He said he would leave. His party wants him gone. But Larry Craig is insisting upon remaining in the US Senate.

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.

The third-term lawmaker issued his statement not long after Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter relayed word he has selected a replacement for Craig in the event of a resignation.

"He is ready to act should we receive a letter of resignation," said Jon Hanian, Otter's spokesman in Boise, in what seemed like a calculated signal that home-state Republicans want Craig to surrender the seat he has held for 17 years.

In his statement, Craig said he will not run for a new term next year.

But in the meantime, he said: "I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee — something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate."

Now I still contend that the charges in Craig's case were legally insufficient -- but that guilty plea made the issue irrelevant and led to the court taking the action it did. And given Craig's announcement of his plans to resign, he ought to go now -- if he really has the contrition he claimed.

And I will point out a stark difference here.

Democrats such as Patrick Kennedy can commit more serious offenses which endanger others and still be embraced by their party. Republicans set a higher bar.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

At least that is what the increase in applications to practice medicine in Texas over the last five years would indicate.

You know, since Texas voters capped non-economic damages in malpractice cases.

In Texas, it can be a long wait for a doctor: up to six months.

That is not for an appointment. That is the time it can take the Texas Medical Board to process applications to practice.

Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional health care to some long-underserved rural areas.

The influx, raising the stateÂ’s abysmally low ranking in physicians per capita, has flooded the medical boardÂ’s offices in Austin with applications for licenses, close to 2,500 at last count.

“It was hard to believe at first; we thought it was a spike,” said Dr. Donald W. Patrick, executive director of the medical board and a neurosurgeon and lawyer. But Dr. Patrick said the trend — licenses up 18 percent since 2003, when the damage caps were enacted — has held, with an even sharper jump of 30 percent in the last fiscal year, compared with the year before.

“Doctors are coming to Texas because they sense a friendlier malpractice climate,” he said.

You can still recover every penalty of your actual damages here in Texas -- the law didn't change that. But you can no longer get a multi-million dollar payout for "pain and suffering" or punitive damages in a case with $150,000 in actual damages. Sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Call me a Luddite, but given the security breaches on credit information, I don't want to have my medical records available online. After all, the unauthorized releases of financial information "only" involve money.

Microsoft is starting its long-anticipated drive into the consumer health care market by offering free personal health records on the Web and pursuing a strategy that borrows from the companyÂ’s successful formula in personal computer software.

The move by Microsoft, which is called HealthVault and was announced today in Washington, comes after two years spent building its team, expertise and technology. In recent months, Microsoft managers have met with many potential partners including hospitals, disease-prevention organizations and health care companies.

The organizations that have signed up for HealthVault projects with Microsoft include the American Heart Association, Johnson & Johnson LifeScan, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, the Mayo Clinic and MedStar Health, a network of seven hospitals in the Baltimore-Washington region.The partner strategy is a page from MicrosoftÂ’s old playbook. Convincing other companies to build upon its technology, and then helping them do it, was a major reason Windows became the dominant personal computer operating system.

“The value of what we’re doing will go up rapidly as we get more partners,” said Peter Neupert, the vice president in charge of Microsoft’s health group.

I don't think so -- there is simply too much potential for unauthorized access to my personal data.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

This is sort of interesting -- a judge in Boston has slapped a gag on a television station to keep it from reporting on drunk and drugged firefighters.

It’s “very unusual” for a judge to issue an order preventing news organizations from running or publishing stories, a Boston civil rights attorney said yesterday.

“They should have been allowed to run the story,” attorney Howard Friedman said of WHDH-TV (Ch. 7), which was banned by a judge from airing a story yesterday on the autopsy results of two Boston firefighters killed in August.

“In our system with the First Amendment, in almost all instances, you can run with the story but suffer the consequences,” Friedman added. “Obviously, they publish at their peril. If it’s inaccurate, if there’s some damage caused . . . there could be lawsuits.”

Why? Because the autopsy records they gained access to are not public records, even though they reveal misconduct y public employees on the job which certainly endanged public safety and may have contributed to their own deaths.

In court, Paul Hynes, the attorney representing the Boston firefightersÂ’ Local 718, argued that it was a privacy issue and pointed to a 1989 decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court that said medical examinersÂ’ autopsy reports are not public because they are medical records.

That decision reversed a lower court ruling that said autopsies were public record after the Boston Globe sued the stateÂ’s chief medical examinerÂ’s office for the autopsies of three patients who died at Bridgewater State Hospital.

Hopkins, who was sworn in as a judge in August 2006, is Boston Mayor Thomas M. MeninoÂ’s former chief of staff and was his legal counsel for more than a decade.

Last night, the Herald published an online report detailing the autopsy results, which found that one of two hero firefighters who died fighting a West Roxbury blaze was legally drunk at the fire while the other had traces of illegal drugs in his bloodstream.

During its 11 p.m. newscast last night, WHDH reported that it had the information, but was blocked by the judge from reporting it.

Looks like a political hack of a judge is covering up for her former employers union thug supporters.

This is sort of interesting. If it stands, it means that the press can publish our nation's most sensitive secrets on the front page during time of war without legal jeopardy, but is subject to prior restraint when reporting on a matter of public concern and safety on the theory that dead men have privacy rights.

What a screwed up notion.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 4 kb.

You folks know I'm an ardent supporter of student First Amendment rights -- but I recognize that there are limits. So when I first saw information about this incident, I wanted more details.

Well, now we have more details -- and I come down on the side of the school here.

A Texas high school sophomore's parents might sue after the school booted the student from campus for wearing a John Edwards for 2008 president T-shirt.

Pete Palmer, a sophomore at Waxahachie High School, says he didnÂ’t think he was doing anything wrong wearing the political shirt to school.

But according to the Waxahachie Independent School District dress code, students can't wear shirts with political slogans.

“T-shirts, other than WISD clubs, organizations, sports, or spirit t-shirts, college or university t-shirts or solid-colored t-shirts, are prohibited," according to the policy.

Peter and his folks, however, claim the regs interfere with free speech -- and they are correct. The problem, however, is that it does not IMPERMISSIBLY interfere with free speech.

You see, dress codes -- even school uniforms -- are generally acceptable, provided that they are applied in an even-handed manner. In a case like this, where we have a school creating a rule that bans all but school-related t-shirts and college/university t-shirts with writing on them, you have a clearly defined policy. Assuming that it is consistently applied in an even-handed fashion, there can be no argument made that the speech ban that results was content-based, and so the regulation would pass constitutional muster.

It would be nice if Palmer's dad, a lawyer, actually cited more extensive precedent to support his position. Instead, we get only this shallow reasoning that is based more on emotion than the law.

“It’s a first amendment constitutional right that people have fought and died for and I don’t know why he should give it up just because Waxahachie thinks it would be okay or neat for him to do so,” Paul Palmer said.

Paul referenced a recent Vermont case where a student wore an anti-Bush shirt to school and the courts ruled in his favor.

Well, if the school were arguing that it is "ok or neat" for kids to surrender their rights, that would be one thing -- but that isn't the argument. Instead, the argument is that for valid disciplinary and academic reasons, the school restricts dress to promote student safety and academic performance. Such regulations of student dress are regularly upheld by the courts.

But what about Tinker and all the other cases I cite on a regular basis? Well, all of them note that schools may impose content-neutral restrictions upon student speech so as to maintain order and discipline in a school setting. None of them goes so far as to suggest that any regulation that impinges upon student speech is inherently invalid. Based upon this, I would expect any suit to be dismissed on its merits before trial.

This is not to say that I think the policy is everything it should be. If the Palmer family has a problem with it, I'd suggest running for the school board on a platform that calls for the elimination or modification of the dress code.

And then there is always this neat suggestion from Capitol Annex, which I think is the perfect way to creatively comply with the policy and still get your message across. Heck, as I read the policy I see nothing to prohibit the young man from wearing a polo shirt with an Edwards logo on it, or from wearing a campaign button on his shirt and a bumper sticker on his backpack. In short, it isn't the message that is the problem here, it is the means he is choosing to communicate it. That fact will certainly doom any litigation.

Others blogging include The Right Side, Right Voices, Austinist, Right on the Left Coast, Dallas Blog, Stop The ACLU

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 7 kb.

So quit complaining that the Bush administration is violating your human rights. it isn't.

Instead, turn your shrill rhetoric to where it belongs -- the real oppressive dictators of the world.

You know, like in Burma.

It was about as simple and uncomplicated as shooting demonstrators in the streets. Embarrassed by smuggled video and photographs that showed their people rising up against them, the generals who run Myanmar simply switched off the Internet.

Until Friday television screens and newspapers abroad were flooded with scenes of tens of thousands of red-robed monks in the streets and of chaos and violence as the junta stamped out the biggest popular uprising there in two decades.

But then the images, text messages and postings stopped, shut down by generals who belatedly grasped the power of the Internet to jeopardize their crackdown.

“Finally they realized that this was their biggest enemy, and they took it down,” said Aung Zaw, editor of an exile magazine based in Thailand called The Irrawaddy, whose Web site has been a leading source of information in recent weeks. The site has been attacked by a virus whose timing raises the possibility that the military government has a few skilled hackers in its ranks.

The efficiency of this latest, technological, crackdown raises the question whether the vaunted role of the Internet in undermining repression can stand up to a determined and ruthless government — or whether Myanmar, already isolated from the world, can ride out a prolonged shutdown more easily than most countries.

OpenNet Initiative, which tracks Internet censorship, has documented signs that in recent years several governments — including those of Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — have closed off Internet access, or at least opposition Web sites, during periods preceding elections or times of intense protests.

You folks are free to spout your ignorant, ill-informed criticism of the American government with no censorship and no oppression -- indeed, you are aided by the very government that you claim oppresses you and violates your rights. Burma, on the other hand, is the face of oppression in the world, along with Darfur and other repressive, murderous regimes (sort of like Iraq used to be). Focus there, not here, and your words might seem to be more than simply self-indulgent whimperings by self-centered losers.

Oh, and I have to ask -- where are the human shields to protect the people of Burma? Or do they only get deployed to protect the enemies of America?

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

I consider the man to be something of a joke when it comes to his intervention on behalf of repressive regimes and his support for terrorists against Israel, but former US President Jimmy Carter got one right here.

Former President Jimmy Carter confronted Sudanese security services on a visit to Darfur Wednesday, shouting "You don't have the power to stop me!" at some who blocked him from meeting refugees of the conflict.

The 83-year-old Carter wanted to visit a refugee camp in South Darfur but the U.N. mission in Sudan deemed that too dangerous. Instead, he agreed to fly to the World Food Program compound in the North Darfur town of Kabkabiya, where he was supposed to meet with refugees, many of whom were chased from their homes by militias and government forces.

But none of the refugees showed up and Carter decided to walk into the town, a volatile stronghold of the pro-government janjaweed militia, to meet refugees too frightened to attend the meeting at the compound.

He was able to make it to a school where he met with one tribal representative and was preparing to go further into town when Sudanese security officers stopped him.

"You can't go. It's not on the program!" the local security chief, who only gave his first name as Omar, yelled at Carter, who is in Darfur as part of a delegation of respected international figures known as "The Elders."

"We're going to anyway!" an angry Carter retorted as a crowd began to gather. "You don't have the power to stop me."

Actually, Carter was wrong there -- they had the power to stop him, but not the moral authority to do so. I'm sure that the Secret Service would have done its damnedest to protect him from these thugs.

Frankly, I remain appalled by the weak response to Darfur by the world community. Hopefully this incident will spur some to action.

But I wonder -- if this were George W. Bush after his presidency, would the Left be so willing to praise him, or would we hear complaints about arrogance and potentially sparking international incidents.?

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

But please understand -- they don't support terrorism.

Egypt's government is paying for the legal representation of a college student who authorities say was found with pipe bombs near a Navy base, an attorney said Wednesday.

Attorney John Fitzgibbons told a judge he was in talks with the Egyptian embassy in Washington and likely will be hired to represent suspended University of South Florida student Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed.

Ahmed el-Qawassni, an official in Egypt's foreign ministry, said the government is closely monitoring the case and confirmed that an attorney is being hired for Mohamed, who was born in Kuwait to Egyptian parents.

"We are responsible for the sons of Egypt abroad with no exception," el-Qawassni said.

Mohamed, 24, and another USF student, Youssef Samir Megahed, 21, are charged with carrying explosive materials across state lines.

Mohamed also is charged with distributing information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction. Authorities allege he made an Internet video showing how to use remote-controlled toys to detonate terrorist bombs.

Yeah, he was arrested with explosives, left writings indicating his support for terrorism, and even posted a terrorist-advocating video on YouTube that included bomb-making instructions -- but he isn't a terrorist.

And since the Egyptian government is responsible for "the sons of Egypt" abroad, let's assess them for any damage done to US interests by Egyptian-born terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

It appears there are still jury problems in the trial of the terrorist-supporting Holy Land Foundation.

The Dallas trial of a charity accused of financing Middle Eastern terrorists took a twist Wednesday when jurors indicated that a member of the panel was refusing to vote.

Jurors in the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development were called back into the courtroom of U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish, who told panelists they had a duty to try to reach a decision.

The judge ordered jurors to resume their deliberations, which were in their ninth full day after a two-month trial.

This seems to be a major problem to me, and if you actually have a juror refusing to deliberate, that individual should be removed from the panel OR a mistrial declared and a new trial set. That the judge has failed to do so is troubling.

Frankly, I'm surprised this story didn't receive more coverage nationally -- but want to commend the Dallas Morning News for providing better coverage than the wire report above.

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

At one time, the New York Times was known as the paper of record for any significant event. Its coverage of the current brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh makes it clear just how far its standards have descended.

Having abandoned for now their effort to force President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrats are not giving ground against a lesser nemesis: Rush Limbaugh.

With the help of liberal advocacy groups, the Democrats in Congress are turning Mr. Limbaugh’s insinuation that members of the military who question the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” into the latest war of words over the war.

A resolution introduced by 20 Democrats urges the House to condemn the “unwarranted slur” made by Mr. Limbaugh, though it does not condemn the broadcaster himself.

Right there is the problem. Nowhere in this article is there any indication that the reporter, Carl Hulse, has even gone back and examined the unedited transcripts and audio of the show in question. Indeed, he takes at face value the partisan claims of Media Matters and the Democrats that Limbaugh did, in fact, call any anti-war veteran a “phony soldier”. The only problem, of course, is that Rush Limbaugh did not say that, and one would assume that journalistic ethics, not to mention common decency would require that this be noted somewhere in the article. It isn’t – and indeed, the article dismisses Limbaugh’s defense of himself.

There is even an interesting spin by Media Matters included in the article, one that is contradicted by the transcript itself.

After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.

Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. LimbaughÂ’s remarks be repudiated.

That is true – almost. In that transcript, it is clearly about two minutes before Limbaugh explains the reference to “phony soldiers”. And while he does only talk about one, Jesse Macbeth, though his case is one of a number in which fake vets have lied about serving, or actual vets have been documented to have lied about events. I'd argue that both groups qualify as phonies, wouldn't you?

But look at what Limbaugh said.

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

So it is clear that Rush is referring back to a previous show on another day to make a reference. Given that much of LimbaughÂ’s audience listens daily, it is likely that they knew what he was referring to. In addition, the Jesse Macbeth story had been in the news only days before, and a reasonably well-informed audience like LimbaughÂ’s would have been aware of it. But even setting all that aside, the article is so slanted that it is not even funny.

But while we are on the topic of LimbaughÂ’s comments and the controversy surrounding them, let me note a few things.

1) I find it very interesting that Harry Reid and company will not come off the Senate floor to make these comments. Could it be that they know their statements are false – and so recklessly false as to enable Limbaugh to meet the standard for succeeding in a suit for defamation? Are they, in fact, hiding behind the Speech or Debate Clause of Article I to engage in speech that would be legally actionable if engaged in outside the Senate Chamber?

2) Why wouldn’t many of these same individuals condemn the infamous MoveOn.Org “Betray Us” ad, which accused General Petraeus of treason?

3) Is it only conservative broadcasters that these Senators are prepared to condemn? Will these same individuals condemn these comments from their fellow Democrat politicians (including signers of the Reid letter about Limbaugh)?

While Limbaugh exposed the left's exploitation of a phony, the likes of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., are free to slander the Marines who defended themselves against a jihadist ambush in the Iraqi town of Haditha, claiming they had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Sounds like the phony charges Macbeth made, doesn't it?

No one has been found guilty in the Haditha incident, and there has been no proof of innocent civilians being murdered. Several of the Marines have been found innocent as the case has unraveled. But is Murtha condemned by his colleagues or asked to apologize?

Sen. John Kerry once told Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "there is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women . . . ." This was a more modest reprise of his post-Vietnam charges that U.S. troops had raped, tortured and pillaged in the tradition of Genghis Khan.

Then there's the famous utterance by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., after the incident at Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison: "We now learn that Saddam's torture chamber (has) reopened under new management."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., once said of our prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo that "describing what Americans had done to prisoners under our control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by the Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings."

I guess, of course, that attacks on our soldiers, their patriotism, and their decency are just fine – as long as they come from liberals and are aimed at ensuring our defeat in Iraq and the swift implementation of a cut-and-run strategy. So while it is impossible to call our servicemen and women in Iraq "phony soldiers", it is clear that the signers of this letter (along with Media Matters and NY Times reporter Carl Hulse) are phony patriots.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1464 words, total size 11 kb.

Well, at least she won't shove it down our throats...

H/T Gary McCoy, via Townhall.com

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 2 kb.

Twenty-five years ago, my father was intimately involved in arranging college credit for advanced technical training completed by sailors at Service School Command Great lakes and other Navy training programs around the country. It therefore warms my heart to see this bit of news about the expansion of a similar program in the Army.

The Army plans to offer accredited college credit hours for its training programs with enough offerings that a soldier could retire with a bachelor's degree.

The program is called the College of the American Soldier and is viewed as a recruitment tool as the Army seeks to expand its force.

With the offering, the Army will be able to tell recruits to come in to learn a skill and to obtain an education, said Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, who outlined the program during a breakfast meeting Tuesday with reporters.

Freakley is head of Army Accession Command, which is responsible for recruiting and the initial training of soldiers. He said the Army is working with colleges to gets its training programs accredited, and hopes to begin the program in February.

Under it, every new recruit in basic training will have the option of obtaining a technical certification in a skill such as welding or potentially 17 hours of college credit in leadership, first aid and other areas, he said.

"The idea would be, by the time you are a staff sergeant, somewhere between six and 10 years in the Army, you're going to have your associate's degree," Freakley said.

Soldiers who attend the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy could get 45 hours of credit because they have to write and take classes in areas such as literature and public speaking, he said. Those who retire as a master sergeant or sergeant major could have a bachelor's degree through the program, he said.

My only questions -- who will issue this degree, and will these credits be accepted for transfer by colleges and universities? The program my father was involved in creating actually counted these courses for college credit through several different schools, and were accepted as a part of their degree programs. Will these be captive credits that will only earn you a degree through the College of the American Soldier, or will you be able to get out with that associate's degree and transfer to Podunk State College, Big State University or Prestigious East Coast University?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

One can argue whether or not there should be a moratorium on carrying out death sentences by lethal injection pending a Supreme Court decision. However, there is unquestionably only one way for this to happen under the laws and constitution of the State of Texas.

This is it.

Signaling an indefinite halt to executions in Texas, the stateÂ’s highest criminal appeals court late Tuesday stayed the lethal injection of a 28-year-old Honduran man who was scheduled to be put to death Wednesday.

The reprieve by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was granted a week after the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a form of lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment barred under the Eighth Amendment. On Thursday, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt a planned execution in Texas at the last minute, and though many legal experts interpreted that as a signal for all states to wait for a final ruling on lethal injection before any further executions, Texas officials said they planned to move ahead with more.

As a result, TuesdayÂ’s ruling by the Texas court was seen as a sign that judges in the nationÂ’s leading death penalty state were taking guidance from the Supreme Court and putting off imminent executions.

The Texas court order gave state authorities up to 30 days to explain in legal papers why the execution of the inmate, Heliberto Chi, should proceed. With responses then certain from defense lawyers, the effect of the order was to put off the execution for months, lawyers said.

Some want the governor to implement such a moratorium. Under state law and the state constitution, he cannot do so. His powers to delay or prevent an execution are incredibly limited (as I have been pointing out since George W. Bush ran for President in 2000, the Texas governor has weakest pardon and reprieve power in the 50 states). That puts the ball into the hands of the courts.

But I also urge Rick Perry to take another action that is within his power, one that would settle the question of lethal injection here in Texas.

Rick Perry is correct in not acting in this case. If a moratorium is truly necessary, he ought to call the legislature back into session to consider one -- and perhaps also legislation restoring either hanging or the firing squad as the form of execution in Texas, rendering moot the need for a moratorium at all.

After all, those two methods are unquestionably acceptable under the Eighth Amendment -- for they were in use when the Amendment was adopted, and clearly contemplated as acceptable by the Founders.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Faultline USA, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, Woman Honor Thyself, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Inside the Northwest Territory, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU, Republican National Convention Blog, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 5 kb.

Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has clearly decided it is "Do unto others -- in spades -- after they have done unto you."

Fred Thompson has a folksy, good old boy persona on the stump, but it may not last much longer.

When I asked him if he is an 11th Commandment man — Never speak ill of a fellow Republican — he responded, “I am more of a 12th Commandment man: Don’t speak ill of them until they speak ill of me. And then really speak ill of them.”

Now that seems reasonable, on its face. however, I hope that is tempered with the realization that too harsh an attack on his GOP rivals could damage the eventual nominee fatally, exposing weaknesses that will resonate with the electorate and give an opening to the eventual Democrat nominee.

After all, there was this Democrat named Al Gore in 1988 -- he raised challenged Michael Dukakis on a furlough program for state inmates and a prisoner named Willie Horton.

And the rest is history.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

Does anyone else find this mildly disturbing?

They give them nicknames, worry when they signal for help and sometimes even treat them like a trusted pet.

A new study shows how deeply some Roomba owners become attached to the robotic vacuum and suggests there's a measure of public readiness to accept robots in the house — even flawed ones.

"They're more willing to work with a robot that does have issues because they really, really like it," said Beki Grinter, an associate professor at Georgia Tech's College of Computing. "It sort of begins to address more concerns: If we can design things that are somewhat emotionally engaging, it doesn't have to be as reliable."

People -- it is a vacuum. It isn't a pet. It isn't alive, and it doesn't have feelings. What is your problem?

More to the point -- what next? Are you willing to accept a less reliable car because of your emotional attachment to it? How about a less reliable computer, microwave, or television? We all know that wouldn't be the case. So why accept a less reliable vacuum because it is cute or different?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

Politico calls it a "battle of soundbites", but i call it using history to prove one's point.

You know -- actually appealing to facts.

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle , who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camelÂ’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didnÂ’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a plan for state insurance for low-income children without insurance -- though I dislike the federal involvement. But given the continuous efforts to expand it, with an obvious goal of making the government the insurer of all children, I see the dangers of such programs expanding well-beyond their stated goal. After all -- since when has $83,000 been "low-income"?

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

It is really too bad that John shut down the Bay Area Houston website last week -- I'd love to get his take on this story.

A meeting behind a church with $10,000 cash changing hands, five-figure gifts for a city councilman's "birthday party" and a mistress funneling bribes through a sham consulting company were among details spelled out Monday in a federal indictment alleging corruption at Dallas City Hall.

The 166-page indictment accuses state Rep. Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill of extortion and bribery in soliciting and taking payments from affordable housing developers.

Former City Councilman James Fantroy was indicted separately on a charge that he embezzled more than $5,000 from traditionally black Paul Quinn College, where he was a director and treasurer of a program that received federal money.

In all, 16 people were indicted following an FBI-led public corruption probe that burst into view more than two years ago when agents raided city offices.

Hodge, Hill and others are accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars from real estate developer Brian Potashnik in exchange for helping his company obtain federal tax credits for low-income housing projects in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

The fact that the party affiliation of all but one of these individuals is left off this story is troublesome, but no matter -- I'm shocked that Rep. Hodge was identified by party. Democrats rarely get so labeled --pr at least not early enough in the story for people to pay attention to it.

But here is my question -- when will the "good government" folks of the Left, the ones who want to highlight every hint of scandal around a Republican and demand that they be disciplined, expelled, or forced to resign, insist that Rep. Terri Hodge must leave the Texas House immediately?

Or are they going to do a William Jefferson, and insist that we wait for the charges to be resolved in a court of law before anyone says she is guilty and must surrender her seat?

In other words, will Texas Democrats practice a little affirmative action and treat her differently than Tom DeLay because she is a black, female Democrat?

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Urban Grounds, Riehl World View, Don Surber

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 5 kb.

Tawana Brawley.

Crystal Gail Mangum.

Anita Hill.

Each used false accusations of sexual improprieties to attack and destroy men. Each has been shown to be a liar.

But since she is a liberal icon, Anita Hill has gotten space in the New York Times to continue to spread her lies about Justice Clarence Thomas. Her claims were not credible in 1991 -- they remain beyond belief in 2007.

ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence ThomasÂ’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

Anita Hill claims that "[a] number of independent authors" have supported her. The problem is that none of those authors can be particularly viewed as unbiased or non-partisan. The witnesses on her behalf were decidedly unpersuasive -- indeed, I remember watching the hearings with an anti-Thomas Democrat whose response to their testimony was to turn to me and admit that he was convinced following their testimony that Clarence Thomas was innocent.

The sort of false charges that Anita Hill made were sensational enough in 1991 that the media was more than willing to be complicit in them. But since them, we have heard Tawna Brawley recant her charges of sexual abuse against powerful men, and watched as Crysta Gail Mangum used sexually loaded charges to falsely smear young men at Duke. Anita Hill, sadly, is cut from the same cloth. But in each case, liberals have been willing to take the word of an accuser, even when the evidence is against them.

The time has come for Anita Hill to realize that her 15 minutes are up -- and that it is morally wrong for her to seek to revictimize the man whose reputation she sullied in order to gain another quarter hour.

MORE AT Power Line, Sister Toldjah, Colossus of Rhodey, Don Surber, American Mind, Captain's Quarters, OnDeadline, Neptunus Lex, Macsmind

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, Wake Up America, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 5 kb.

After all -- this simply proves that the American people are ignorant of the financial realities of their preferred option in Iraq, and probably don't really know what they want or what is needed in Iraq in the first place.

There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

OK, so that means that the people want a sharp reduction in the number of troops in Iraq and a quick retreat from the field without victory -- right?

At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction, and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.

So what the American people think the President's plans are about right or even too quick to bring troops home.

But then there is this.

Overall, 55 percent of Americans want congressional Democrats to do more to challenge the president's Iraq policies, while a third think the Democrats have gone too far.

Which I suppose could be interpreted as support for the pell-mell retreat that the Left has been advocating for the last year, with a great skeedaddle from Iraq with America's tail tucked between her legs.

So how do we reconcile these three results? My answer -- we have to recognize that the American people don't understand what it costs to keep the war going in a manner that accords with their wish, which seem to be victory. After all, it is pretty clear that the President's plan is about right int he eyes of most Americans -- but that they don't like the price tag for it. Unfortunately, this indicates that the American people really don't know what it costs to keep an operation like this one going -- and trying to do it on the cheap would be disastrous. That first set of numbers is therefore irrelevant if one is to accept the second set of numbers as valid.

And what of the third set of numbers? I'd argue that it shows that the American people want the Congress to keep up the pressure on the Administration to remember that this cannot be an open-ended commitment, and that we ultimately do need to draw down our forces in Iraq.

But then again, that is already the position of the Bush administration -- though you generally would not know it from the media coverage that has been given.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 530 words, total size 3 kb.

What is it with these major Democrat Party donors? Seems like they all have major corruption problems. So much for the claim that the Dems are the party of clean government -- this case would clearly make them the party of trading with the enemy.

In an unexpected midtrial reversal, Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr., the Texas oilman accused of corrupting the United NationÂ’s oil-for-food program, pleaded guilty today to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal kickbacks to Saddam HusseinÂ’s regime in 2001 to gain access to lucrative Iraqi oil contracts.

Mr. WyattÂ’s guilty plea came without warning this morning, on the 14th day of his trial in United States District Court in Manhattan, and it arrived before federal prosecutors had even finished presenting their case.

Under an agreement with the government, Mr. Wyatt pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The sentence he receives is likely to be between 18 and 24 months in prison, rather than the potential maximum of 70 years he could have faced if convicted on all five counts of the indictment.

This sudden change of mind was somewhat startling, not only because it came as the prosecution was about to rest its case, but also because Mr. Wyatt, a former drill-bit salesman, had proclaimed his innocence almost from the moment he was first arrested two years ago at his home in River Oaks, Houstons most exclusive residential district.

After rising before Judge Denny Chin to admit his guilt today, Mr. Wyatt, a plain-spoken octogenerian, embraced his wife, Lynn, a doyenne of the Houston social scene who is known for her philanthropic work and for her taste for haute couture.

Somehow, the New York Times missed the Democrat connection -- something that wouldn't have happened if Wyatt's donations had trended Republican. But for your information, here is a list of his contributions -- and I should remind you that Wyatt's wife matched these donations as well out of the couple's community property, so you should probably double the amounts. But a 3 or 4-to-1 disparity in favor of the Democrats is hardly worth noting, right?

The donations over the years include, to Democrats:

$1,000 to Bill Clinton
$3,900 to Hillary Clinton
$2,300 to Bill Richardson
$150,000 DNC
$101,000 DCCC
$60,000 DSCC
$2,000 to Texas Democratic Party
$500 Democratic Party of Harris County
$2,000 to Ted Kennedy
$500 to Joe Kennedy
$1,000 to Sheila Jackson Lee
$5,000 to Martin Frost.
$2,000 to Dick Gephardt
$1,000 to Jeff Bingaman
$1,000 to Lee Hamilton
$4,000 to Nick Lampson
$2,000 to Bob Kerrey
$1,000 to Jim Turner
$7,000 to Tom Daschle
$2,000 to Henry Gonzalez
$2,000 to Chris John
$1,000 to Chris Bell
$7,000 to Ken Bentsen
$1,000 to John Glenn
$4,000 to Greg Laughlin
$1,000 to John Bryant
$1,000 to Joe Biden
$1,000 to Scott Baesler
$1,000 to Leonard Boswell
$2,000 to Bob Graham
$1,000 to Max Sandlin
$1,000 to Ed Bernstein
$1,000 to Bill Sarpalius
$1,000 to Tim Johnson
$500 to Charles Sanders
$1,000 to Dick Zimmer
$7,500 to Gene Greene
$1,000 to Joel Hyatt
$5,000 to John Dingell
$4,300 to Jay Rockefeller
$1,000 to Richard Romero
$1,000 to Kent Conrad
$1,000 to Jim Mattox
$1,000 to Joe Lieberman
$2,000 to John Breaux

Donations to Republicans include:

$100,000 RNC
$5,000 NRSC
$5,000 Americans for a Republican Majority
$1,000 to Larry Craig
$1,000 to Don Nickles
$1,000 to Richard Shelby
$1,000 to Bob Bennett
$1,000 to Michael Huffington
$1,000 to James Hansen
$1,000 to John Isakson
$2,000 to Jim DeMint
$2,000 to Pete Domenici
$3,000 to Kay Hutchison
$3,000 to Jack Fields
$2,000 to Bob Dole
$2,000 to Phil Gramm
$4,600 to John Cornyn
$2,000 to Al DÂ’Amato
$3,000 to John McCain

And let us note that, even while under indictment, Democrats are taking donations -- on June 1, Jay Rockefeller took $2300 from Wyatt. I guess being indicted for trading with the enemy isn't all that big a deal.

H/T Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 677 words, total size 4 kb.

Does this mean that the economic crisis that has been predicted is over? Or that it was never really a crisis at all? That is what we have to ask as the Dow soars to a new high.

Stock markets rallied into record territory today as investors bought back into the banking and housing sectors, a sign that Wall Street could see an end to the summerÂ’s subprime housing woes and a lower risk of recession.

The Dow Jones industrial average opened the fourth quarter by soaring more than 200 points at one point, putting the index well above its previous high set in July. At the close, the Dow was up 191.92 points, or 1.4 percent, at 14,087.55. The Standard and PoorÂ’s 500-stock index rose 1.3 percent to 1,547.04, trading just beneath record levels, and the Nasdaq rose 1.5 percent, to 2,740.99.

The advances came as Citigroup and UBS, two of the worldÂ’s largest banks, predicted steep declines in third-quarter earnings and announced billions of dollars in losses and write-downs related to subprime mortgage-backed securities and loans.

“When I got in this morning I would have bet quite a bit of money that we would be going the other way today,” said Joseph Brusuelas, the chief United States economist at IdeaGlobal.

But the profit warnings eased some investorsÂ’ anxiety about the long-term effects of the subprime collapse, analysts said, leaving Wall Street with a sense that the worst of the fallout from the summerÂ’s credit crisis had passed.

“The market believes that the crisis is over,” said William Rhodes, the chief investment strategist of Rhodes Analytics, a market research firm. “Whatever problems emerged last quarter are last quarter’s problems. They’re over, that’s it, they’re done. So let’s move onto the next thing.”

So rather than a meltdown, it appears we were really dealing with a readjustment. If this continues, the subprime mortgage "crisis" will have run its course in a matter of weeks, not the months and years that some analysts predicted.

Posted by: Greg at 09:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

The human rights tragedy continuing in Burma appears to be worse than imagined.

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand.

We always hear “Never Again!”

And yet the world allows it to happen again.

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Terrorists, thatÂ’s who.

On a video posted to YouTube.com this summer, a man speaking Egyptian-accented Arabic instructed viewers how to convert a remote-controlled toy car into a bomb detonator.

The 12-minute lesson was referenced on the popular video-sharing Web site under the search terms "detonator from a distance," "suiciders" and "martyrdoms."

A detonator could "save one who wants to be a martyr for another day, another battle," the man told viewers, according to federal prosecutors.

Last month, authorities identified the instructor as Mohamed Ahmed, 24, a graduate engineering student at the University of South Florida. An Egyptian national, he'd been stopped for speeding in South Carolina on Aug. 4, then arrested with a fellow student for allegedly carrying four pipe bombs in the trunk.

This is one of the folks that CAIR has declared to be innocent of all charges and the subject of persecution by the US government. However, this video showing Ahmed makes it pretty clear that he is a terrorist.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Which will no doubt lead to more denials of success from the anti-war crowd.

Deaths among American forces and Iraqi civilians fell dramatically last month to their lowest levels in more than a year, according to figures compiled by the U.S. military, the Iraqi government and The Associated Press.

The decline signaled a U.S. success in bringing down violence in Baghdad and surrounding regions since Washington completed its infusion of 30,000 more troops on June 15.

A total of 64 American forces died in September — the lowest monthly toll since July 2006.

The decline in Iraqi civilian deaths was even more dramatic, falling from 1,975 in August to 922 last month, a decline of 53.3 percent. The breakdown in September was 844 civilians and 78 police and Iraqi soldiers, according to Iraq's ministries of Health, Interior and Defense.

In August, AP figures showed 1,809 civilians and 155 police and Iraqi soldiers were killed in sectarian violence.

The civilian death toll has not been so low since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.

I know that there are folks out there who will do their best to downplay this good news – but when you consider that success in Iraq undermines their political agenda, why should we expect anything else?

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

I've not commented on the vulgar headline in a Colorado State University newspaper. But this line from a NY Times article forces me to break my silence

On the campus of Colorado State University, opinion is divided over whether a terse editorial that ran in the student newspaper on Sept. 21 was an exercise of free speech or immature judgment.

My answer: it is both at once. Free speech is free speech, even if it is immature and ill-considered.

Should the staff involved be fired? I'm not sure -- though there is the issue of the paper's code of ethics is being considered by the Board of Student Communications.

The board plans at the hearing to consider whether the language violated the newspaper’s code of ethics, specifically the provision that “profane and vulgar words are not acceptable for opinion writing.”

I don't know that I would agree in every instance, but this was a gratuitous use of the profane word in question. And I think a better argument for firing the editors can be made -- they violated their fiduciary duty to the paper by their poor editorial choice, as evidenced by the immediate loss of over $30,000 in advertising revenue.

Posted by: Greg at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

The space race kicked into high gear 50 years ago with the launch of Sputnik.

When Sputnik took off 50 years ago, the world gazed at the heavens in awe and apprehension, watching what seemed like the unveiling of a sustained Soviet effort to conquer space and score a stunning Cold War triumph.

But 50 years later, it emerges that the momentous launch was far from being part of a well-planned strategy to demonstrate communist superiority over the West. Instead, the first artificial satellite in space was a spur-of-the-moment gamble driven by the dream of one scientist, whose team scrounged a rocket, slapped together a satellite and persuaded a dubious Kremlin to open the space age.

And that winking light that crowds around the globe gathered to watch in the night sky? Not Sputnik at all, as it turns out, but just the second stage of its booster rocket, according to Boris Chertok, one of the founders of the Soviet space program.

It is interesting to realize just how seat-of-the-pants that first launch really was -- fifty years ago this Thursday.

Posted by: Greg at 10:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Back during my seminary days, I had an old priest comment to me that we can never allow the best to become the enemy of the better. What he meant was that one should never reject a less than ideal option because it falls short of the ideal, especially when the remaining option is a bad one.

I wish someone would communicate this principle to these folks.

Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.

The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”

The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.

So let's see if I've got this straight -- the socially moderate Rudy Giuliani is so unacceptable to these "Christian" "conservative" "leaders" that they are prepared to usher in an administration headed by Hillary Clinton, whose positions are more liberal than Giuliani's are.

They would prefer judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to originalist judges.

They would prefer someone more likely to support gay marriage.

They would prefer an enthusiastic supporter of abortion.

In other words, they would rather support a perfect candidate than the best possible candidate that can win.

That position is not leadership -- it is petulant.

That position is not conservative -- it is reckless.

And I assure you that it is neither Christian nor patriotic, for it not only fails to advance the sort of policies that are in conformity with Christian belief and the best interests of the United States, but it will inevitably result in a worse situation than holding one's nose and supporting a flawed candidate like Giuliani.

And I say that as a Christian and a conservative who does not believe that Rudy Giuliani is the best that the GOP has to offer America -- but who does believe that he is better than anything the Democrats have to offer. And as a result, I will not let the best be the enemy of the better, and will support Rudy Giuliani if he is the GOP nominee a year from now.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

The Texans go for their third win of the season -- after coming frighteningly close to beating the Indianapolis Colts in a game marked by massive injuries to the Texans offense. And Texans QB Matt Schaub has something to prove to the team where he would have been starting this season if they hadn't traded him in the off season.

Better quarterback. Better defense. Texans win.

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

But then again, that might just be one more sign that the Surge is working, and they certainly couldn't let the American people start to believe that victory is possible.

US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.

A US military "surge" strategy saw an extra 28,500 US troops being deployed from mid-February, mainly in Baghdad and the neighbouring province of Anbar, although commanders said most were not in combat positions until May.

US commanders say the strategy is starting to work and that levels of violence are dropping, allowing for a possible drawdown of the 160,000 or so troops currently deployed across war-torn Iraq.

So let's make this clear --more troops in Iraq, fewer deaths. the Surge is working -- even though the Democrats don't want you to know that.

Posted by: Greg at 02:30 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

Will an unpopular Democrat at the head of the national ticket harm the party in many states? And could this help offset the difficulties facing the GOP elsewhere?

The New York senator and Democratic front-runner was by a wide margin the most unpopular of 13 potential presidential candidates in Montana, according to a June survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the Billings Gazette; 61% said they would not consider voting for her, compared with 49% who would not vote for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and 45% who would not vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The most unpopular Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was rejected by 51%.

Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have found similar distaste for Clinton.

Got that -- the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination is overwhelmingly rejected by the majority in several states. Even her two closest competitors (if she can be said to have any) are rejected by nearly half of voters.

And while there is a single Republican rejected by a majority of voters, he is still so unfamiliar to most Americans that further exposure can only help him, while Hillary Clinton is so well-known that it is unlikely that she can overcome these negatives.

Now Hillary Clinton may be our next president -- if one can project that outcome from over a year away from th election -- but that could be a Pyrrhic victory for the Democrats. After all, if she has negative coattails for th lower part of the ticket, Democrats may fail to consolidate their hold on the Senate and House. Indeed, she could single-handedly destroy the advances made by the Democrats in some red states.

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

The old joke is confirmed with the front page tag-line for this WaPo story today.

In support for Democrat's plan, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) joins bipartisan side of Iraq debate.

Get that -- a Republican voting like a Democrat is "bipartisan. Never mind that the Democrats are acting in partisan lockstep. On the other hand, no Democrat voting with the Republicans -- say Joe Lieberman -- would never be considered to be "bipartisan".

And I guess it also goes to show that the Left considers military victory to be a partisan position, while surrender is a bipartisan option.

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 AM | Comments (111) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

And that claim has all the legitimacy of the Gambino family calling the FBI and Department of Justice "organized crime families".

Iran's parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as "terrorist organizations," a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.

"The aggressor U.S. Army and the Central Intelligence Agency are terrorists and also nurture terror," said a statement by the 215 lawmakers who signed the resolution at an open session of the 290-member Iranian parliament. The session was broadcast live on state-run radio.

The resolution, which urges Ahmadinejad's government to treat the two as terrorist organizations, would become law if ratified by the country's hardline constitutional watchdog but probably would have little effect as the two nations have no diplomatic relations.

If, however, Mahmoud the Mad does give approval to this silly resolution, I hope that all Americans will see fit to wabge a "terrorist" war against the Iranian regime -- one conducted without roadside bombs, suicide vests, beheadings of hostages and planes flown into buildings.

Mahmoud the Mad needs to be taught that war is Hell -- and it is high time that he receives a one-way ticket there, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, he does have a point.

We canÂ’t afford to keep being this stupid!

He's right on that point -- and dead wrong on everything else.

We need to fight the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror much more intensively, not disengage. We need to quit pretending that jihadis are criminals who deserve a lawyer due process, and treat them like POWs who are imprisoned until the end of the conflict -- which may not come in my lifetime.

Friedman clearly wants to ignore the realities of the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror while raising taxes so that we can become another socialist "paradise" like the EU or Red China. I think I'll pass on that agenda.

But he's right -- we cannot continue to keep being this stupid. America must quit listening to nanny-state liberals and instead get serious about fighting terrorism, securing the border, and putting the socialist vision of the Left in the ash-heap of history where it belongs. In other words, we must do the exact opposite of what Thomas Friedman suggests.

MORE AT Stop the ACLU, JammieWearingFool, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden, Wizbang, The Van Der Galiën Gazette, Ed Driscoll, NewsBusters, Freedom Eden, Riehl World View, Strata-Sphere, Wake Up America, Sister Toldjah, Chuch Adkins, Oxford Medievalist

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 3 kb.

Of all the districts in the Houston area, there is one that really ought to be closed -- North Forest ISD. They have been through superintendent after superintendent in the last 20 years, having fired them over poor performance ratings for the schools, financial mismanagement, and the color of their skin (they canned a white superintendent because he "did not understand the community because he was white". The schools are a mess, the district is a mess, and there seems to be little hope of the place getting better. It really ought to be closed down, with a neighboring district taking over the area. But given the racial makeup of the district, it won't happen because it would be "racially insensitive" (I guess it is more racially sensitive to leave minority kids in failing schools run by minorities).

Well, now they are searching for another superintendent.

Leaders of the North Forest school district soon will pen their "help wanted" ad for a new superintendent, beginning a nationwide search that could prove difficult.

Given the problems facing the northeast Houston district, the job posting could read: Change agent needed to turn around an urban system with declining enrollment, shaky finances and numerous underperforming campuses.

The district's newly hired search consultant, Benjamin Canada of the Texas Association of School Boards, said the pursuit of a top-notch leader will be challenging, but achievable.

"It is a district that doesn't have the best reputation, but it has some outstanding students. It has some outstanding staff," said Canada, a former superintendent. ''But like all districts, it has a need for significant change."

The board has fired or forced out four of its past five permanent superintendents, the last being James Simpson in March.

You can see in the sidebar how rough things have been in the district -- and why any candidate for the job would be nuts to take it.

Add to that the fact that 5 of 11 schools are rated as "academically unacceptable" -- and that is an improvement from a year ago, when 8 of them received that ranking -- and you can see what awful shape the district is in. Indeed, it is probably the only district in the Houston area I would not apply in.

Still, I wish them well -- and can only hope that they find a good leader who can help turn the schools around. And that the racist, over-bearing school board members will allow the new leader to do the job for which he or she is hired without bringing in petty political and personal agendas like those that have brought the district to its current woeful state.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

More heroes of WWII have been found at the site of their final resting place, entombed forever in the remains of their submarine, USS Grunion.

When famed novelist and sailor Joseph Conrad wrote in 1900, "I have known the sea too long to believe in its respect for decency," perhaps he had some foresight into the mysterious disappearance of a U.S. Navy submarine 42 years later.

The foreboding comment by Conrad, author of sea novels such as "Lord Jim," "Typhoon" and "The Rescue," dramatically applies to the fate of the crew of the submarine USS Grunion and the anguish of the families of the missing whose ship vanished in 1942 while steaming off the coast of Alaska.

The 311-foot, diesel powered Grunion and its 70-member crew had not been heard from for 65 years since they went missing while on patrol off the island of Kiska in the Aleutian Islands.

In early July of 1942, the Grunion had sunk two Japanese sub chasers and damaged a third near Kiska, one of two islands in the Aleutians that had been captured by the Japanese during the early months of World War II.

But the Grunion, named for a small fish and commissioned just three months earlier, had not been located since its last message of July 30, 1942, when it reported by radio the receipt of a Navy message ordering it back to the U.S. Navy base at Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

One month ago, the remains of the USS Grunion were found in 1,000 feet of water off Kiska Island following a lengthy and intensive search led by the son of the Grunion's skipper and with the cooperation of the Alaskan Civil Air Patrol and World War II Japanese navy veterans who had served in the Aleutians in 1942.

Utilizing Japanese navy records discovered in Tokyo last summer, John Abele, the son of Grunion skipper Lt. Cmdr. Mannert Abele, discovered the mangled remains of the sub utilizing an underwater, remotely operated vehicle equipped with video cameras.

May God Almighty grant them eternal rest, and comfort to their families.

The Crew of USS Grunion (SS-216)
Abele, M. L. LCDR
Alexander, F. E. SM3
Allen, D. E. SM3
Arvan, H. J. Matt2
Banes, P. E. CMOMM
Bedard, L. J. I. CMOMM
Blinston, W. H. RM3
Bonadies, N. R. F2
Boo, R. F. RM3
Bouvia, C. L. MM1
Caldwell, G. E. CEM
Carroll, R. H. S2
Clift, J. S. TM2
Collins, M. F. F2
Cooksey, L. D. MOMM1
Cullinane, D. MM1
Cuthbertson, W. H., Jr. ENS
Deaton, L. D. S2
DeStoop, A. E. CTM
Devaney, W. P., Jr. S2
Dighton, S. R., Jr. LTJG
Doell, L. H., Jr. RM2
Franck, L. H. S1
Graham, M. D. CTM
Hall, K. E. S2
Hellensmith, E. G. EM3
Henderson, H. B. MOMM2
Hutchinson, C. R. TM3
Kennedy, S. J., Jr. MOMM2
Knowles, E. E., Jr. S2
Kockler, L. R. TM1
Kornahrens, W. G. LT
Ledford, M. J. CY
Lehman, W. W. EM1
Loe, S. A. MOMM2
Lunsford, S., Jr. EM2
Lyon, J. W. F1
Martin, C. R. CMOMM
Martin, T. E. EM1
Mathison, R. EM1
McCutcheon, R. G. TM3
McMahon, J. M. LT
Miller, E. C. F2
Myers, D. O. F1
Nave, F. T. MOMM2
Newcomb, A. G. RM1
Nobles, J. W. MOMM1
Pancoast, J. E. MOMM2
Parziale, C. A. TM3
Paul, C., Jr. MATT2
Pickel, B. J. S1
Post, A. C. S2
Randall, W. H. RM2
Ryan, L., Jr. S2
Sanders, H. A. MOMM1
Schumann, E. T. CQM
Sullivan, P. P. PHM1
Surofchek, S. SC1
Swartwood, D. N. S2
Templeton, S. A. GM1
Thomas, M. W. LT
Traviss, B. A. S2
Ullmann, A. S1
VanWoggelum, M. F. F3
Walter, M. H. F3
Webster, R. E. EM2
Welch, D. F. FC2
Wells, J. H. TM2
Wilson, J. E., Jr. SC3
Youngman, R. J. F2

Bless those who serve beneath the deep,
Through lonely hours their vigil keep.
May peace their mission ever be,
Protect each one we ask of Thee.
Bless those at home who wait and pray,
For their return by night and day.
— Reverend Gale R. Williamson

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Hat/tip: JammieWearingFool.

PS. My haloscan won't accept the trackback, so I thought I'd at least try some way.

Posted by: Rosemary's Thoughts at Sat Sep 29 15:41:45 2007 (2k5qj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wonder -- is this a true voice of sanity that presages change? Or is it simply one lone voice of sense that will be drowned out by in a sea of anti-Semitic Israel-bashing?

The United Nations Human Rights Council has not managed to deal fairly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the council's president Doru-Romulus Costea told a Spanish newspaper on Saturday, according to Israel Radio.

Doru admitted that he was dissatisfied with the fact the council had overly focused on the degree of human rights violations by Israel.

"The body which I head must examine the actions of both sides equally, and we have not done that," said Costea. "Clearly, from now on things need to change."

Israel Radio reported that earlier this week, US President George Bush criticized the UN Human Rights Council, saying that it had put too great an emphasis on Israeli actions.

I suspect that the above comment is the lone voice -- after all, let's look at what the body in question has done this week.

When President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly this week “the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council,” his words could not have been more timely or deserved. He pointed out “This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran — while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.” On Friday, the Council piled the dung heap higher. It wrapped up another session in Geneva by adopting two more resolutions against Israel and no resolutions critical of the human-rights record of any of the other 191 U.N. member states.

This brings the total of anti-Israel resolutions and decisions adopted by the “Human Rights” Council — in only the first 15 months of its operation — to 14. Another four very weak decisions and resolutions have been applied to Sudan. And the Council finally decided to hold a special session of the Council on Myanmar. So adding up the highly selective concerns of the U.N.’s lead human-rights agency: 74 percent of the Council’s moves against individual states have been directed at Israel, 21 percent at Sudan, 5 percent at Myanmar, and the rest of the world has been given a free pass.

But then again, it is easier to criticize liberal democracies that value human rights and human life than it is to oppose terrorists and oppressive regimes -- after all, the latter don't give a damn about anything except holding on to their power

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

The incredible Mark Steyn points out why the Left's tendency to engage in only easy, safe protests against easy, safe targets (the US, Israel) where human rights are respected is unworkable when they are confronted with true evil that doesn't give a damn about their eloquent (or not so eloquent) protests .

The pen is not mightier than the sword if your enemy is confident you will never use anything other than your pen. Sometimes it's not about "freedom of speech," but about freedom. Ask an Iranian homosexual. If you can find one.

In the end, unsavory dictators like Mahmoud the Mad don't care about the insults of Lee Bollinger or the cries of has-been hippies in the streets. They know that the latte-sipping class won't actually get their hands dirty to stop the evils they protest -- and that such folks quickly become the unwitting allies of evil when they turn upon their own countries for daring to act on behalf of freedom and human rights.

After all, why fight the real oppressors of the world when you can do this instead, risk-free?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT , Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Big Dog's Weblog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stop the ACLU, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:10 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm pleased to hear that Newt Gingrich has ended any flirtation with a presidential bid this year.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided Saturday morning not to run for president just as his staff was preparing to launch a website to seek $30 million in pledges, his spokesman told Politico.

Gingrich had planned to seek pledges as part of a three-week exploration without making any formal declaration of candidacy for the Republican nomination — an approach that several Republican leaders said was legally questionable.

The decision will bolster the contention of several key Republicans that Gingrich's repeated flirtation with a presidential run was a publicity stunt designed to keep him in the news and sell his books.

I won't go so far as to say Gingrich was looking to sell books -- instead, I'll argue that it has all been about stroking the former Speaker's ego. But regardless of the reason for his proposed candidacy, I stand by what I said earlier today -- Let's say it loud and clear -- Newt has all of Rudy's liabilities and none of his personal popularity with the American people. Indeed, his abrasiveness even turns off a lot of Republicans. So while he is clearly one of the leading minds of the conservative movement, Newt Gingrich is clearly not someone who should be in the race for the nomination this year.

More at Michelle Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Captain's Quarters, RTFLC, American Mind, Wizbang

Posted by: Greg at 11:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

And this is not about religion, or discouraging abortion, or limiting "choice" (to kill other members of the human race because they are inconvenient). No, it is about public health and safety.

Consider this story.

The Alternatives abortion clinic in Atlantic City, New Jersey, opted to surrender its license to the state instead of correcting the list of health violations detailed in a 116-page report.

Atlantic City Councilman John Schultz, who leased the facility to Alternatives, said the clinic's equipment was emptied out of the building last month and the space is available for lease.

The state's report detailed a slew of violations at the clinic, including bloodstained operating tables, expired drugs and the absence of a sterilization sink.

The facility had not been inspected in six years, even though state law requires annual inspection. I guess they didn't want to come into conflict with the abortion industry or the feminists who support them.

Mark Noonan makes these interesting points on one of his sites.

If you go over to the Centers for Disease Control, you'll find that the CDC (at least in 2002) was saying that there is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions - but the problem with this stat is that everything about abortion at CDC is reliant upon voluntary reporting. An abortion mill with 1.2 deaths per 100,000 has no obligation to report and, indeed, would have a vested interest in keeping the death rate quiet. With little or no regulation of abortion at the State and local level, we really have no idea how many women are killed and injured in the course of their abortion procedure.

What we need is to bring the abortion industry under the same regulations which are applied to all medical operations. We need records to be kept; we need suspected cases of abuse to be reported (among the many dirty secrets of the abortion industry is the way they have become the means of choice for older men to hide their statutory rapes of young women); we need to ensure the facilities are up to surgical standards and that the staffs are fully trained not just in baby-butchering, but in emergency medical care in case they botch the abortion. And we should also have a comprehensive study done of abortion in the United States - to find out how many are really happening, and what emotion and physical effects abortion has on the women who have them.

Naturally, any such attempts will be desperately fought against by the pro-abortion fanatics - showing, in the end, that their real desire is that the killing continue. This, I believe, is a result of their guilty consciences - they know what they do and advocate is wrong, but as long as they can prevent any change in the status quo, they believe they can block out the fact that they are committing horrible crimes on a daily basis. Pro-abortion people - and the people fooled into being "pro-choice" - are people more to be pitied than despised; it must be a sad way to view life - but we who are pro-life have a duty to do whatever we can to lessen the ill effects of abortion.

As long as Roe v. Wade stands as precedent, we will be unable to stop the slaughter of the unborn in this country. That is a sad reality. However, treating abortion centers like other medical facilities would be a good start in protecting the woman who make the (wrong) choice to kill their babies from the unscrupulous and incompetent medical "professionals" who operate places like the one in the article above.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.

And hopefully he will lose the defamation case against him.

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. A Vietnam veteran and retired Marine Reserves colonel, Murtha has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and efforts to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

I've got a real problem with the argument Henault made on Murtha's behalf. There is a provision of the constitution providing some limited immunity to members of Congress, but I think it is important to note what it says.

Article I, Section 6: The Senators and Representatives. . . shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

Murtha's comments were not made in the course of speech or debate -- they were made in a press conference, off the House floor and therefore so not meet the standard for such immunity under any legitimate reading of the text. If the argument advanced upon Murtha's behalf were to be accepted, any statement on any political issue made anywhere in the US (or the world) would be magically converted into "speech or debate in either House" -- thereby turning this limited immunity into a license to go forth and commit defamation against any private citizen or political opponent under the rubric of "debate" on a political issue. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue -- in Hutchison v. Proxmire, it ruled that the Speech of Debate Clause is limited in its scope.

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.