I posted this last night, and want to give the flip side of the issue as prominent play as I gave the original arguments of Drudge and Passionate America.

For the past two days, a conservative blogger has ginned up publicity for his work outing a 21-year-old young man--a former congressional page and current deputy campaign manager for a heartland Republican congressman--who received sexually explicit instant messages from disgraced Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley when he was 17 and 18 years old. I have received several e-mails from the blogger and readers flogging the post.

I refused to link to the blogger then and even though the Drudge Report has plastered screaming headlines about the blogger's scoop, I refuse to link to it now. There was absolutely no good reason to expose the former congressional page's name and identity. Seizing on ABC News' redaction failure and reporting errors (more on that in a moment) to play gotcha in a feeble attempt to avenge Foley is not a sufficient reason to obliterate the young man's privacy. The young man was the prey, not the predator.

Nobody is acting well here. ABC News seems to have made an honest error when it failed to completely redact the young man's AOL IM handle. That's how the conservative blogger traced the exposed man's identity. But in the wake of the Drudge pounding tonight, the news network surreptitiously edited its misreporting on the young man's age at the time of one of the IM exchanges without bothering to make clear it was a correction.

ABC's website now reads as follows.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18.

That does change matters -- and indicates sloppy work by the ABC reporters and editors involved.

But even that still raises some of the legal issues noted in the MSNBC article I linked below -- while disgusting and repugnant, Foley's actions may well have been legal due to the requirement of state and federal laws that obscene communication be with someone under 16 amd the whole age of consent issue. These matters could impact the investigations in an interesting way -- and make the Gerry Studds comparison more pertinant, as he actually engaged in sex with a 17-year-old. Is talking dirty to a page really worse than sodomizing one?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 439 words, total size 3 kb.

While the actions of former Rep. Mark Foley are beyond acceptable, it is possible that they were not criminal -- because he was engaged in an exchange with an 18-year-old adult!

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately. It is possible that during that very brief interval a screen name could have been captured. Reviews of the site since then show no unredacted screen names."

SEX CHAT WAS WITH 18 YEAR OLD

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

Now Democrats and homosexual activists have for years claimed that Rep. Gerry Studd's sexual dalliances with a 17-year-old page were a private matter and acceptable because the boy was above the age of consent at the time. Should this young man prove to be an adult, will they now acknowledge that they would have been making an issue over LEGAL sexual activity by a homosexual -- and that they have been applying a different standard to a gay Republican than to gay Democrats?

Will ABC and Brian Ross admit that they have deceived the American public if the conversations were with an adult rather than a juvenile?

And will pigs sprout wings and fly round the Capitol Rotunda?

UPDATE: MSNBC has this piece on why thre may be no crime (or at least no prosecution) at all in the emails or IMs.

Investigators could consider federal obscenity laws, experts said, but the law prohibiting disseminating obscene material to children applies only to those under 16.

Benjamin Vernia, a former federal prosecutor specializing in such cases, compared Foley’s online conversations with pages to “grooming,” a law enforcement term for the way sexual predators bring along their underage victims. Grooming is a red flag for authorities, Vernia said, but it’s rarely enough to bring charges.

The question for federal investigators is whether FoleyÂ’s online chats ever led to real encounters. One chat transcript suggests Foley and a page had met in San Diego, but the chat doesnÂ’t indicate what took place.

Even if a sexual encounter occurred, however, that wonÂ’t necessarily be enough to lead to charges. It depends on how old the pages were at the time and what the age of consent was in that state.

If a state law was broken and authorities can show Foley used the Internet to facilitate it, that could trigger federal jurisdiction, experts said.

Foley is scum. That is beyond question. But he may not be a criminal -- and this may all be much ado about legal actions with individuals above the age of consent in their respective jurisdictions. This may highlight that the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we get rid of our perverts, while Democrats reelect them.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 609 words, total size 4 kb.

In various conversations, I’ve had folks tell me that the Foley emails were sexual in nature. When I’ve stated they were not, I was accused of lying, of covering up, or of “parsing words.” But that simply is not the case. Let me reproduce for you the text of the emails that the GOP leadership, the press, and the FBI were aware of prior to last week.

HereÂ’s the second (the first is just confirming that the email address is correct).

glad your home safe and soundÂ… we donÂ’t go back into session until Sept 5Â…. si itÂ’s a nice long breakÂ…. I am back in Florida nowÂ… its nice hereÂ… been raining todayÂ… it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeksÂ…how old are you now?

In other words, just a chatty email. Except for that last question, I don’t see a thing that raises an eyebrow – and given the preexisting relationship between the two, it is not an outrageous question to ask in a breezy conversation.

The next email reads as follows.

I am in North CarolinaÂ…and it was 100 in New OrleansÂ…wow thatÂ’s really hotÂ… well do you miss DCÂ… Its raning here but 68 degrees so who can argueÂ… did you have fun at your conferenceÂ… what do you want for your birthday coming upÂ… what stuff do you like to do

Again, fairly innocuous stuff in a fairly breezy style – though since I don’t know the relevant dates I am unsure if the birthday is close to the time of the email. That might be a natural part of the conversation.

That was followed by this.

I just emailed willÂ…heÂ’s such a nice guyÂ…acts much older than his ageÂ…and hes really in great shapeÂ….i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now, heading to the gymÂ….whats school like for you this year?

Talk about mutual acquaintances is hardly outrageous – and since Foley was known to be something of a fitness buff, the comments about biking and working out shouldn’t surprise anyone. And more importantly, I see nothing sexual in this.

And then there is this email – the one that caused the young man to drop all communication.

how are you weathering the hurricaneÂ…are you safeÂ…send me an email pic of you as wellÂ….

An expression of concern following a natural disaster, and a request for a photo. I guess I donÂ’t see the sexual content here.

Overly friendly? Definitely. Unprofessional? I’d agree. Indicative of Foley’s immaturity? Yep. But a sign of sexual predation? I don’t think so – unless you have some OTHER information to add, information that the House leadership did not have.

On the other hand, someone did have this information – possibly Democrat officials or political operatives. What did they know and when did they know it? I hope that the investigations that have begun examine those questions as well.

This development is troubling – and I think the firing of this staffer is the minimum action needed.

The chief of staff for Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds, Kirk Fordham, resigned after questions were raised about his role in the handling of the congressional page scandal, according to Republican sources on Capitol Hill.

Those sources said Fordham, a former chief of staff for Congressman Mark Foley, had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board, made up of two Republicans and a Democrat.

"He begged them not to tell the page board," said one of the Republican sources.

ABC, however, wants to paint this as a case of scapegoating.

FordhamÂ’s resignation was demanded by Speaker Hastert.

Fordham was also instrumental in orchestrating Foley's abrupt resignation last week hours after ABC News confronted the congressman with sexually explicit instant messages allegedly sent to pages.

Fordham offered ABC News a deal if it would not publish the content of the instant messages.

"He said we could have the exclusive on the resignation if we did not run direct quotes from the instant messages," said Maddy Sauer, the ABC News producer who dealt with Fordham.

ABC News refused to make any such deal.

It is clear that FordhamÂ’s actions were not in the best interest of the House of Representatives or the page program, but were rather a case of covering for a friend. I suspect that when all is said and done we will find that Fordham knew much more than he claims at this time. IÂ’ll withhold judgment on his boss, Rep Tom Reynolds, until the situation become clearer.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember -- if the drop of the Dow (begun under Clinton and deepened by 9/11) and the increase in oil prices (caused by short supply, increased demand, and natural disasters) were all George Bush's fault, so is this.

The Dow Jones industrial average leaped into record territory Tuesday, highlighting Wall Street's long recovery from the popping of the technology bubble, the 2001 terrorist attacks and a wave of corporate scandals.

The new closing high of 11,727.34 highlights how much things have changed. In January 2000, it was all technology all the time. Internet firms without real business plans and pajama-clad day traders were the glamour kids. Then the bubble burst, Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. collapsed, and small investors ran for the hills.

And interestingly enough, the stock market today is much more solid than it was when teh slide began in January of 2000, when the Internet bubble propelled the rise in stock prices.

And oil dropped below $59.00 a barrel yesterday -- and I'm paying $1.89 a gallon for gas.

I love how George W, Bush is managing the economy and bringing down gas prices!

And I won't comment on the great job he has done preventing hurricanes this year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

Looks like the internet is a place where Gov. Mitt Romney has a lot of support.

There are the Texans for Mitt, the Tennesseeans for Mitt, the Iowans for Mitt. Then there are the Evangelicals for Mitt, the Catholics for Mitt and the Law Students for Mitt.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn't a declared candidate for president yet, but already several Web logs, or blogs, are sprouting up to promote the Republican for the White House in 2008.

Like the grass-roots efforts of old, this is the newfound Web-roots.

About 20 states now have their own Web sites with fans marketing Romney as the best choice to succeed President Bush. And that's in addition to other sites popping up with other groups, such as Women for Romney, Students for Romney and even "My Man Mitt," which is jumping the gun to ask readers to vote on who would make a great vice president for Romney.

"The Internet's such a powerful force in politics now that I think we could do some good things to get his name out," says Nathan Burd, who runs AmericansforMitt.com and is one of the founders of the movement to host sites in every state.

The blogs - the founders of which all say they are independent of the campaign - focus on a variety of issues, with some rounding up statements the governor has made about taxes, abortion or terrorism. Others post news clippings about Romney and commentary about his positions or the coverage he's getting.

Now IÂ’ve made no secret of my support for Romney, and recently became one of the co-bloggers over at Texans for Mitt Romney. And I keep seeing more and more support springing up for the man around the Internet.

I believe that Mitt will be teh man to beat in 2008.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

I do believe that Mark Foley’s depravity has reached or surpassed Clinton’s use of Monica as a humidor or getting “serviced” while on the phone with a Congressman.

Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys under the age of 18.

This message was dated April 2003, at approximately 7 p.m., according to the message time stamp.

Maf54: I miss you
Teen: ya me too
Maf54: we are still voting
Maf54: you miss me too
The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.
Maf54: ok..i better go vote..did you know you would have this effect on me
Teen: lol I guessed
Teen: ya go voteÂ…I don't want to keep you from doing our job
Maf54: can I have a good kiss goodnight
Teen: :-*
Teen:

The House voted that evening on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations.

According to another message, Foley also invites the teen and a friend to come to his house near Capitol Hill so they can drink alcohol.

Teen: are you going to be in town over the veterans day weekend
Maf54: I may be now that your coming
Maf54: who you coming to visit
Teen: haha good stuff
Teen: umm no one really
Maf54: we will be adjourned ny then
Teen: oh good
Maf54: by
Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhhÂ…
Maf54: ok
Teen: that's not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: I probably shouldn't be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we don't get busted

I am horrified and disgusted.

And I want to know who knew of these actions or had copies of these messages and did nothing to safeguard the young people involved.

And regardless, I want to see the sick freak go to jail for a very long time.

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 404 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve liked almost every Mormon IÂ’ve ever met. They are among the kindest, most decent folks I know or have known.

At the same time, I do look askance at Mormon theology. I made a serious study of the religion years ago (while dating a Mormon girl – I’ll own that motivation), and I find it impossible to buy into some of the more unusual aspects of Mormon teaching.

But theological differences alone will not keep me from voting for a candidate I otherwise believe to be well-qualified. And that leads me to Dr. James DobsonÂ’s comments on Gov. Mitt RomneyÂ’s religion and its effect on his candidacy.

A prominent and powerful evangelical Christian leader, James Dobson, said yesterday that the Mormon faith practiced by Governor Romney of Massachusetts could pose a serious obstacle if Mr. Romney makes a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

"I don't believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess," Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

Mr. Dobson, the founder of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, did not say why Christians would fail to support Mr. Romney. Mr. Dobson also acknowledged that the governor's stands on social issues are similar to those of many religious conservatives.

"He's a nice guy. He's a very attractive man. He's got a beautiful wife and a lot of his principles and values are consistent with ours," Mr. Dobson said. A spokesman for Mr. Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, had no immediate comment.

In 1960, this country put the “Catholic issue” behind it by electing John F. Kennedy to the presidency. Let’s hope that we can place the “Mormon issue” behind us in 2008. That doesn’t mean electing Romney because of his faith, but it does mean that Americans should give him a respectful hearing and thoughtful consideration as a part of his run for office.

And I believe that many -- indeed, most -- among the Christian Right will give him a decent hearing.

"If he's pro-life, pro-family, I don't think he'll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians," a founder of the Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell, told the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mo. earlier this year.

IÂ’m with Falwell on this one.

* * *

Greg Pierce of the Washington Times offers some reasons why Romney would be a good choice for the GOP.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.

Proving that the conservative paper is just as capable as the liberal media of entering the Alice in Wonderland world of "First the sentence, then the trial", the Washington Times has called for the resignation of Speaker Dennis Hastert over the Tom Foley case.

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.

I'm sorry -- the initial emails were not sufficient to take any such actions. Indeed, media outlests that had them found them to be insufficient to even write stories about them. Rather than blame those who found the emails "overly friendly" until the disgusting IMs came out last week, I think it is more important to find out who has had the clearly inappropriate IMs and why they were held back from the authorities untim now. After all, some of them date back a couple of years, which means that they, not the Speaker or any other member of the leadership team, endangered every page.

By the way, what did the initial FBI inquiry into the initial batch of emails conclude last summer?

An FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity." The bureau announced Sunday that it would begin a preliminary investigation into Foley's more explicit electronic exchanges with teenagers.

In other words, the FBI concurred with the judgement made by Hastert and others (including members of the media who had the emails but chose not to run them) -- there was nothing in the emails that needed to be pursued. So what you had with the original batch of materials was a unanimous conclusion by the House Leadership, the FBI, and the press that there simply was not anything in the emails that rose to the level of misconduct.

The release of the IMs changes that.

Unfortunately, it may be a while before the results of the investigation of this matter come out. Let's behave like rational adults and wait for those results rather than engaging in hysterical recriminations over a couple of emails (absent the IMs) that seem less like a sexual predator seeking a victim and more like a responsible adult expressing concern about a young man whose family had just survived one of our nation's biggest natural disasters.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

When I first read about the emails by Rep. Mark Foley to a congressional page, I dismissed the matter as unimportant and not worthy of comment.

After all, this was not a stranger seeking out kids on the internet -- this was a known, trusted adult. And the information he sought, which his staff claimed was for a letter of recommendation, I routinely ask kids for full name, address, phone number, date of birth, and information about extracurricular information when I write them letters of recommendation for college, and keep that information (and the letters) on file for a couple of years for future reference. And I can't tell you the number of pictures of former students I have around my classroom.

And while I found the question about what the young man wanted for his birthday to be a bit odd, if you consider that the kid lives in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina it looks like an act of kindness subject to wild misinterpretation.

And then the IM came out -- and Foley rightly resigned.

But we are now faced with the question of who knew what and when.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

* * *

Hastert's aides learned in the fall of 2005 only of e-mail exchanges that House officials eventually deemed "over-friendly" with the Louisiana teenager, the speaker's office said yesterday in a lengthy statement. "While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation" with Reynolds, the statement said, "he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution."

Boehner and Reynolds said their offices learned of the Foley e-mails months ago from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R), who sponsored the page from his northeastern-Louisiana district.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of the e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds said yesterday. "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."

Now if all they had were the initial batch of emails, I think the matter may well have been handled appropriately. Hastert, a former teacher and coach, likely would have looked at them exactly as I did. And he did exactly what I believe iIwould have done in that situation -- tell a colleague to be more aware of appropriate boundaries and to cease contact with the boy. Otherwise, there was nothing to the matter to be done. No law appeareds to be broken based upon the facts as initially known.

But unless someone can demonstrate that the IMs were known to congressional leaders or their staffs, Democrat politicization of Foley's misdeeds is inappropriate. Not that it will stop statements like this.

With his statement, [Rep. Tom] Reynolds, who is locked in a difficult reelection campaign, signaled he was unwilling to take the fall alone amid partisan attacks that were becoming increasingly vituperative. The Democratic National Committee yesterday issued a statement asking "Why Did Tom Reynolds Cover Up Congressman's Sex Crimes?" It continued: "While the shocking [online] exchanges produced an immediate uproar that cost Congressman Foley his job, at least one member of the House Republican leadership had known about the situation for months and did nothing about it: . . . Reynolds."

Now I agree with people on both sides of the aisle that this matter needs further inquiry. But absent evidence that the sexually-charged IMs were known before last week, I have to argue that this is a scandal without substance.

UPDATE: GOPBloggers asks What Did The Media Know About Foley And How Long Did They Know It?

Everyone from the St. Petersburg Times to the Palm Beach Post to Roll Call to the Washington Post had the emails that were released by ABC this past Thursday, and none of them went with the story. It seems rather odd now that those same reporters are asking Hastert and others, what did you know and when did you know it?

An interesting question, given that the St. Petersburg Times admits to having the original emails back in November. If they were not significant enough for them to run the story back then, how is it they can damn the GOP leadership in Congress for also finding them to be less than compelling?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Ms. Underestimated, Stop the ACLU, LaShawn Barber, Florida Masochist, Sister Toldjah, A Blog For All, Wizbang Politics, Blue Crab Boulevard, Lawhawk, Unpartisan, Gay Patriot, Real Clear Politics, The American Mind, Right Wing News, Suitably Flip, Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 8 kb.

I'm glad to see it happen. Trolling the House pages for sex -- cyber or real -- is unacceptable.

Frankly, though, the emails initially seemed pretty tame to me.

The Democratic opponent of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) is calling for an investigation into an e-mail exchange that Foley conducted last year with a 16-year-old boy who had worked as a congressional page.

Foley, 52, has served in the House for six terms and is seeking reelection. He said that the five e-mails he wrote to the boy were harmless and that their publication is part of an attempt by Democrats to smear him.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said the five messages he sent to a former congressional page were harmless.
Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said the five messages he sent to a former congressional page were harmless. (Ray Lustig - Ray Lustig -- The Washington Post)

"The e-mails in question were a response to a handwritten thank-you letter from a former page," said Jason Kello, Foley's spokesman. "There have not been any allegations made by anyone except by Tim Mahoney and the Democrats who are attempting to misrepresent a series of innocent communications to prop up a failing political campaign."

Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for Mahoney, a Venus, Fla., rancher and business executive who is running against Foley, said in a written statement: "This is a matter for the appropriate authorities to investigate."

In the brief but chatty e-mails, which were first reported by ABC News, Foley asked how old the boy was, inquired what he wanted for his birthday, requested a picture of the young man and told him that he had just finished a long bike ride and was going to the gym.

According to ABC, the boy forwarded the e-mail that requested his picture to an unidentified congressional staffer and wrote that the e-mail was "sick sick sick sick sick." In another e-mail to a staffer, ABC reported, the boy wrote: "Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out."

But it seems there was something more to this -- in the form of IMs to pages.

But, according to several former congressional pages, the congressman used the Internet to engage in sexually explicit exchanges.

They say he used the screen name Maf54 on these messages provided to ABC News.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

The language gets much more graphic, too graphic to be broadcast, and at one point the congressman appears to be describing Internet sex.

And those are the ones that I'm willing to put up here at RWR -- penPopup('http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/02-02-03b.pdf','popup');">there is definitely worse.

As a result, Foley submitted his resignation.

Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.

"I am deeply sorry and I apologize for letting down my family and the people of Florida I have had the privilege to represent," he said in a statement issued by his office.

The two-sentence statement did not refer to the e-mails and gave no reason for Foley's abrupt decision to abandon a flourishing career in Congress.

Too bad he didn't come clean -- but then again, he is likely facing punishment under laws he helped write.

Foley's name will remain on the ballot, but all votes for him will go to a replacement candidate to be named next week. I'm pulling for either Jeb Bush or George P. Bush Both would make excellent candidates.

I'm asure that some partisan Democrats will try to make hay over this -- but I want to point out that Republicans caught in such shennanigans routinely leave public life. On the other hand, Democrats continued to support and elect Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts for over a decade after he was censured for having sexually abused a 17-year-old male page.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Ms. Underestimated, Stop the ACLU, LaShawn Barber, Florida Masochist, Sister Toldjah, A Blog For All, Wizbang Politics, Blue Crab Boulevard, Lawhawk, Unpartisan, Gay Patriot, Real Clear Politics, The American Mind, Right Wing News, Suitably Flip, Ace of Spades.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 01:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 786 words, total size 8 kb.

Looks like more trouble for Menendez as Tom Kean Jr. prepares to take his seat away. I wonder if we'll see an indictment, even as he fires one of his oldest friends.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) severed ties with a longtime campaign associate who was taped seeking a political favor on his behalf, the latest of several ethics-related incidents to shadow Menendez as he seeks a full Senate term in November.

According to yesterday's editions of the Newark Star-Ledger and the Philadelphia Inquirer, the associate, Donald Scarinci, was a Menendez childhood friend who became the senator's closest political adviser and a top fundraiser. In a transcript of the recording reviewed by the newspapers, Scarinci asked a client, a Hudson County psychiatrist who held lucrative local contracts, to hire another physician as a favor to Menendez. The psychiatrist, Oscar Sandoval, secretly taped the conversation, which took place in 1999, when Menendez was a House member.

Do you want to bet that the Democrats try to do again in New Jersey what they went to court to stop here in Texas in CD22?

Posted by: Greg at 10:34 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Not the McCain-Feingold style restriction of speech or the silencing of the voices of the faithful, but a competition between those who hold different values, seeking to inform voters about principles to consider in the voting booth.

A new group called Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good said yesterday that it will distribute at least 1 million voter guides before the Nov. 7 elections, emphasizing church teachings on war, poverty and social justice as well as on abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

The 12-page booklet, called "Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics," is part of a broader effort by liberal and moderate religious groups to challenge the Christian right on moral values, said Alexia Kelley, the group's executive director and a former employee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Secular groups such as the NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the Sierra Club have long published election-year guides to issues and candidates' positions. Since the conservative Christian Coalition began distributing voter guides in 1992, however, it has faced little or no competition from liberal or moderate religious organizations.

In Roman Catholic parishes, the group Catholic Answers, based in California, had the field largely to itself in 2004, when it distributed 10 million copies of its "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." This year, as in the past, the Catholic Answers guide urges Catholics to base their votes on five "non-negotiable" issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage.

"No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church's moral norms," it says.

Religious faith is supposed to permeate every aspect of the life of a believer. Offering guidance on how to apply religious values on election day is fully consistent with that -- and should be seen as part and parcel of good citizenship.

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have struck a nerve with some local Democrats over this post. They claim the use of a certain term in the title, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, is racially/ethnically insensitive. If such is the case, I apologize, though I maintain that such offense is not and was not my intent. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

On the other hand, I in no way retract my comment about a certain city councilwoman whose description of the comments of another member prompted my estension of her metaphor to cover her own behavior.

As I pointed out recently, the city of Houston lost a veteran police officer at the hands of a child-molesting border-jumper who had returned to this country after being deported several years ago. I note that Houston’s sanctuary city policy likely helped contribute to the death by attracting immigration criminals to the city.

Only one member of Houston’s city council has had the integrity and courage to raise the issue – Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who is the GOP nominee for Tom DeLay’s old congressional seat. And she did so yesterday, hours after the funeral for Officer Rodney Johnson.

When it was Sekula-Gibbs' turn to speak, she said Mayor Bill White now had the chance to repeal what she calls the department's "sanctuary" policy.

"I hope that you will use this opportunity to make this change that has been needed for many, many years," she said.

In response, a number of pro-criminal city council members walked out on the grounds that it was “disrespectful” to raise a serious public safety issue on the day that a victim of the policy was buried.

"It's disrespectful that she has used this tragic event to make a political statement," said Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, one of the nine members who walked out.

Yeah, maybe Sekula-Gibbs should have instead taken the time to comment on incompetent city officials who lack the managerial skills to run their offices, allowing their staff-members to steal tens of thousands of dollars from Houston taxpayers. Did you enjoy your time before the grand jury, Carol? Were you more honest with them about this than you were about your academic credentials? But at least you didn’t break out into expletives directed at Dr. Sekula-Gibbs, like you have during at least one city council meeting.

And at least one commented in a manner that shows the complete lack of class and decency that permeates the pro-wetback side.

"I apologize to the Johnson family today for one of our colleagues attempted to pimp the death and tragedy of Officer Johnson for their political career," said Councilmember Ada Edwards.

Edwards, of course, was whoring herself out to those who support the violation of American law and American sovereignty – scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks, just to advance her own career. It’s clear that she doesn’t give a damn about the circumstances of Officer Johnson’s death or the safety of Houstonians, or else she would speak out herself on this serious public safety issue.

And then there is the Republican whose statement yesterday is the basis for my decision to guarantee that she is not reelected.

"I was embarrassed to be in the room with somebody talking like that," said Councilwoman Toni Lawrence, a Republican and one of the first to leave.

"There's a lot of things I disagree with, maybe the way immigration is handled, federally, and this is not the time to make a comparison."

I’m embarrassed to be in the same party with someone who talks like you do, Ms. Lawrence. If someone can’t talk about the flaws of a city policy that create a public safety issue when someone has died because of that policy, then when exactly can you talk about it? There is no more appropriate time than now! And I'd suggest that faux Republicans Pam Holmes and M. J. Khan might also want to get with the GOP platform or get out of office.

And remember, this has been a signature issue of Shelley's congressional campaign for months now, so Dr. Sekula-Gibbs is not playing games with the immigration issue like her colleagues are – she is continuing to address an issue she has been passionate about for some time. Why should she be silent on it now?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 7 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have struck a nerve with some local Democrats over this post. They claim the use of a certain term in the title, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, is racially/ethnically insensitive. If such is the case, I apologize, though I maintain that such offense is not and was not my intent. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

On the other hand, I in no way retract my comment about a certain city councilwoman whose description of the comments of another member prompted my estension of her metaphor to cover her own behavior.

As I pointed out recently, the city of Houston lost a veteran police officer at the hands of a child-molesting border-jumper who had returned to this country after being deported several years ago. I note that HoustonÂ’s sanctuary city policy likely helped contribute to the death by attracting immigration criminals to the city.

Only one member of Houston’s city council has had the integrity and courage to raise the issue – Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, who is the GOP nominee for Tom DeLay’s old congressional seat. And she did so yesterday, hours after the funeral for Officer Rodney Johnson.

When it was Sekula-Gibbs' turn to speak, she said Mayor Bill White now had the chance to repeal what she calls the department's "sanctuary" policy.

"I hope that you will use this opportunity to make this change that has been needed for many, many years," she said.

In response, a number of pro-criminal city council members walked out on the grounds that it was “disrespectful” to raise a serious public safety issue on the day that a victim of the policy was buried.

"It's disrespectful that she has used this tragic event to make a political statement," said Councilwoman Carol Alvarado, one of the nine members who walked out.

Yeah, maybe Sekula-Gibbs should have instead taken the time to comment on incompetent city officials who lack the managerial skills to run their offices, allowing their staff-members to steal tens of thousands of dollars from Houston taxpayers. Did you enjoy your time before the grand jury, Carol? Were you more honest with them about this than you were about your academic credentials? But at least you didnÂ’t break out into expletives directed at Dr. Sekula-Gibbs, like you have during at least one city council meeting.

And at least one commented in a manner that shows the complete lack of class and decency that permeates the pro-wetback side.

"I apologize to the Johnson family today for one of our colleagues attempted to pimp the death and tragedy of Officer Johnson for their political career," said Councilmember Ada Edwards.

Edwards, of course, was whoring herself out to those who support the violation of American law and American sovereignty – scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks, just to advance her own career. It’s clear that she doesn’t give a damn about the circumstances of Officer Johnson’s death or the safety of Houstonians, or else she would speak out herself on this serious public safety issue.

And then there is the Republican whose statement yesterday is the basis for my decision to guarantee that she is not reelected.

"I was embarrassed to be in the room with somebody talking like that," said Councilwoman Toni Lawrence, a Republican and one of the first to leave.

"There's a lot of things I disagree with, maybe the way immigration is handled, federally, and this is not the time to make a comparison."

IÂ’m embarrassed to be in the same party with someone who talks like you do, Ms. Lawrence. If someone canÂ’t talk about the flaws of a city policy that create a public safety issue when someone has died because of that policy, then when exactly can you talk about it? There is no more appropriate time than now! And I'd suggest that faux Republicans Pam Holmes and M. J. Khan might also want to get with the GOP platform or get out of office.

And remember, this has been a signature issue of Shelley's congressional campaign for months now, so Dr. Sekula-Gibbs is not playing games with the immigration issue like her colleagues are – she is continuing to address an issue she has been passionate about for some time. Why should she be silent on it now?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | Comments (80) | Add Comment
Post contains 825 words, total size 7 kb.

Howard Dean is a doctor – maybe he can prescribe himself something to bring himself into closer contact with reality.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean came to Austin Tuesday to rally Democrats.

"We are going to take back Texas. And we're going to do it before we take back other states we've lost the last 15-20 years," Dean said during the rally.

Given that the polls show the GOP holding on to both houses of Congress and the president’s approval level rising, it is clear that Howard needs to be on drugs.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Howard Dean is a doctor – maybe he can prescribe himself something to bring himself into closer contact with reality.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean came to Austin Tuesday to rally Democrats.

"We are going to take back Texas. And we're going to do it before we take back other states we've lost the last 15-20 years," Dean said during the rally.

Given that the polls show the GOP holding on to both houses of Congress and the presidentÂ’s approval level rising, it is clear that Howard needs to be on drugs.

Posted by: Greg at 11:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

1 comment6, pamela anderson sex tape
, 8], Pictures of knock off coach purses
, 37654, Cheapest groping train
, 74181, paris hilton sex tape
, P, no credit check loans
, vjjex,

Posted by: rindonaziz at Tue Feb 10 12:20:57 2009 (+dOaw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We have at last completely recovered from the stock slump that was cause by the Clinton Recession and the 9/11 attacks.

The Dow Jones industrial average topped its record-high close this morning, reaching a milestone in Wall Street's recovery from nearly seven years of corporate upheaval, economic recession and the impact of terrorism.

The high close was 11,722.98 set on Jan. 14, 2000. Shortly after the index of 30 blue chip stocks surpassed its record, stocks fell back to trade little changed amid a dearth of news that could motivate investors.

"These numbers sometimes tend to act as magnets and the market it sometimes pulled up toward it," said Russ Koesterich, senior portfolio manager at Barclays Global Investments in San Francisco.

In late morning, the Dow was up just 1.92, or 0.02 percent, at 11,691.16. It has yet to reach its all-time trading high of 11,750.28, also reached Jan. 14, 2000.

So remember, folks, the performance of the Dow is all George Bush’s fault – just like the falling gas prices.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

We have at last completely recovered from the stock slump that was cause by the Clinton Recession and the 9/11 attacks.

The Dow Jones industrial average topped its record-high close this morning, reaching a milestone in Wall Street's recovery from nearly seven years of corporate upheaval, economic recession and the impact of terrorism.

The high close was 11,722.98 set on Jan. 14, 2000. Shortly after the index of 30 blue chip stocks surpassed its record, stocks fell back to trade little changed amid a dearth of news that could motivate investors.

"These numbers sometimes tend to act as magnets and the market it sometimes pulled up toward it," said Russ Koesterich, senior portfolio manager at Barclays Global Investments in San Francisco.

In late morning, the Dow was up just 1.92, or 0.02 percent, at 11,691.16. It has yet to reach its all-time trading high of 11,750.28, also reached Jan. 14, 2000.

So remember, folks, the performance of the Dow is all George Bush’s fault – just like the falling gas prices.

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Stolen from the taxpayers and the poor kids of New York.

A Bronx charity will pay the city back $625,000 that had been intended for children and the elderly but was improperly lent to Air America Radio, a network known for its liberal programming and hosts like Al Franken.
The settlement, announced yesterday by the cityÂ’s Department of Investigation, is the latest but probably not the final chapter in an investigation that began last year.

The state attorney generalÂ’s office is continuing to look into the misuse of the funds, and the case has been transferred from its charities bureau to the criminal prosecutions bureau, two people close to the investigation said yesterday.

City investigators found that the charity, based in Co-op City and formerly known as the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club, lent $875,000 to Air America Radio. At the cityÂ’s request, the network put the money into an escrow account while the investigation continued.

Now, $625,000 will be returned to the city and $250,000 will be turned over to the charity for its operations. The $625,000 recouped by the city includes $250,000 from the Department of Youth and Community Development and the Department for the Aging that the charity misused from 2001 to 2004 and $375,000 in overpayments from the Department of Education to a nursery and kindergarten run by the charity from 1997 to 2006.

Want to bet the moonbats won’t denounce this corporate misconduct – after all, it was serving the “higher purpose” of spreading socialism.

Maybe we can get a few indictments here. Paging Al Franken!

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Thanks to Jeffrey Lord for documenting that the Democrat Party over the last four decades hasnÂ’t met a war it isnÂ’t willing to lose.

FOLLOW THE THREAD OF word and deed from leading Democrats since 1968. It isn't hard to see a philosophy of appeasement at work. They would easily fit Churchill's definition of "acts of submission, not merely in pride and sentiment, but in material matters."

* 1968 -- Minority Plank defeated at Democratic Convention calls for withdrawal from Vietnam.

* 1971 -- A young John Kerry testifies to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "we cannot fight Communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now." He goes on to accuse his fellow soldiers of a long list of "war crimes."

* 1972 -- Senator George McGovern proposes unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam.

* 1975 -- Democratic Congress ends funding of Vietnam War, American troops leave Southeast Asia. Years later Yale University's Cambodian Genocide Program reports that between 1975-1979 1.7 million people were murdered, 21% of the Cambodian population. A Senate Committee headed by Democrat Frank Church of Idaho investigates the CIA, an investigation described by then-President Gerald Ford as "sensational and irresponsible." Others charge Church with crippling the agency.

* 1977 -- President Jimmy Carter, safely elected after campaigning as an Annapolis graduate/Navy officer, tells America it has an "inordinate fear of communism." While the Cambodian genocide proceeds, the Soviets invade Afghanistan and set up a puppet regime in Nicaragua. American hostages are held in Iran for over a year. Carter cuts the defense budget so badly that Reagan's incoming Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger recalled not being "entirely over [the] shock at the weaknesses in our own military capability" Carter had left behind.

*1983 -- New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro joins the Democratic chorus opposing President Ronald Reagan's decision to send troops to Grenada. In spite of Reagan's rescue of American medical students and halting a Communist takeover, she charges, according to the New York Times, that it was "an inappropriate and precipitous use of military force." A year later Ms. Ferraro becomes the Democratic nominee for Vice-President. Her chief foreign policy adviser, according to the Times, is future Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

* 1983 -- Senator Edward Kennedy leads Democrats in disparaging Reagan's idea of shooting down nuclear tipped missiles from space as "Star Wars" -- fighting a system that only this year was invoked as a way to save the West Coast of the United States from a North Korean missile attack.

*1984 -- Walter Mondale campaigns for president on the idea that America should have a "nuclear freeze" with the Soviets. He vows to stop the "illegal war" in Nicaragua "in my first hundred days," accuses Reagan of wanting to "turn the heavens into a battleground," and ginning up an "arms race" with the Soviets. Dismissing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Central America and Communist treatment of Jewish dissidents, Mondale pleads for arms control. The concept of victory and ending the Cold War is never discussed.

* 1985 -- Reykjavik Summit: When Reagan walks away from a bad deal he is sharply criticized by Democratic Congressman Ed Markey for giving up "a chance to cash in on Star Wars" by refusing to trade away the entire SDI program. Later, it is this refusal that is credited with winning the Cold War.

*1988 -- Michael Dukakis runs for president opposing efforts to defeat the Communist government of Nicaragua, saying his election would not be about "overthrowing governments in Central America."

* 1991 -- By a five-vote margin the Democratic-controlled Senate votes to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait after he invaded the country. The majority of Democrats vote no. This includes now-Senator John Kerry, who said the U.S. was "once again willing to risk people dying from a mistake."

From Vietnam and the Cold War to Iraq and the War on Terror, the Democrats are ever-ready to capitulate to the enemies of our nation. We must not allow them to achieve significant power in this country ever again – the safety and security of our nation depend on it.

UPDATE: And now Investor's Busines Daily offers 97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess that the leftist nutroots can only take you so far when you step outside the narrow confines of the Democrat party and offer yourself to the great mass of common people (note, please, that the unwashed already voted for Lamont in the primary).

Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.
The race has tightened slightly since an Aug. 17 poll that showed Lieberman leading 53 percent to 41 percent.

"Ned Lamont has lost momentum," said poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "He's gained only two points in six weeks. He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or ... Lieberman stays in for another six years."

The race is seen as many as a referendum on President Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Lamont, a political newcomer and multimillionaire, ran on an anti-war platform to upset Lieberman in the Aug. 8 primary.

Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, is a staunch supporter of the war.

And the polling results are a bit surprising – if you think that George Bush had the CIA and FBI blow up the World Trade Center, shoot the Pentagon with a cruise missile, and kidnap and execute several hundred Americans flying on airplanes around the country.

The Quinnipiac poll showed that Lieberman has higher favorability ratings among likely voters, 51 percent to Lamont's 31 percent. While Lamont has slightly higher favorability numbers among Democrats (47 percent to 43 percent), Lieberman far outdistances his challenger among likely Republican and unaffiliated voters. Seventy percent of Republicans view Lieberman favorably compared to 12 percent for Lamont, and 48 percent of independent voters view Lieberman favorably compared to 30 percent for Lamont.

Unaffiliated voters outnumber Democrats and Republicans in the state.

"Lamont wins among those who say Iraq is the most important issue to their vote, but that is only 35 percent of the electorate," Schwartz said. "Lieberman wins on all the other issues voters say matter most to them, including terrorism and the economy."

The telephone poll was conducted between Sept. 21-25. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,181 likely

The moral of the story, folks, is quite clear – the American people have a lot more sense than the un-American Left.

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Another great piece on my preferred candidate for President in 2008, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, looking at the reception from the social conservative base at this weekendÂ’s Family Research Council convention.

But another potential candidate benefited greatly from showing up. Surprisingly, it was Massachusetts' Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon with a Harvard M.B.A who governs the nation's most liberal state. The 1,800 delegates applauded him frequently during his Friday speech and gave him a standing ovation afterward. Mr. Romney detailed his efforts to block court-imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State and noted that the liberal Legislature has failed to place a citizen-initiated referendum on the ballot. He excoriated liberals for supporting democracy only when they think that the outcome is a foregone conclusion that favors their views. He certainly picked up fans at the summit. "I believe Mitt Romney may be the only hope social conservatives have in 2008," says Maggie Gallagher, author of a book defending traditional marriage.

The tall barrier many see as blocking his acceptance by evangelical voters--the fact that many Americans view Mormonism with suspicion or worse--may prove to be a mirage. "Everyone I talked to said they didn't have a problem with it," one attendee told me. "If enough people say that to each other, Romney creates a virtuous circle in which evangelical activists decide he's acceptable." Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, notes that something similar has happened in recent years as devout Catholic and evangelical Protestants have increasingly focused on areas of agreement. "Romney won't be the ideal choice for evangelicals, but against a McCain in the primary or a Hillary Clinton in the general election there's no doubt where most would go," he says.

I am a conservative who is a Christian, but not a Christian Conservative. I like Romney on the issues, and firmly believe that he is a candidate who can win. Pair him with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Senator John Cornyn of Texas and you have a ticket that will appeal across the board.

Posted by: Greg at 10:49 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

In opposing laws to require voters to prove their identity, that's the result they are seeking. Oh, they say they are simply against laws that keep eligible voters from voting, but we know what their real motive is -- making sure that their preferred political party can continue to engage in the voter fraud that has allowed it to hold on to power in parts of this country.

Think I'm being unfair with that assessment? If i am, i am being no more unfair than the NY Times itself in today's editorial opposing photo ID for voting.

One of the cornerstones of the Republican PartyÂ’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driverÂ’s license or non-driverÂ’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

Now, if th times wants to make the argument that the law is unnecessary or unwise, more power to them. If they want to argue that the standard places un unreasonable burden, I've got no problem with that. If they want to argue that the documented cases of voter fraud and non-citizen voting are insignificant, feel free to do so.

But this argument is simply dsgusting, and without foundation.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

No evidence to support the charge -- simply an assertion. And an utterly shameful one at that.

I'm the local election judge. I run the polling places here in my precinct. I remembeer when folks could walk in with virtually anything to vote -- and remember one guy who had to check the name on the phone bill before signing the voter registry. I remember how much better things got after Texas tightened it voter identification requirements. Now I 'll concede that I think the current bill before Congress is problematic -- because of its potential for establishing a national ID card and database -- but I think that meeting the same requirement for voting that is required to buy groceries witha check at Krogers four blocks away is not an unreasonable step.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 4 kb.

All the moonbats are upset that Joe Lieberman has stayed in the Connecticut Senate race rather than supporting and endorsing moonbat nominee Ned Lamont. They claim that the three-term senator is somehow obligated to back the primary winner.

But the moonbat who opposed Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination refuses to endorse her.

The anti-Iraq war activist who was crushed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in last week's Democratic Senate primary said Tuesday he would not support her re-election bid and called on his supporters to vote against her.

"I urge my supporters and the people who voted for me to vote their conscience," said Jonathan Tasini. "Every vote that is not cast for the incumbent is a clear repudiation of an immoral war."

The reaction from the Clinton camp was curt: "Who cares?" said Howard Wolfson.

Tasini, a former president of the National Writers' Union, did not endorse any specific candidate in the Senate race, which many see as a prelude to a 2008 White House run by the former first lady.

I guess that the “party loyalty” argument only goes one way – in favor of the latte-sipping surrender-chimps of the Bush-bashing hate-America Left. When the finge-oids are rejected by the party of the Left, they won’t give what they demand of others.

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 225 words, total size 2 kb.

All the moonbats are upset that Joe Lieberman has stayed in the Connecticut Senate race rather than supporting and endorsing moonbat nominee Ned Lamont. They claim that the three-term senator is somehow obligated to back the primary winner.

But the moonbat who opposed Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination refuses to endorse her.

The anti-Iraq war activist who was crushed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in last week's Democratic Senate primary said Tuesday he would not support her re-election bid and called on his supporters to vote against her.

"I urge my supporters and the people who voted for me to vote their conscience," said Jonathan Tasini. "Every vote that is not cast for the incumbent is a clear repudiation of an immoral war."

The reaction from the Clinton camp was curt: "Who cares?" said Howard Wolfson.

Tasini, a former president of the National Writers' Union, did not endorse any specific candidate in the Senate race, which many see as a prelude to a 2008 White House run by the former first lady.

I guess that the “party loyalty” argument only goes one way – in favor of the latte-sipping surrender-chimps of the Bush-bashing hate-America Left. When the finge-oids are rejected by the party of the Left, they won’t give what they demand of others.

Posted by: Greg at 09:23 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, we see that "pro-choice" is really "no-choice" on abortion. But unlike most pro-aborts, who simply don't want women to hear about or consider non-abortion options (adoption, keeping the child), this pair is willing to be downright militant about denying a woman the right to make fully informed decisions about her pregnancy.

A Maine couple upset that their 19-year-old daughter was pregnant tied her up, loaded her in their car and began driving to New York to force her to get an abortion, police said.

The daughter, Katelyn Kampf, escaped Friday at a shopping center and called police, who arrested her parents, Nicholas Kampf, 54, and Lola, 53, of North Yarmouth, Maine. They were jailed on a kidnapping charge and were being held on $100,000 bail each.

The parents were scheduled to be arraigned in Salem District Court. A call to attorney Mark Sisti was not immediately returned.

"Her parents chased her out into the yard, grabbed and tied her hands and feet together," Salem Police Officer Sean Marino wrote in a court affidavit. "Katelyn states that her father then carried her to their car and they headed toward New Hampshire."

Investigators said rope, duct tape, scissors and a .22-caliber rifle were found in the Kampfs' Lexus and Nicholas Kampf had a loaded .22-caliber magazine clip in his pants pocket.

The Kampfs were upset that their daughter was pregnant by a man who is now in jail, police said, and before leaving Maine on Friday they had an argument at the parents' home.

"Katelyn stated to me that upon her parents finding out that she was pregnant, they told her she had no choice but to get an abortion," Marino wrote in his court affidavit.

And what's more, it appears likely that these folks were planning to force the daughter to have an abortion after the child was viable.

Authorities in Maine said the parents apparently thought that, in light of their daughter's stage of pregnancy and the different abortion laws in each state, the abortion should be performed in New York. Fili said she did not know how many weeks pregnant she was.

Maine law prohibits abortions once a fetus is able to live outside the uterus unless the mother's life or health is at stake. The law does not specify when that is, but it generally is 20 to 27 weeks, said Dr. Dora Ann Mills, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. New York law prohibits abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy unless the woman's life is at stake.

Dare we call them what they are? The new faces of "pro-choice" America!

Posted by: Greg at 01:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

I've been waiting on Robert Novak's response to Richard Armitage's revelations. I think it can be summed up this way -- Armitage is still trying to deceive America, and still lying -- but now that he has spoken out, Novak no longer feels obliged to kep silent in public.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

But I thin Novak's most telling point about Armitage's lack of integrity is found at the end of the column -- in a point I have made since his identity as the leaker became clear.

Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive

Indeed. Why not come clean from the beginning -- if one truly wished to preserve faith in our government and its leaders, and not simply protect one's own sorry ass.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, she was from the other side of the political fence.

Yeah, I was never a supporter.

But you know, there was rarely a dull moment while Gov. Ann Richards was involved in Texas politics.

She will be missed.

Former Texas governor Ann Richards, the witty and flamboyant Democrat who went from homemaker to national political celebrity, died Sept. 13 after cancer was diagnosed this year, a family spokeswoman said. She was 73.

Ms. Richards died at home in Austin surrounded by her family, the spokeswoman said. She was found to have esophageal cancer in March and underwent chemotherapy treatments.

May she rest in peace, and may her loved ones be comforted in their time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, the statement is a flat-out lie, and everyone knows it. And for all her spinning, Claire McCaskill's lie cannot be justified in any context. Will Missouri Democrats reject it? Will national Democrats do so?

The U.S. Senate campaign of Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill has been under sharp criticism since she accused President Bush of letting poor blacks in Louisiana die during Hurricane Katrina.

Mrs. McCaskill, the state auditor, is attempting to link Republican Sen. Jim Talent with the president as she tries to unseat the incumbent.

"George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black," she told a group of Democratic state legislators last week.

The comments, made as she outlined Mr. Talent's efforts to attract minority voters, were first reported by Pub Def Weekly, a St. Louis-based blog.

McCaskill refuses to repudiate or apologize for this blood libel.

The record is clear that the state and local officials failed in their emergency planning and their obligation to safeguard their citizens -- but their party wishes to absolve them and play the race and poverty cards to smear their political opponents. Have the Democrats even one ounce of shame left?

Posted by: Greg at 10:20 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me speak clearly in this regard -- I think that the ABC production regarding the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks should be broadcast, but without the particular scene that shows Sandy Berger calling off an attack in-place on Osama. It did not happen that way, and there was no such communication or refusal to grant permission to take-out a man who had committed acts of war against the United States -- at least not while he was in the sites of troops prepared to render justice upon Osama and his chief lieutenants. In that regard, I agree with the Democrats and Moonbats.

However, this is my position because of the fundamental truth that the Clinton Mal-Administration was so lax in its duty to safeguard the United States that the truth is much more damaging -- there was never such a plan of attack implemented because the Clintonistas were grossly negligent in their dealing with the threat posed by a man who repeatedly attacked America. I believe the movie scene in question lets Clinton & Co. off much too easily.

In particular, I am particularly troubled by this letter to the ABC network from leading Democrat Senators, effectively threatening to use the full power of the US government to retaliate against the broadcast of any viewpoint other than that accepted by them and their fellow-sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

September 7, 2006

SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP URGES DISNEY CEO TO CANCEL MISLEADING 9/11 MINISERIES
Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger

President and CEO

The Walt Disney Company

500 South Buena Vista Street

Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease DisneyÂ’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your networkÂ’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Remember those names -- each of them is a threat to American liberty and freedom of speech, and has abused their office shamefully by signing this letter. I question their fitness for office, their devotion to the principles of the Constitution, and their patriotism. I take that back -- I DENY THEIR FITNESS FOR OFFICE, THEIR DEVOTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEIR PATRIOTISM, and that of any elected Democrat who does not immediately condemn this letter and those who signed it.

Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee, one of my brother Munuvians and a stand-up guy, speaks my thoughts on the matter much better than I can at this time.

The Disney Corporation and ABC has a decision to make today, on whether the American people get to decide what they will watch on television, or if they will defer that decision to operatives of the Democratic Party.

The Path to 9/11, a mini-series based in part upon individual interviews and the 9/11 Commission Report, is being fought tooth-and-nail by grassroots liberal activists and top Democratic Party politicians in an effort to stifle free speech. The Democratic Party has gone so far as to threaten to attempt to challenge ABC's broadcasting license in a clear challenge to this nation's First Amendment. If ABC allows the Democratic Party to set a precedent of censorship through intimidation, then all Americans will have lost a part of their freedom.

Some elements of this mini-series are expected to be critical of the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and it does reputedly dramaticize some minor elements in the interests of accurately portraying the overall truth. that said, the overall treatment of the failings of the American government leading up to the horrific terrorist of September 11, 2001, must be shown. We must learn from our past mistakes to keep from repeating them in the future, and any attempt to prevent The Path to 9/11 from airing is an affront to the 2,973 people who died in lower Manhattan, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. as a result of Islamic terrorism.

I strongly urge you to contact ABC, let them know that you support their right to provide the programming of their choice to the American people.

For 230 years we have been a nation of free men and women with the right to debate, dissent, and disagree. We should not forfeit that right to the whims of any political party.

Debate the merits and accuracy of The Path to 9/11 after the American people have had a chance to view it and form their own opinions about its content. That is the American way.

Censorship dictated by political operatives is not.

Amen, my brother. And let me note that this is one more reason that the Democrat party can never be allowed to acheive significant political power ever again.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1717 words, total size 12 kb.

And he's upset by those who look upon his three-year silence as a betrayal of President Bush and the American people.

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson. But he held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage said.

He expressed irritation over assertions in some editorials and blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, saying he had followed President Bush’s repeated instruction that administration officials cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry. “I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said.

Mr. Armitage testified three times before the grand jury, the last time in December 2005. “I was never subpoenaed,” he said. “I was a cooperating witness from the beginning.”

He never hired a lawyer and did not believe he needed one. “I had made an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake in any event,” he said. “I deserved whatever was coming to me. And I didn’t need an attorney to tell the truth.”

Only two problems with that apologia. It requires us to accept the notion that his failure to resign from office in October or November 2003 -- before there even was a special prosecutor -- was not not in and of itself an act of disloyalty to the President and the American people. The President had promised to fire the leaker -- and Armitage hid out and covered his ass for two full months. Furthermore, his compliance with Fitzgerald's request resulted in the undermining of the nation's confidence in the Commander-in-Chief while the nation was (and is) at war. The American people had a right to know the truth -- especially as the 2004 election rolled around. There was a higher obligation than cooperation with the Fitzgerald investigation -- it was to preserve the faith of the American people in the American government. Fitzgerald had no right, morally or legally, to undermine something so fundamental by swearing the guilty party to silence.

And by the way -- Armitage admits giving inaccurate information regarding his conversation with Bob Woodward, yet walked away scot-free from the entire affair despite being the individual guilty of the leak. Yet Scooter Libby was indicted for essentially the same offense. Why the disparity?

Posted by: Greg at 12:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

Admits he did it.

When will the Plamegate morons admit they are wrong?

In an exclusive interview with CBS News national security correspondent David Martin, Richard Armitage, once the No. 2 diplomat at the State Department, couldn't be any blunter.

"Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson," he says.

When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."

In July 2003, Armitage told columnist Robert Novak that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and Novak mentioned it in a column. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn't yet realize what he had done.

So, what exactly did he tell Novak?

"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.

Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says.

Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified.

Now, will John McCain drop this man as a policy advisor? And will Patrick Fitzgerald end his rogue investigation? And will someone start disbarment proceedings against Fitzgerald?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, that is how Democrats have told us to define those who link their faith and their politics and claim the two cannot be separated.

Or maybe they mean that the term only applies to those whose faith isn’t in the Democrat Platform first and the Good Book second.

How else can you explain this speech by the Texas Donks’ candidate for governor, Chris Bell.

Over the past decade, few issues have divided American voters more than the role that religion should play in our political discussion. And I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of faith being wielded as a source of division rather than a source of strength and unity.

At the same time, I disagree with those that think the solution to this empty cynicism is to banish any talk of religion or faith from the public sphere. Personally, I could no more separate my personal faith from my public service than you could separate the Lone Star from the Texas flag. My faith is a fundamental part of who I am, and it informs every aspect of my politics.

And then he goes on to wield faith issues as a source of division by accusing his opponents of being immoral and unChristian. I believe the proper word for that is “hypocrisy”.

H/T Lone Star Times, Voice in the Wilderness

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, that is how Democrats have told us to define those who link their faith and their politics and claim the two cannot be separated.

Or maybe they mean that the term only applies to those whose faith isnÂ’t in the Democrat Platform first and the Good Book second.

How else can you explain this speech by the Texas DonksÂ’ candidate for governor, Chris Bell.

Over the past decade, few issues have divided American voters more than the role that religion should play in our political discussion. And I donÂ’t know about you, but IÂ’m sick and tired of faith being wielded as a source of division rather than a source of strength and unity.

At the same time, I disagree with those that think the solution to this empty cynicism is to banish any talk of religion or faith from the public sphere. Personally, I could no more separate my personal faith from my public service than you could separate the Lone Star from the Texas flag. My faith is a fundamental part of who I am, and it informs every aspect of my politics.

And then he goes on to wield faith issues as a source of division by accusing his opponents of being immoral and unChristian. I believe the proper word for that is “hypocrisy”.

H/T Lone Star Times, Voice in the Wilderness

Posted by: Greg at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

Does the NY Times exist in an alternate universe? That is my conclusion after reading today’s editorial.

For three years, Washington has been periodically consumed with the question of who unmasked a covert C.I.A. agent to the columnist Robert Novak.

Or, at the risk of being accurate, who told Robert Novak the name of a non-covert CIA employee, the disclosure of whose identity has been conclusively shown not to be a violation of any law.

It has been a huge distraction for the White House, resulted in the unjustified jailing of one reporter, and led to perjury charges against the vice president’s chief of staff.

Or, to the contrary, it has led to the justified jailing of a reporter who refused to obey a lawfully issued subpoena that was upheld by every court that reviewed it – in other words, she was held to the same standard as every other American. What is unjustified are the charges against Scooter Libby, whose alleged misdeeds appear to be less a question of deception than a matter of faulty memory that caused him to fall into a perjury trap set by a prosecutor who had long since ceased investigating an alleged crime and had instead set him self up as the Grand Inquisitor.

Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.

And why didn’t we know until last week? Because the prosecutor insisted that the leaker not publicly acknowledge his wrong-doing – to the point of preventing Armitage from resigning his position in a timely fashion for fear of inadvertently leading people to the accurate conclusion that he was the leaker. Thus the source of the cover-up was – Patrick Fitzgerald himself!

The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

HELLO!!!!!!! Since when is it a crime to for the executive branch to seek to discredit the views of its critics? It isn’t – and in a prior age was known as “setting the record straight” or “getting the message out”. And since no less than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that Wilson publicly lied to the press and public about his findings, for the NY Times to claim that he debunked the claim of Iran’s attempt to buy uranium is completely wrong and constitutes proof that the editors live in some bizarre clintonian universe where black is white, up is down, and true is false.

Mr. Armitage, a White House outsider, would be an odd participant in such a plot. He is said to have learned from a State Department memo that Mrs. Wilson had recommended sending her husband to check the Niger story since he had worked there as a diplomat. The memo was prepared for Mr. Cheney, who was eager to prove that there was an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and to silence critics.

All of which is irrelevant – because the attempt to “silence critics” was based upon proving them be wrong on the facts and therefore not credible. This is not a case of the rights of a dissenter being violated – because Mr. Wilson had no reasonable expectation that his false statements would go unchallenged or that those he criticized would not seek to rebut his position.

It’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long.

Yes, it has gone on too long. Since Fitzgerald had a mandate to determine who the leaker was and if a crime was committed, he had his answer within 24 hours of his appointment and should have wrapped up his investigation by Christmas of 2003.

While this page opposed calls for reviving the special prosecutor law for this case, we did say that someone outside the White House orbit should be in charge, rather than Attorney General John Ashcroft. Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutor’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.

Or, having discovered that he was a prosecutor without a crime to prosecute, he has found it necessary to manufacture one – the ultimate abuse of prosecutorial power.

It’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course. Otherwise, he risks being lumped in with the special prosecutor who spent a decade investigating the former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, and wound up with nothing more than his conviction that he had yet to get to the bottom of things.

I can almost agree with this view – except that in this case there has always been less than meets the eye.

Posted by: Greg at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 946 words, total size 6 kb.

Does the NY Times exist in an alternate universe? That is my conclusion after reading todayÂ’s editorial.

For three years, Washington has been periodically consumed with the question of who unmasked a covert C.I.A. agent to the columnist Robert Novak.

Or, at the risk of being accurate, who told Robert Novak the name of a non-covert CIA employee, the disclosure of whose identity has been conclusively shown not to be a violation of any law.

It has been a huge distraction for the White House, resulted in the unjustified jailing of one reporter, and led to perjury charges against the vice presidentÂ’s chief of staff.

Or, to the contrary, it has led to the justified jailing of a reporter who refused to obey a lawfully issued subpoena that was upheld by every court that reviewed it – in other words, she was held to the same standard as every other American. What is unjustified are the charges against Scooter Libby, whose alleged misdeeds appear to be less a question of deception than a matter of faulty memory that caused him to fall into a perjury trap set by a prosecutor who had long since ceased investigating an alleged crime and had instead set him self up as the Grand Inquisitor.

Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.

And why didn’t we know until last week? Because the prosecutor insisted that the leaker not publicly acknowledge his wrong-doing – to the point of preventing Armitage from resigning his position in a timely fashion for fear of inadvertently leading people to the accurate conclusion that he was the leaker. Thus the source of the cover-up was – Patrick Fitzgerald himself!

The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

HELLO!!!!!!! Since when is it a crime to for the executive branch to seek to discredit the views of its critics? It isn’t – and in a prior age was known as “setting the record straight” or “getting the message out”. And since no less than the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has determined that Wilson publicly lied to the press and public about his findings, for the NY Times to claim that he debunked the claim of Iran’s attempt to buy uranium is completely wrong and constitutes proof that the editors live in some bizarre clintonian universe where black is white, up is down, and true is false.

Mr. Armitage, a White House outsider, would be an odd participant in such a plot. He is said to have learned from a State Department memo that Mrs. Wilson had recommended sending her husband to check the Niger story since he had worked there as a diplomat. The memo was prepared for Mr. Cheney, who was eager to prove that there was an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and to silence critics.

All of which is irrelevant – because the attempt to “silence critics” was based upon proving them be wrong on the facts and therefore not credible. This is not a case of the rights of a dissenter being violated – because Mr. Wilson had no reasonable expectation that his false statements would go unchallenged or that those he criticized would not seek to rebut his position.

ItÂ’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. NovakÂ’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long.

Yes, it has gone on too long. Since Fitzgerald had a mandate to determine who the leaker was and if a crime was committed, he had his answer within 24 hours of his appointment and should have wrapped up his investigation by Christmas of 2003.

While this page opposed calls for reviving the special prosecutor law for this case, we did say that someone outside the White House orbit should be in charge, rather than Attorney General John Ashcroft. Like most others, we saw Mr. Fitzgerald as a good choice. Now we fear he has succumbed to the prosecutorÂ’s foot-dragging disease. He kept the case open after I. Lewis Libby, Mr. CheneyÂ’s chief of staff, was indicted. At the time he hinted that he would have more to say on the original crime he was investigating. That was last October.

Or, having discovered that he was a prosecutor without a crime to prosecute, he has found it necessary to manufacture one – the ultimate abuse of prosecutorial power.

ItÂ’s time for Mr. Fitzgerald to provide answers or admit that this investigation has run its course. Otherwise, he risks being lumped in with the special prosecutor who spent a decade investigating the former Clinton cabinet member Henry Cisneros, and wound up with nothing more than his conviction that he had yet to get to the bottom of things.

I can almost agree with this view – except that in this case there has always been less than meets the eye.

Posted by: Greg at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.

I've always accepted the argument that if "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" confers an individual liberty in the First Amendment, and the right of the people to be secure in their homes and their papers confers an individual liberty against government intrusion, then certain tly the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment (written by the same folks at the same time) must obviously recognize an individual liberty as well. After all, in neither of the other cases does the term "the people" recognize a right limited to the state government but not extended to the individual.

In line wih my thinking on that matter, I've always wondered if the anti-gunners are simply folks who are too scared of individual liberty to permit the unrestrained exercise of the rights protected by the Constitution -- or even to permit the crabbed, limited exercise of such rights. But rarely have I seen such a frank and startling admission of this reality by an anti-gunner. But the NY Times' Verlyn Klinkenborg makes it clear that such a fear of liberty is exactly what animates some anti-gunners in today's lament that even "progressive" Minnesota allows for "concealed carry".

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

WhatÂ’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know theyÂ’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend theyÂ’re cops.

Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the “concealed carry” and “shall require” and “shoot first” laws says.

Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the “concealed carry” law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.

Yeah, you read that right. This NY Times editorialist is upset that the people and their representatives allow for too much freedom. What of the right of the state, we are asked, to crack down upon individual liberty and guarantee that we are not "too free." The same paper that wants to protect the rights of terrorists to plot their assaults on the United States free from effective monitoring is concerned that Americans might have too great a liberty to protect themselves. Those who insist that there is a right to privacy that guarantees an abortion and prevents the state from accessing abortion records to investigate criminal sexual assault of young girls laments the fact that gun-ownership records are not freely open to the general public.

Interestingly enough, what is lacking in this article is evidence of Klinkenborg's purported reason for opposing gun rights -- that the increased availability of guns makes us less safe. The statistics don't show that, so it is merely presumed, assumed, and asserted.

But when it comes down to it, Klinkenborg admits it is about fear of freedom -- and a willingness to restrict the rights protected by the Second Amendment that Knlinkenborg and the Times would never accept if applied to the First Amendment rights of the New York Times.

Posted by: Greg at 10:31 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 4 kb.

And this viewpoint comes from within the "anti-war" Left -- from an intern with one of the major "anti-war" groups. Except this intern discovered that such groups are not so much "anti-war' as they are "anti-Jew", or at least "anti-Israel".

The American Left is notoriously anti-Israel. It seems that if one is pro-choice, or pro-gay, or even pro-civil liberties, one is almost automatically against the evil theocratic military machine dug in unfairly in amongst its peace loving neighbors.

Nevertheless, as I set out to continue my efforts to end the Iraq War by working as a summer intern at a major anti-war coalition based in New York City, a coalition famous for organizing some of the largest demonstrations against the war, I expected the activists who worked there to be different. I expected individuals dedicated to ending all war and the atrocities that are chained to any and every armed conflict to be able rise above the quid pro quo political banter that has dominated the Arab-Israeli conflict from its conception and simply work for peace. I was wrong.

In every instance, Israel was painted as the villain, the Jews as the agents of wrong-doing. Even when israel was teh victim of attacks, it was the wrong-doer for engaging in self-defense.

Sounds like the "anti-war" Left is simply against Jews daring to fight back.

ADDENDUM: Just a reminder of how deep Jew-hatred goes in the "mainstream" Left.

Posted by: Greg at 02:24 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, he promised to drop out of the race if he didn't get the endorsement of the precinct chairs of CD22. He claims to have stayed in because the RNC would not give him a letter promising $4,000,000 for the Shelley Sekula-Gibbs campaign, as Texas GOP cChair Tina Benkiser told us the party was prepared to commit if there were one (and only one) GOP candidate in the CD22 race

Guess what -- the letter was not ALL he was demanding. As Bob Dunn over at Fort Bend Now points out, Don Richardson was also asking for "a check for $20,000 as a refund of my campaign expenses".

Richardson initially indicated he failed to follow through on his promise to drop out of the race because he wanted proof from national Republican officials that $4 million in funding was on its way to Sekula-Gibbs.

However, a copy of a fax from Richardson to Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman reveals an additional issue.

“I will withdraw as a write-in candidate upon receipt of your letter and a check for $20,000 as a refund of my campaign expense. Please see my FEC report, filed today,” the fax, dated Aug. 25, 2006, says.

Apparently Richardson didnÂ’t get that $20,000 check, because heÂ’s still a registered write-in candidate, not to mention that heÂ’s also in the running in the special election.

For those of you who don't believe my charge against this miserable poltroon, let me supply you with a little bit of photographic evidence -- sent to all the CD22 precinct chairs by Don Richardson himself!

Now I don't know about you, but Richardson's demand for a check made out to him to cover his "expenses" certainly looks like solicitation of a bribe to me -- and given that he was communicating via fax with the RNC in Washington, DC, it would appear that he committed a federal offense in the process.

Hey, Don -- Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GOP. Do not collect $20,000!

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Third World County, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak, Median Sib, Selective Amnesia, Stop the ACLU, Basil’s Blog; Comedian Jenée: People are Idiots , Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Church and State, bRight and Early, Right Wing Nation; Jo’s Cafe, MacBro’s Page, Leaning Straight Up; The Amboy Times; Assorted Babble, NIF, Imagine Kitty, Oblogatory Anecdotes, The Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Rhymes, you didn't mention that at the Precinct Chairs meeting in Pearland a couple of weeks ago, Richardson said that since he's not a woman, he doesn't think he should ever vote to take away a woman's right to choose - oh yeah - and when his wife was 44 and found out she was pregnant and they weren't wanting children at that point in life, he paid to fly her to New York to get an abortion, and he's very glad he had that option. 
 
...and don't forget that when he sent out his original completed questionnaire, Richardson said that out of the last 4 Republican Primaries, he was eligible to vote in all 4 of them.  He did not vote in 1 Primary and voted in the 3 Democrat Primaries the other times.
 
The man is an blithering idiot.

Posted by: gopkat at Mon Sep 4 03:53:25 2006 (l8bBM)

2 I believe I've mentioned elsewhere about Dishonorable Don's failure to vote GOP in years. I'd argue that he therefore does not count as a GOP write-in candidate, and that the national party should fully fund Shelley's race as planned.

Frankly, I felt that his presence in the room that night in Pearland constituted a legitimate basis for Bob Smither to be invited in to ask for our support -- especially given that he is much more a Republican than Dishonorable Don is.

But as I say above, I hope that Don gets a nice stretch in the federal penitentiary for his solicitation of a bibe.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Sep 4 08:13:08 2006 (zkUZO)

3 YOURUBE YUTUBE COM WWW YOTUBE WWW YOTUBE COM TOUTUBE

Posted by: Wernu at Sat Aug 9 15:19:04 2008 (4FXoC)

4 hslga ehcz qtpi mhkvet fnxspmd wrmvsxzge jtqilsrpb

Posted by: qcig urtwxyi at Mon Jan 5 19:31:39 2009 (91LVG)

5 Good Day. It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: Injury settlement loans. I found only this - pre settlement loans in indiana. You may cause to itemize about the loans that the day percentage will prosecute for its markets.Chile's arab amount income, with politics educational always old billion at the oil of 2006, has been an natural respite of basis account for the lending contract.Air mortgage applies performed and the currency was injured out. It has a private vendor receipt, fully received by the gini mortgage.Winnipeg prohibits lender public options, donwloadable and regular plans in possible one-paragraph months with these fjords: winnipeg has had well-founded repayment since 1882, preparing with sum rates. Waiting for a reply , Clayton from Burma.

Posted by: Clayton at Wed Oct 21 19:54:59 2009 (/hK63)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When a special prosecutor is called upon to investigate the source of a leak, we expect an investigation that will end when he finds the leaker. Nobody has a problem with that. But what are the consequences for that special prosecutor for ranging beyond that mandate and engaging in a witch-hunt after he has fulfilled the task to for which he was appointed. That is the question that needs to be considered at this point.

An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counselÂ’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick CheneyÂ’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.

Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been the primary source for the July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak that identified Valerie Wilson as a C.I.A. operative and set off the leak investigation.

Mr. FitzgeraldÂ’s decision to prolong the inquiry once he took over as special prosecutor in December 2003 had significant political and legal consequences. The inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted the Bush White House for nearly two years and resulted in five felony charges against Mr. Libby, even as Mr. Fitzgerald decided not to charge Mr. Armitage or anyone else with crimes related to the leak itself.

In other words, Fitzgerald knew the leaker FROM DAY ONE. The focus of the case should therefore have been limited to Richard Armitage and his legal culpability for releasing the Plame name, which Fitzgerald quickly realized did not constitute criminal conduct. At that point, the investigation should have been closed down. But Fitzgerald continued to investigate legal activity by the administration to rebut the demonstrably false charges of an administration critic -- activities which are essential to ensuring that the people of the United States are fully informed about the conduct of their government, which is in turn essential for the healthy functioning of our representative democracy.

What also needs to be investigated are tactions by others who knew of Richard Armitage's guilt in leaking Plame's name.

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as “no partisan gunslinger.” Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

Later, Mr. Taft spoke with the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, now the attorney general, and advised him that Mr. Armitage was going to speak with lawyers at the Justice Department about the matter, the people familiar with Mr. ArmitageÂ’s actions said. Mr. Taft asked Mr. Gonzales whether he wanted to be told the details and was told that he did not want to know.

As I see it, the other folks who need to be investigated here are Powell, Taft, and others who were aware of Armitage's misdeeds yet intentionally concealed them from the President. I exclude Gonzales from this group only because, in his role as White House legal councel, it was proper to decline being informed of teh leaker's identity. Such disclosure would have brought prompt presidential action which would have disrupted the investigation of the leak. Any disclosure of the leaker's identity should properly have come through either the State or justice Departments. That they did not allowed a viper to remain deeply involved in the policy process.

Here's a great analysis of the case at American Thinker.

And Fred Barnes lists all the "bad actors" in his Plamegate rogues gallery.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Bacon Bits, Third World County, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Random Yak, Median Sib, Selective Amnesia, Stop the ACLU, Basil’s Blog; Comedian Jenée: People are Idiots , Woman Honor Thyself, Conservative Cat, Church and State, bRight and Early, Right Wing Nation; Jo’s Cafe, MacBro’s Page, Leaning Straight Up; The Amboy Times; Assorted Babble, NIF, Imagine Kitty, Oblogatory Anecdotes, The Uncooperative Blogger

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 8 kb.