal Democrats were the worst-hit by the flawed voting system, which gave them only about 60 seats, despite the party achieving 22.4 per cent of the vote. The Tories, with 32.9 per cent, got three times as many seats, and six times as many went to Labour with 36.6 per cent.

So it isn’t just the drastic reduction in Labour seats that we need to be looking at – it is also the small percentage of the vote won by Labour and the disproportionate representation that brought the party. The question then remains – will Blair be able to maintain support within his own party for the length of the current term, or will he be replaced as PM? And if the Labour Party should be unable (due to local elections or defections) to maintain a majority, will the US find a Conservative Party nearly as in sync with the GOP as it did during the halcyon days of the 1980s when Lady Thatcher ruled the roost?

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Does Tony Blair even have a mandate? Given the figures put forth in this article, I would have to say that the answer is “No.”

Labour received only 36.6 per cent of the vote, and with the turnout at just over 60 per cent, this meant barely 22 per cent of eligible voters cast a Labour ballot.

"This shows our voting system is bust," society spokesman Ken Ritchie said.
"It's quite absurd that a party with little more than a third of the votes should receive around 55 per cent of the seats and therefore be able to out-vote parties representing nearly two voters out of three."

Never has the case for electoral reform in Britain been so strong. The electoral boundaries are distorted, with the smallest constituency, Scotland's Western Isles, having only 21,900 registered voters while the largest, the Isle of Wight, has 106,300.

The Liberal Democrats were the worst-hit by the flawed voting system, which gave them only about 60 seats, despite the party achieving 22.4 per cent of the vote. The Tories, with 32.9 per cent, got three times as many seats, and six times as many went to Labour with 36.6 per cent.

So it isn’t just the drastic reduction in Labour seats that we need to be looking at – it is also the small percentage of the vote won by Labour and the disproportionate representation that brought the party. The question then remains – will Blair be able to maintain support within his own party for the length of the current term, or will he be replaced as PM? And if the Labour Party should be unable (due to local elections or defections) to maintain a majority, will the US find a Conservative Party nearly as in sync with the GOP as it did during the halcyon days of the 1980s when Lady Thatcher ruled the roost?

Posted by: Greg at 01:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 325 words, total size 2 kb.

Besides teaching World History to high Schoolers, i also teach a college level American Government class as part of a paralegal training program. One of the issues that we often get into at great length is the notion of whetehr the Constitution is a static or a dynamic document. Students often start out with the position that the Constitution is a living document -- until I ask them how many would accept the notion that their mortgage ageement was a living document that the bank could decide had "grown over time." Suddenly, I find myself in a room full of originalists.

Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at Texas A & M today on the Constitution and the merits of originalism over "living document" jurisprudence. Perhaps the most eloquent advocate of the originalist school, Scalia spoke forefully about the need to be bound by the meaning ascribed to the text by the Founders.

Scalia, who has been on the court since 1986, described himself as an "originalist," someone who thinks the Constitution means the same thing now as when it was first drafted.

Calling the idea of the living Constitution "terribly seductive" for judges, Scalia said originalism is the "only game in town."

"You either tell your judges to be bound by the original meaning of the Constitution or you evolve our Constitution the way you think is best," he said. "That is not a road that has a happy ending."

An unhappy road indeed, one on which there is no map and the landscape changes seemingly at random. We have seen all too many such cases over the last several years, notably the Lawrence and Simmons cases. Of most concern is that one can never know whose vision of the proper Constitutional landscape will be imagined on to such an evolving map.

Scalia also noted the danger inherrant in the notion that judicial appointees should be "moderate."

"We want a moderate judge. What in the world is a moderate judge?" he said. "What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you'd like it to say?"

Perhaps one could say that moderation in the pursuit of constitutional change is no virtue, and extremism in the defense of original intent is no vice.

Posted by: Greg at 03:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

Lady Thatcher's endorsement is good enough for me.

In a letter to Bolton made available to reporters on Thursday, Thatcher praised his candor and intellect and said she could not imagine anyone better suited for the job.

Bolton's nomination has been dogged by allegations that he bullied State Department subordinates and tried to pressure analysts to write reports that conform to his hard-line views.

Thatcher, nicknamed the "Iron Lady," told Bolton "how strongly" she supported him for the job, saying "on the basis of our years of friendship, I know from experience the great qualities you will bring to that demanding post."

"To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression and an unshakable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international affairs," Thatcher said.

"A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy," she added.

"Those same qualities are also required for any serious reform of the United Nations ... I cannot imagine anyone better fitted to undertake these tasks than you," she said, signing her letter "All good wishes, yours ever, Margaret."

Lady Thatcher, Presidnet Reagan, and Pope John Paul the Great brought down Communism. I defer to the wisdom of the last of those three giants on this nomination as UN Ambassador.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

You've got to love this police chief's twist on the state's criminal trespass law.

A small-town police chief used a criminal trespassing charge to try to turn back one illegal immigrant, saying he was frustrated that lax federal enforcement means "if you make it past the border patrol, you're free and clear."

New Ipswich Police Chief W. Garrett Chamberlain charged a Mexican citizen with criminal trespassing _ a violation comparable to a traffic ticket _ on April 15 after immigration officials refused to take him into custody.

Jorge Ramirez, 21, was having trouble with his sport utility vehicle and had pulled along a state road. When a police officer asked for identification, Ramirez admitted he was living in the United States illegally, working for a construction company.

Ramirez pleaded guilty to the trespassing charge as well as operating a vehicle without a valid license. He agreed to report to immigration authorities by Friday.

Chief Chamberlain says he was simply fed up with the fact that once a border jumper got across from the border, he or she is essentially "free and clear". As a result, he decided to take action.

Of course, the folks in charge of border enforement are upset that they are being made to do their jobs.

Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticized the tactic.

"The police chief is choosing to use this alien to grandstand about illegal immigration," she said. "We prioritize our investigations on criminals and criminal networks that pose a threat."

Uh, Ms. Grenier. Ill concede that this was probably not someone who would have made your top 10,000 list of wanted border jumpers. However, once the guy was in custody it would not have required any further investigation on your agencey's part to DRIVE YOUR ASS to New Ipswich to take the guy into custody. That, however, seems to be a task that put a strain on your priorities, so now you are whining about the fact that Ramirez is coming to you to be processed under a court order.. I bet if we eliminated a spokeswoman slot, there would be an actual working agent to handle the matter. Please clear your desk and pack up your office so that the real work of ICE (which is not generating press releases) can be done.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 2 kb.

If these charges prove true, I hope that Lawrence Frankiln and his handlers are dealt with harshly.

A Pentagon policy analyst, under investigation for passing U.S. secrets to Israel, was arrested Wednesday and charged with disclosing classified information about U.S. troops in Iraq to two former members of an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the Justice Department said.

A criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday against Lawrence Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran and a Defense Department employee since 1979, also alleges that he made unauthorized disclosures to a "foreign official" and to unidentified members of the media.

Franklin also was charged with storing dozens of other classified documents — with dates spanning his three decades of government service — at his home in West Virginia without previous approval. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, if convicted.

The charges against Franklin are the first stemming from a more than two-year FBI investigation that has raised questions about U.S. relations with a long-standing ally and the activities of one of the most influential lobby groups in Washington.

While I may support Israel's existance and acknowledge her importance as an ally, I will not excuse the betrayal of our country by those seeking to assist her. I join Michelle Malkin in her challenge to other conservatives to be as tough on Franklin as they were on Sandy Berger.

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

It is well known that the Democrat head of Broward County Elections, Miriam Oliphant, was an incompetent boob. She and her half-assed staff screwed up multiple elections, until she was removed by Governor Jeb Bush, who appointed a capable relacement. Now Oliphant is suing Bush, claiming that she was fired because she was a black female.

Former Broward County elections supervisor Miriam Oliphant said Wednesday she will sue Gov. Jeb Bush in federal court, claiming that race was a factor his decision to remove her from office amid allegations of negligence and a botched 2002 primary.

"My civil rights have been violated and my constitutional rights have been violated by the state of Florida," Oliphant said.

Oliphant and her attorney, Ellis Rubin, announced the lawsuit one day after the state Senate voted 32-7 along racial lines to uphold Bush's 2003 decision to suspend Oliphant, who is black. Oliphant's supporters in the Senate argued that she was singled out even though white election supervisors in other counties also made mistakes in the 2002 election.

"Yes, there are racial overtones to this whole matter and we intend to bring those before a federal judge," Rubin told reporters. He said the lawsuit would seek millions of dollars in damages but did not specify an exact amount.

Oh, by the way, the replacement appointed by the governor was former school administrator Brenda Snipes, a black female Democrat who defeated Oliphant and several other candidates in the 2004 election.

Hey, I've got it -- she needs to sue the voters of Broward County as well!

Posted by: Greg at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Let's see. Every poll shows the Americna public opposed to it. Every vote of the people on the matter has brought about a ban on it. But a third state Democrat party is about to embrace homosexual marriage.

The state Democratic Party plans to endorse same-sex marriage next week, just days before the first anniversary of legal gay weddings in Massachusetts, the party's chairman said.

The party's 3,000 delegates will gather at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell on May 14 to add the endorsement to its platform, state chairman Philip Johnston told The Boston Globe.
``I don't anticipate any serious debate about it,'' he said. ``I think most delegates will support it. In this state, the more people get used to the idea, the more support there is.''

Gay weddings began in Massachusetts last May 17, making it the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples and sparking a national backlash.

Voters in 11 states have since approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, bringing the number of states with such bans to 18. In addition, 24 states have enacted legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now this is the state that gives us John Kerry Ted kennedy, and Barney Frank -- with Kerry being the most conservative of the three -- so I'm not surprised to see the party proclaiming "We're outside the mainstream of American values!" I know this will be one more albatross around the neck of John Kerry in 2008, and will have to be dealt with by every Democrat running for president that year.

Posted by: Greg at 08:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

One reality that depresses this history teacher is that too many Americans do not understand the fundamental evils that were Nazism and fascism. Take these little cretins from Middlebury College.

The controversy began when the college announced on March 10 that Mr. Giuliani had been selected as the commencement speaker because "of his actions on 9/11," said Mr. Benoit.

The rest of the episode goes like this: Ben Gore, a senior Middlebury student from Maryland, wrote an opinion piece, "Giuliani Is a Punk, Un-invite Him," that assailed the former mayor's legacy and referred to him as a "racist," which many students find "morally reprehensible." Though Mr. Gore wrote that Mr. Giuliani was "coming to be considered a fascist," before Sept. 11, he did not take the leap of comparing Mr. Giuliani to Hitler. That was left to the retouched photo that ran next to the column [run at the direction of editor Andrea Gissing], which depicted Mr. Giuliani with a Hitler-style haircut and mustache giving a Nazi salute.

I donÂ’t suppose that either of these historically illiterate individuals would care to offer examples that actually constitute fascist or Nazi tendencies on the part of Mayor Giuliani. You know, just one or two things that might justify identifying him with two of the most malignant ideologies that scarred the twentieth century. I suggest that they would be unable to tell us what the defining characteristics of those two movements might be, much less frame a coherent argument as to how the former mayor of our nationÂ’s largest city fit within either. And I do not say that as a Rudy fan, because I have my own criticisms of the man.

No, the problem that exists today is that there is a segment of the American population that has decided that the words “Nazi” and “fascist” mean “people who dare to disagree with my political ideology.” Thus clearing the streets of aggressive panhandlers and squeegee-men is no different than the industrialized genocide conducted at Auschwitz. Opposition to terrorism, in the eyes of such individuals, is no different than the brutal suppression of political dissent. The irony is that their abuse of such loaded historical terms is a form of McCarthyism and red-baiting, a practice which they would no doubt condemn if we were to label their left-wing ideology as Communist – the third malignant ideology of the twentieth century, and the one which caused the most damage.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 3 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and haven’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the people’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m positively dumbfounded by the naiveté displayed by the ordinarily rational columnist for the New York Times

Bill Frist should have taken the deal.

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn't been publicized. I've been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush's pick, he'd come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush's nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

Reid couldn't put this offer in writing because it would outrage liberal interest groups. Frist said he'd think about it, but so far he's let it drop — even though clearing the way for a Supreme Court pick is one of the GOP goals in this dispute.

First, the reason that Reid wouldn’t put the agreement in writing is that he would never follow through with it. The Democrats will try to prevent any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court – especially if it is a female or minority nominee.

Second, Reid wanted to block some of the most qualified nominees – Brown, Owen, and Pryor – who would be likely future Supreme Court picks. Why should Frist agree to hamstring the current president or his successor by agreeing to keep these judges off the bench when doing so means conceding to the unconstitutional acts of the Senate Democrats.

Third, establishing the principle that the minority gets to determine what judges are acceptable in the face of majority support is antithetical to the will of the people. The Democrats have not come out on top in a national election since 1996, and havenÂ’t controlled Congress since 1994. They have been rejected in every election since then. For the party supported by the people to surrender to those opposed to the peopleÂ’s will would be a rank betrayal of the electorate.

No, don’t compromise – go nuclear.

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 2 kb.

Janice Rogers Brown was born the daughter of sharecroppers in the segregated South. She has risen to the top of her profession, earning the respect of supporters and (most) opponents along the way. Yet her nomination remains bottled up in the Senate, as Democrats are afraid to allow a vote on a candidate supported by the majority of Senators.

What is it in her judicial philosophy that they fear? It would appear to be her staunch defense of freedom.

LetÂ’s examine some of her opinions. There is her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002).

Consider her dissent in San Remo Hotel vs. San Francisco (2002), a case that upheld the extortionate fee that San Francisco charges owners of small residential hotels if they want to rent rooms to tourists instead of housing the homeless. Brown noted that these mostly mom-and-pop businesses are "a relatively powerless group" that have been arbitrarily singled out for social- welfare duty. The Fifth Amendment, she observed, prohibits government from forcing "some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

She reminded her colleagues that "the free use of private property is just as important as ... speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."

Notice, she is defending the right of individuals to control the use of their property free of unreasonable government interference. That view is contained in the US Constitution itself, and is only controversial if one accepts the socialist premise that the government has the ultimate right to determine the best use of your property. Her view is the same as that espoused by Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders.

Of course, perhaps they object to People vs. McKay (2002), in which Justice Brown noted that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is meaningless if a police officer can use as a pretext trivial offenses that are based less on public safety than on the color of the arrested individualÂ’s skin.

Her libertarian impulse was displayed in her dissent in People vs. McKay (2002), concerning a bicyclist, riding against traffic, who was pulled over by police. When the cyclist failed to produce identification, he was arrested and searched. The court's decision upholding this action, Brown concluded, stretched Fourth Amendment protections to the breaking point. "If full custodial arrest is authorized for trivial offenses, the power to search should be constrained," she wrote.

She also saw a larger issue, involving race: "I do not know Mr. McKay's ethnic background. One thing I would bet on: he was not riding his bike a few doors down from his home in Bel Air, or Brentwood, or Rancho Palos Verdes -- places where no resident would be arrested for riding the 'wrong way' on a bicycle whether he had his driver's license or not. Well ... it would not get anyone arrested unless he looked like he did not belong in the neighborhood."

Or maybe it is her controlling opinion in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose (2000) that frightens her detractors, holding as it does that the underlying principle of civil-rights law is equality of opportunity for individuals, not equality of result for different groups.

Brown's belief that no one should be treated less equally because of skin color is recorded most strongly in Hi-Voltage Wireworks vs. San Jose, a 2000 case that enforced Proposition 209, the measure banning race and sex favoritism by state and local government. She wrote the controlling opinion striking down a public-works program that gave preferential treatment based on race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." Prop. 209, Brown wrote, embodies the civil-rights principle: "equal opportunity for all individuals," not "entitlement based on group representation."

If one reads these opinions fairly, it is impossible to see anything other than a judge who is faithful to her duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And maybe that is what the Left-Wing Extremists who control the Democrat Party fear. These forces are aware that their extreme philosophy is rejected by the majority of Americans, and that the route to enshrining their ideology in American law is through the decree of judges who will place those principles beyond the reach of the American people and their elected representatives by declaring them to be part of an ever evolving, changing and unknowable (except to liberal judges) Constitution that bears little resemblance to the document displayed in the National Archives. That makes the filibuster of Justice BrownÂ’s nomination (and those of her fellow nominees) a supreme act of ideological arrogance that must be ended by the Senate majority at the earliest opportunity.

Posted by: Greg at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 816 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, there seem to be no important issues for the California legislature to deal with this session. How can I tell? I think the introduction and debate of this proposed law is a pretty good indication.

California, home of the first company to offer made-to-order pet clones, would become the first state in the country to ban the sale of cloned and genetically engineered companion animals under proposed legislation.
The bill, authored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is driven by a philosophical position that custom-making pets isn't a worthy use of biotechnology.
"There's no social benefit," Levine said. "Just because we can doesn't mean we should."
The bill is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in Room 127 of the Capitol before the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

Now I can partially agree with Levine over this. I donÂ’t see a great social benefit to cloning pets or engaging in genetic engineering of animals for pleasure. But the mere fact that there is no social benefit doesnÂ’t mean that the state can or should ban an activity. After all, I donÂ’t see any public benefit in driving a Hummer, voting Democrat or watching reruns of Seinfeld, but I oppose banning such them on the grounds that people have the right to make stupid choices. The same is true here. If IÂ’ve got $50,000 to blow making a carbon copy of my adorable pound puppy, then it isnÂ’t the business of the legislature to interfere.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (92) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

So, pro-terrorist ex-Congressman Pete McCloskey (who urged Americans to vote for Kerry last November) and a group of “Republican elders” are trying to find a candidate to run against my congressman, Tom DeLay. They even met with a former primary opponent (DeLay beat him by a 4-to-1 margin) who ran as an independent last time around, finishing 3rd in a 4-way race (I believe he beat the Libertarian).

"Tom DeLay is an embarrassment to the Republican Party," said McCloskey, who represented Northern California from 1967 to 1983.

He met Sunday with Michael Fjetland, who was defeated by DeLay in Republican primaries in 2000 and 2002 and as an independent in the 2004 general election.

McCloskey is one of nine former congressmen who have formed an informal group he called the "revolt of the elders," to oppose congressmen who they think are guilty of ethics violations.

"Nobody can come into a Texas district and tell the voters who to support," McCloskey said.

But, he added, that just as DeLay raises money from outside the district, his opponents in the next election will also probably get national support.

Interestingly enough, the Chronicle article leaves out a crucial detail – the identity of these other eight “Republican elders” who are trying to determine who will represent me in Congress. It seems to me that it would be in the public interest for the Chronicle to tell us who they are, but doing so might interfere with their DeLay-bashing. And besides, if they were all identified it might allow readers to conclude that the so-called “Republican elders” are outside the mainstream of the GOP.

UPDATE: My friends over at Lone Star Times have a couple of great pieces on McCloskey and Fjetland. No word, though, on who the "Republican elders" are -- which would be of interest to this 22nd Congressional District GOP Precinct Chair.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

American defense officials redacted elements of the "Sgrena Incident" investigation when it was released. Unfortunately, the PDF version of the report still contained the redacted text in hidden form, and the Italian newspapers are glad to tell you how to get it. The revealed material includes basic operational details and deployment information regarding American forces.

According to Slashdot, the following information has been put into the public domain by the Italian press.

* An itemization of IEDs and VBIEDs deployment techniques which have been most effective,

* An analysis of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of specific checkpoints along "Route Irish",

* Combat readiness assesment of the units and soldiers involved,

* A detailed description of how the checkpoint is laid out,

* Exact grid locations of various assets.

* Details of how checkpoint searches are set up and executed

* Details of how checkpoints are expected to deal with approaching vehicles, including threat assesment methods.

* A statistical analysis of "normal" traffic approaching the checkpoint.

* It names the soldiers involved and details the specific actions taken by those soldiers. It names the soldier who killed Calipari.

* It briefly describes U.S. Embassy procedures for transporting VIPs along Route Irish and in general.

* It details movement of U.S. and Italian Embassy personnel.

* It describes possible future procedures and configurations for checkpoints.

In other words, our putative Italian "allies" are all too willing to put into general circulation information that will make it easier for terrorists to conduct operations that could kill American military personnel and diplomats, Iraqi leaders and citizens, and foreign VIPs.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- Old Europe's elite have always been against any action that brings freedom to oppressed people.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Posted by: Greg at 09:09 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, I guess I'll be adding Bruce Springsteen to my personal boycott list.

Why?

Because of Springsteen's response to a shouted comment at his Glendale Arena concert in Phoenix, Arizona last night.

He ad-libbed a "That's right" after one audience member yelled "(Expletive) the president" at one point.

(Expletive) Springsteen!

That's right.

Posted by: Greg at 08:37 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess that even I am shocked by the cynicism displayed in this article.

God does not side with the Republicans, Sen. John Kerry said in a fiery speech last week, accusing Republican leaders of politicizing religion to further their agenda.

This week, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy quoted Jesus from the Bible. It was a rebuttal, he said, of Republicans' claims that Democrats are “against people of faith.”

And Rep. John Olver, an Amherst Democrat, said he's considered buying an “anthology of good biblical quotations,” which he'd use to neutralize Republicans' religious references.

Am I the only one who thinks that Olver might do better to buy (and read) an actual BIBLE rather than an "anthology of good biblical quotations"?

And am I the only one put in mind of the Fourth Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew when Kennedy said that his ability to quote scripture is proof that Democrats are not "against people of faith"?

1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2 And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3 Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'"
5 Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple,
6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'He shall give His angels charge over you,' and, 'In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'"
8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
9 And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"
11 Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

Notice, please, that even the devil can quote Scripture. So, too, do these "Matthew 4 Democrats", if they think that it will further their agenda.

Posted by: Greg at 06:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

I liked John Cornyn when he was on the Texas Supreme Court. I supported Cornyn when he ran for Attorney General here in Texas, and think he did a great job in that office. And I gladly campaigned for him during his Senate run in 2002, and have had no regrets since then. But now his website gives me one more reason to like Cornyn's style. It's the new Name That Speaker feature, which provides anti-filibuster quotes from a number of amnesiac Democrats.

[Cornyn spokesman Don] Stewart has built an arsenal of quotes culled from 13 years of congressional records showing Democrats speaking out against the filibuster, which the minority party uses to slow down actions of the majority.

In Cornyn's game, quotes are posted on his Web site ( cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker), and political Webheads guess who said them.

Stewart has about 60 quotes ready to go. The ones he used in the inaugural week were uttered by Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa, Barbara Boxer of California, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Cornyn said the Web postings are "informative and use humor" to make a point.

So drop buy and view the best in Democrat arguments in favor of using the "constitutional option" to secure confirmation of judicial nominees supported by a majority of the US Senate.

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Can you believe this outrageous quote from has-been Democrat Mario Cuomo?

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

Uh, Mario, that has been the strategy of the liberals for the last half century or more. When the people and the political branches oppose a liberal article of faith, get the judges to impose it as a matter of unalterable "constitutional law." How do you think we got the most liberal abortion laws on the face of the earth? How do you think homosexual marriage and civil unions got into place? Liberals used courts to get them all, because "they cannot get [them] from the proper political bocies" without judicial coercion.

Posted by: Greg at 03:36 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Professor Steven Calabresi argues that the Democrats have already won the battle to keep conservative women, minorities, and Catholics off the Supreme Court by their use of the filibuster against Bush Appellate nominees. Miguel Estrada has withdrawn himself from consideration. Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Carolyn Kuhl have yet to be confirmed, though Pryor sits on the bench through a recess appointment. He presumes that the failure of the Senate to confirm these judges is grounds for keeping them off the Supreme Court, noting that only older white men are mentioned as possible nominees in the event of a Supreme Court resignation or death. I disagree with Calabresi, but let me come back to that later.

This has happened, of course, due to the desire of Democrats to avoid the appointment of a certain kind of justice to the Supreme Court.

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, the legal left and the Democratic Party rallied around the slogan "No more Clarence Thomases." By that they meant that they would not allow any more conservative African Americans, Hispanics, women, or Catholics to be groomed for nomination to the High Court with court of appeals appointments. The Democrats have done such a good job of this that, today, the only names being floated as serious Supreme Court nominees are those of white men.

This is what is at stake in the fight that rages now over whether the filibuster of judges gets abolished. Leading Democratic activists like Bruce Ackerman have called on Senate Democrats never to allow another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. If they succeed in establishing the proposition that it takes 60 instead of 51 votes to get on the Supreme Court, conservatives can forget about ever again appointing a Scalia or a Thomas.

On this point, I agree. Compromise with the Democrats, never a good idea when we are dealing with principle or constitutional matters, is impossible on this point. Senate Republicans need to choke the life out of the filibuster of judicial nominees now, for that tactic will surely be used this summer when Chief Justice Rehnquist (presumably) will resign due to ill health. The nation's highest court, the only one actually established by the Constitution, must not be allowed to continue to be a tool of the political minority.

More to the point, the Democrats must not be allowed to post a metaphorical "No Conservative Minorities Allowed" sign on the bench of our nation's highest court.

Why are Senate Democrats so afraid of conservative judicial nominees who are African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, and women? Because these Clarence Thomas nominees threaten to split the Democratic base by aligning conservative Republicans with conservative voices in the minority community and appealing to suburban women. The Democrats need Bush to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court whom they can caricature and vilify, and it is much harder for them to do that if Bush nominates the judicial equivalent of a Condi Rice rather than a John Ashcroft.

Conservative African-American, Hispanic, Catholic, and female judicial candidates also drive the left-wing legal groups crazy because they expose those groups as not really speaking for minorities or women. They thus undermine the moral legitimacy of those groups and drive a wedge between the left-wing leadership of those groups and the members they falsely claim to represent.

These are mainstream jurists with mainstream political philosophies. Most have been handily reelected to judicial office by the voters of their states, or confirmed handily for District Court seats by the Senate. There is no reason for them not to be confirmed. But what Senate Democrats do not realize is that they may be creating their own worst nightmare. I hope President Bush simply bumps one of these nominees up to the Supreme Court.

Some of you may ask how that could happen. After all, they don't have Circuit Court experience. My response is that the lack of such experience is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a state judge in Arizona at the time of her nomination. William Brennan was a state Supreme Court justice in New Jersey. William Rehnquist was an assistant attorney general. Earl Warren was governor of California. Hugo Black was a US Senator from Alabama. I could name others as well, but I think you see the point. Experience on the federal bench is not now and never has been a requirement to be nominated to the Supreme Court -- and each of those I mention is considered to be a great or near great justice.

Now here is where I disagree with Calabresi. I do not think that some of these potential Supreme Court nominees need be taken out of consideration. Justice Janice Rogers Brown and Justice Priscilla Owens have current background checks, have had hearings and Judiciary Committee votes in recent weeks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with either of them. George W. Bush could take a stand and make the nomination to the Supreme Court and justify it with the state Supreme Court experience and the complete record that has been compiled for the current confirmation battle. Hearings could be abbreviated (after all, what more is there to bring out?), and the new justice seated quickly. That would be the ideal moment for the nuclear option to be used.

For that matter, the president could let it be known privately that the nominee had better be approved quickly, lest his replacement nominee be even less palatable and more bulletproof. Who might the nominee be? Either Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, whose criticism of Owens while he was a Texas Supreme Court justice is used as an excuse to hold up her nomination and who was recently confirmed; or Senator John Cornyn, who like Gonzalez is also a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court and whose status as a Senator would make him difficult for Senate Democrats to reject. Rather than allow either of the alternatives to be put forward, Democrats would likely fold their hand and give in.

(Hat Tip -- Southern Appeal)

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1038 words, total size 7 kb.

Once again, the GOP has tried to accomodate the obstructionism of the Democrats in the Senate. Bill Frist offered 100 hours of debate on each nominee to the Courts of Appeals, followed by an up or down vote on the nomination. The Democrats, of course, reject any solution that allows the will of the majority of Americans to be carried out.

Reid characterized the Frist offer in an interesting manner.

he Senate's top Democrat immediately expressed doubt about the proposal, calling it "a big wet kiss to the far right."

I suppose that we could therefore characterize the Democratic obstruction of the majority rule as the extended fellatio of the extreme left.

Senate Republicans must do something. Either invoke the nuclear option or insist that the Democrats engage in a real filibuster by speaking 24/7, resulting in the shut-down of all Senate business.

Posted by: Greg at 04:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Shush your silly babblings. Bush already nominated more than 200 judges and nearly all of 'em were approved except for 10 judges. That is less than 10 percent ... and you still whine?

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:28:34 2005 (nWmj6)

2 Well, Ridor, good to see you have mastered the DNC talking points -- which conveniently ignore that the judges approved were almost all District Court judges, not Appeals Court judges. Because of the unwarranted filibuster of judges deemed qualified under the standards announced by Leahy and Schumer in 2001 BEFORE THEY WERE NOMINATED, Bush has the lowest confirmation rate for Appeals Court judges in 50 years.

Now I realize that such facts get in the way of your meme, but truth is truth. Deal with it.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:30:24 2005 (40i+f)

3 Bada bing!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:27:09 2005 (LmcbS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

IÂ’m a big defender of free speech, including speech that I profoundly disagree with. That said, I think these folks have crossed the line. Look at this skit from Err AmericaÂ’s Randi Rhodes Show, as reported by Drudge.

The announcer: "A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]."

This isnÂ’t the first time Rhodes has advocated the murder of George W. Bush. Last year, according to Michelle Malkin, Rhodes did this little number last May.

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of "Godfather" fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. "

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In "Godfather II," Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

Buh-bye, bitch – we’ll see you in 10-20 years. Such statements about killing the president are a crime.

UPDATE: It seems this is a serious story on which Drudge got the scoop. Even the folks from Err America are investigating Randi.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve written about the plight of Chinese Christians who refuse to join the state controlled churches. They are subject to arrest, torture, and other forms of abuse for exercising the freedom to believe and to worship as they choose. One would think such persecution would be of interest to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Sadly, though, it is not.

Not only is it not of interest to that organization, but one of its members, China, recently forced the suppression of testimony about the atrocities it commits against Christians. On April 5, Bob Fu of the China Aid Association, appeared before the group to testify about the case of Cai Zhuohua, a pastor imprisoned for printing Bibles without government permission. Fu noted the use of various instruments of torture, in Chinese prisons. This brought a most disturbing result.

One of the Chinese police's favorite torture devices — and one that has probably been used repeatedly on Cai Zhuohua — is a kind of electric baton. Bob Fu owns such a baton, smuggled out of a Chinese prison. He took it to Geneva after obtaining permission from the secretary of the UNCHR to conduct a demonstration of it during his testimony. This demonstration consisted of Fu's holding it in the air over his head and turning it on for six seconds.

Predictably, the Chinese delegation went berserk, its members claiming that the demonstration made them feel threatened. (One is left to wonder how they would feel if the baton were actually used against them.) They then demanded that Fu be booted from the proceedings. The commission's chairman, obliging chap that he is, agreed. Fu was escorted from the building and stripped of his U.N. badge. His baton was also seized, and has not been returned.

So, it is more serious to offend the government of a repressive dictatorship than it is for that state to engage in the torture of citizens exercising their human rights. How interesting. How pathetic. And they wonder why so many of us do not recognize the legitimacy of the UN any longer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Aww, boo hoo -- what about the Inquisitions? The Catholic Church savagely murdered thousands of people, perhaps a million, and stole their properties to enrich themselves and now you whine about these damned Chinese X-ians? R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Apr 29 21:35:31 2005 (nWmj6)

2 And no doubt you look at the Holocaust and say "The Hebrews slaughtered the Amorites and stole their riches, and now you complain about these damned European Jews?"

Posted by: Rgymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 02:37:18 2005 (40i+f)

3 This is about relatively current events and not something that happened 500 yeas ago. Funny how people keep referring something that happened 500 years as valid but turn a blind eye that's going on in our backyards. Typical. Only in NYC...wait, make that Philadelphia.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 12:48:58 2005 (LmcbS)

4 Still reading my blog from day one, mcc -- get a life. HOlocause was caused by whom? Christians. Starting with the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church -- both preached for years to castigate the Jews. And Hitler picked up on it. Whose fault was it? Yours, of course -- only in New Mexico would think that no Xian is responsible for it. R- R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Apr 30 15:02:38 2005 (nWmj6)

5 Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Jewish (insert your favorite religion) were responsible for a lot of human misery back then. Shall I go about whose to blame for the AIDS thing? Figures. As for reading blogs, I read alot of people's blogs, including yours. I've admitted this already before...Key Lime, Shifting Realities, wam bam, daily kos, Malkin, Powerline, GOPbloggers, etc... Know your enemies. However, what I didn't do is go about complaining, "your blog is so boring and I'm not going to visit it again" and yet you keep coming back to read my blogs and keep making the same complaint 3 or 4 times. And yet I banned you recently a week ago for violating my rules, and you're a hair away from getting banned at RWR. Yet, you tell me to "get a life"??? I don't whine and complain... http://www.google.com/search?q=ridor+mccock&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&filter=0 That certainly is funny. But hey, if I catch you make a mistake on your blog, I'll certainly make a note of it in my blog to correct you. Onward ho!

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:16:51 2005 (WvGhb)

6 Let's see -- the Holocaust happened because an anti-Semitic group of Social-ists gained political power and scapegoated the Jews for Germany's problems. These Social-ists received less than a majority of the German vote, and their lowest vote totals came from the Catholic regions of Germany. While the Jews received the worst from this gang of Social-ists, the Catholic Church and its institutions were also heavily mistreated. It is estimated by reputable historians that the Catholic Church saved some 750,000-1,000,000 Jews from the death camps set up by these murderous Social-ists, with the figure of 860,000 being the best documented number. Two succesive popes (Pius XI & Pius XII) denounced both anti-Semitism and the Social-ist regime's persecution of the Jews in Germany -- something that the governments of the United States and England (to name two) did not do until much later. While the Social-ist group in question is ostensibly rejected by the Left today, its general support fo terrorists who seek to destroy Israel and murder its people prove that the Left remains as committed to the destruction of the Jews today as it was in 1935.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Apr 30 16:28:15 2005 (HZavY)

7 Hmm...kool aid drinkers come to mind. The Jim Jones Society of today is indeed quite dangerous, RWR. Ethnic cleansing, to them, is always justifiable while the many of us abhor it.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Apr 30 16:40:08 2005 (WvGhb)

8 I dont drink kool aid -- I hadn't drink one in years. You may as well as go ahead and drink some. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 12:38:18 2005 (nWmj6)

9 Problem is, I don't justify ethnic cleansing in any way shape or form. You might want to look in the mirror again, R.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 1 15:15:59 2005 (xXUn0)

10 Sometimes it is necessary to wipe the planet off its infections -- like you. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 1 21:35:53 2005 (nWmj6)

11 Absolutely outrageous, Ridor -- I can only imagine the degree of anger you would express if such a someone had made that comment when we were discussing HIV/AIDS in the homosexual community on the other thread. The difference -- I would have joined you in expressing anger at that kind of hate -- while you perpetrate it here.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 1 23:00:54 2005 (Zi3ux)

12 Right, RWR. I've never advocated ethnic cleansing...even with HIV realm on ever suggesting that. I'm however outlining stupidity of people who know better regarding the dangers of STDs, even when they have the information. The thing is, I don't just hate. But what I do hate is seeing stupidity. That's all.

Posted by: mcconell at Mon May 2 02:55:47 2005 (7AMlr)

13 The whole point is that abstinence programs do not work. Just teach the prevention will. And if the gay rights are enacted, the risks will go from high to low because of self-worthiness. I know because I am there. I can see the high risks associated with promiscuity because of self-worthiness perpetuated by discrimination from the family, churches, government. Go figure. That does not mean that I have the HIV -- I routinely tested every six months and I can see how it is bad for others when they lacked the support from anyone else in particular. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 08:23:50 2005 (nWmj6)

14 "Routinely tested." - that says alot. And certainly, abstinence does work. It's up to the person. You're not going to die practicing abstinence. However, not doing so could certainly be the case.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 10:14:54 2005 (LmcbS)

15 And of course, Ridor, teaching people not to drink and drive diesn't work either -- so let's get kids drunk and put them behind the wheel to teach them to be safe drunk drivers.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 10:34:06 2005 (PMXcw)

16 McWeenie, if one person does not want to have sex, that is fine with me. But common sense dictated that the majority of them will have sex sooner or later, like it or not. So better to teach them the means to prevent themselves from getting STDs. What is so wwrong about it? Why so relentless on abstinence? Most teenagers will not listen to that crap, trust me. It certainly worked but very few ones will practice abstinence whereas the rest will do it anyway -- so let's do the prevention for the majority. Stop lying around. Routinely tested is a personal thing, it is none of your business to determine what kind of person I am. You simply do not know who I am. NOr do I with you. Stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours. RWR, as always, your logic is flawed. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 12:32:12 2005 (nWmj6)

17 And as usual, you do not bother to refute an actual argument, but instead banter about your personal stuff.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon May 2 12:48:08 2005 (PMXcw)

18 Like I said, R, I don't "kiss and tell" and you having an open book in your blogsite doesn't help either. And for you to make comments here, doesn't help either. Abstinence works. It's a choice when you give them all the options and provide them the risk analysis and awareness, and the graphic reality of contracting STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective, while abstinence is. Simple as that even though they may want to try sex but they need to see the absolute reality of STDs and pregnancy first hand early enough in their life. Nothing wrong with that, either. It all boils down to an informed decision.

Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 2 12:52:23 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Abstinence does NOT work for the MAJORITY of the population. It is merely a *choice*. Hell, I'll just stop talking to you both. I'm done with you both. You simply refused to reason but to berate repeatedly to your advantages. What I do with my life is none of your business. I chose to be honest about who I am, and if you want to ridicule, so be it. Go ahead. But guess what? I won't participate. See ya later, f*ers. R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon May 2 17:48:54 2005 (nWmj6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment