All but the most stunted of moral midgets recognize that the two great evils of the twentieth century were Communism and Nazism. Just as the former still holds some attraction for the Mercedes Marxists on college campuses and in Hollywood, so, too, does the foul ideology of Hitler attract those with hate in their hearts.

They have scurried out of the sewer in Germany.

German neo-Nazis, some shouting ``Sieg Heil,'' rampaged in the eastern city of Frankfurt on Oder and destroyed wreaths placed to mark the anniversary of the 1938 Nazi pogrom against the Jews, police said on Friday.

A police spokeswoman said the group had launched an attack on Thursday evening, shortly after a memorial service by community and Jewish leaders at a monument where a synagogue once stood.

She said the neo-Nazis trampled floral wreaths placed at a memorial stone to the synagogue in the Polish border city that was destroyed 68 years ago in the Nazis' Kristallnacht or ''Night of Broken Glass.''

They threw away candles left at the memorial, which had been attended by about 200 people. When police arrived, some of the neo-Nazis shouted ``Sieg Heil,'' police said. Authorities stayed on guard at the memorial site through the night.

That this malignant mindset still holds sway over any minds after the documented evil perpetrated in its name is rightening. And the choic of the anniversary of Kristalnacht is clearly intentional, showing that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

1) China and Russia are going to collaborate on future space ventures. Plans include robotic missions to the Moon and Mars. America is planning manned missions. Are we seeing the beginning of a new space race? Is there any possibility of international cooperation between NASA, the European Space Agency, and the new Russo-Chinese consortium? After all, space exploration ought to be about advances for all mankind, not individual nations.

2) Democrats back-stabbed Joe Lieberman – but he remains loyal to them. Proof positive that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

3) A controversial speaker is invited to campus. The administration condemns the invitation. Students attempt to assault the speaker to prevent the speech. Welcome to the wonderful world of left-wing collegiate academia at Ball State University – where everyone is encouraged to be diverse in precisely the same way.

4) How did the Democrats do it? By running to the right, and winning with conservative candidates. Meet the Blue Dogs.

5) Even Bill Clinton agrees – this election does not represent a fundamental shift to the Left in American politics.

6) Given that observation, who will control the agenda – the far-left bomb-throwers, or the more conservative candidates who made the victory possible? We will find out once the Democrats outline their policy proposals.

7) Maybe the outcome of this leadership election will be the sign. Hoyer or Murtha – moderate or liberal?

8) They shipped their Jew to Hitler, so why should we be surprised that the French are itching to fire on the Israelis? The “peacekeepers” have let the terrorists rearm, so maybe the time has come for Israel to recognize that the UN forces are not a neutral broker – and to treat those forces accordingly.

9) Speaking of which, the UN is seriously concerned about the death of Palestinian civilians as Israel tries to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, they are not at all concerned about the Qassam rockets that Hamas has been launching from civilian neighborhoods into various areas of Israel. After all – dead Jews don’t matter to the international community today, any more than they did in the 1930s and 1940s.

10) Sad news at CBS – Ed Bradley, long a mainstay of 60 Minutes and the CBS Evening News, has died at age 65 of leukemia. Rest in peace, Ed – and may your name be found written in the Book of Life.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

1) China and Russia are going to collaborate on future space ventures. Plans include robotic missions to the Moon and Mars. America is planning manned missions. Are we seeing the beginning of a new space race? Is there any possibility of international cooperation between NASA, the European Space Agency, and the new Russo-Chinese consortium? After all, space exploration ought to be about advances for all mankind, not individual nations.

2) Democrats back-stabbed Joe Lieberman – but he remains loyal to them. Proof positive that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

3) A controversial speaker is invited to campus. The administration condemns the invitation. Students attempt to assault the speaker to prevent the speech. Welcome to the wonderful world of left-wing collegiate academia at Ball State University – where everyone is encouraged to be diverse in precisely the same way.

4) How did the Democrats do it? By running to the right, and winning with conservative candidates. Meet the Blue Dogs.

5) Even Bill Clinton agrees – this election does not represent a fundamental shift to the Left in American politics.

6) Given that observation, who will control the agenda – the far-left bomb-throwers, or the more conservative candidates who made the victory possible? We will find out once the Democrats outline their policy proposals.

7) Maybe the outcome of this leadership election will be the sign. Hoyer or Murtha – moderate or liberal?

They shipped their Jew to Hitler, so why should we be surprised that the French are itching to fire on the Israelis? The “peacekeepers” have let the terrorists rearm, so maybe the time has come for Israel to recognize that the UN forces are not a neutral broker – and to treat those forces accordingly.

9) Speaking of which, the UN is seriously concerned about the death of Palestinian civilians as Israel tries to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, they are not at all concerned about the Qassam rockets that Hamas has been launching from civilian neighborhoods into various areas of Israel. After all – dead Jews don’t matter to the international community today, any more than they did in the 1930s and 1940s.

10) Sad news at CBS – Ed Bradley, long a mainstay of 60 Minutes and the CBS Evening News, has died at age 65 of leukemia. Rest in peace, Ed – and may your name be found written in the Book of Life.

Posted by: Greg at 01:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

And if there is, will it be based on preserving the security of our nation's borders and the sovereign right of the US to control immigration? Or will it involve another round of amnesty, legalization, and incentives for even more of border-jumpers to come to America in order to skip to the head of the immigration line? That is the question as Democrats take control of Congress.

Jolted by the dramatic shake-up on Capitol Hill, the incoming Congress may prove more receptive to sweeping immigration changes such as a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, lawmakers and policy experts said.

Among the causes: Democrats' big gains, a shift by Latino voters away from the GOP and the defeat of several conservative Republicans who ran on a strident anti-illegal immigration message.

"I do see a light at the end of the tunnel," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, of Houston, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, said Wednesday.

But if Jackson-Lee sees a light, it is probably a flashlight being held by human traffickers leading even more illegals across the border. After all, she has steadfastly opposed shoring up our nation's borders.

And those of us worried about a repeat of the mistakes made in the 1980s with the Simpson-Mazolli amnesty legislation don't find the president's words comforting.

On Wednesday, President Bush identified immigration as an area in which he'd work with Democrats. And in comments directed to congressional conservatives who stymied his push for a guest-worker plan, Bush noted that strides have been made on border security.

"I would hope we can get something done," Bush said. "There's an issue where I believe we can find some common ground with the Democrats."

But if it involves legalization/amnesty, we may as well throw open the borders and admit that our nation can and will do nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And a guest worker program may be exactly that -- especially if it contains no effective enforcement provisions to make the "guests" leave.

Not only that, but the incoming Mexican president opposes our current efforts to illegal regulate border crossings.

In his first visit to Washington as Mexico's president-elect, Felipe Calderon is expected to urge President Bush today to resolve the immigration problem by investing in Mexico and eventually creating a European Union-style economic region where goods and services — and people — flow freely throughout North America.

* * *

Their cooperation will be key in determining the fate of 700 miles in new border fencing that Congress approved, but didn't completely fund, this year.

The fence has been heavily criticized in Mexico, and Calderon has called it an unnecessary barrier that threatens to permanently damage the relationship between the two neighbors and trading partners.

In other words, he wants to expand upon NAFTA -- something the Democrats are unlikely to go for. And the EU analogy will turn off conservatives, who recognize that the EU has eroded the sovereignty of European nations and placed it in the hands of a more or less unaccountable EU bureaucracy.

Any solution that doesn't involve building a fence to control access to the United States through regulated border checkpoints is doomed to failure -- and any solution that rewards those here illegally is a surrender of the national interest.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.

He tried to quit a couple of years ago, but the President refused his resignation. now Donald Rumsfeld becomes the first to leave the first member of the Bush Cabinet following the debacle in the mid-term elections.

With a wry smile, Donald H. Rumsfeld gently alluded to the controversies of his tenure as defense secretary, perhaps the most consequential since that of Robert S. McNamara during the Vietnam War.

Thanking the president for the opportunity to serve, Rumsfeld said in a brief Oval Office session yesterday afternoon that the experience brought to mind the words of Winston Churchill -- "something to the effect," he quipped, "that I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof."

It was a rare melancholy moment for the alpha male and onetime Princeton wrestler who ran roughshod over the military brass, sparred bitterly with the media and mounted fierce rear-guard battles against the State Department during a six-year run that saw him become, first, an unlikely television celebrity and then the face of an unpopular war.

Though Bush affectionately patted Rumsfeld on the shoulder as he ushered him out of the Oval Office, there was little sugarcoating the reality that the defense chief, 74, was being offered as a sacrificial lamb amid the repudiation of Bush and his Iraq policy that the American electorate delivered on Tuesday.

Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, had actually recommended this course of action to Bush two years ago. The fact that the defense chief lasted so long in the job was essentially a reflection of the fact that, in firing Rumsfeld, "you are basically admitting you made some serious mistakes in the conduct of the war," observed former White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta.

Bush has made a solid move by naming former CIA director Robert Gates to fill the vacant cabinet position. Let's hope that the new Democrat majority in the Senate chooses to act responsibly and not play politics with the nomination.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Farhan Shamsi couldn't be troubled to condemn terrorism during his campaign, but he could take the time to condemn this blogger for condemning terrorism and otherwise questioning evil committed in the name of Islam.

Voters in Fort Bend County couldn't be troubled to vote for Shamsi.

Republican Ken Cannata maintained a sizeable lead in his victorious campaign for Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace, taking 21,745 votes, or 69.6%, to Democrat Farhan ShamsiÂ’s 9,499, or 30.4%.

That sort of warms my heart. Maybe he'll have the time to answer my questions now.

Posted by: Greg at 02:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

The new Democrat majority in Congress presents the first opportunity for Nick Lampson to keep or break a promise he made to the voters of CD22.

During the campaign, many of us in the GOP pointed out that a vote for Lampson was a vote to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. His supporters responded that Lampson had said he would not support her selection.

Question -- When will the newly-elected Nick Lampson declare his opposition to the selection of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House? Will he vote against her on the floor of the House on the first day of the new Congress in January? Or will his first action as the "representative" of CD22 be to break faith with the people of the district by voting for her?

I suspect that Lampson Watch will become a regular feature of this blog.

Posted by: Greg at 02:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs won election to the US House of Representatives in yesterday's special election with around 62% of the vote. Unfortunately, this only makes her my Congresswoman until January, when Democrat Nick Lampson takes over for the full term, having won a race in which Shelley's name was not allowed on the ballot. The final outcome of that race was around 52%-42%, with Sekula-Gibbs' write-in campaign doing quite well in a race where only the Democrat and the Libertarian appeared on the ballot.

Some observations.

1) Shelley's victor came in a race in which Lampson didn't compete -- because he knew he could not win and did not wish to expose the weakness of his support in CD22. That is part of why the Democrats fought so desperately to keep any GOP candidate off the general election ballot. But if you can barely scrape by with half the vote when you are the only major party candidate on the ballot, how much of a mandate can you really claim? I'd suggest that the answer is NONE -- and that Lampson begins his term in office as a lame duck.

2) Why did Shelley Sekula-Gibbs lose the general election? Because of the difficulty associated with casting a write-in vote. As an election judge, I spoke with at least a dozen folks (mostly elderly) who thought they had to cast two different ballots to vote for the special election and the general election -- and unintentionally cast their ballot before seeking to move on to cast any votes in the general election. I've heard similar stories from other precincts in the area. Others thought they could vote for Sekula-Gibbs by casting a straight-ticket GOP vote. They couldn't -- and came back later wanting to know if they could "fix" their error. And I have heard horror stories from the early ballot board of folks who sent in their ballots not marked "just so" -- Lampson's folks fought tooth and nail to keep them out, despite the clear intent of the voter. I suspect the same thing is going on now with any write-in vote that did not spell the name exactly right -- and we do not know exactly how many that would be. In other words, it is likely that a majority of voters in CD22 intended to vote for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs in the general election, but failed to do so because of confusion with the process of doing so.

3) Shelley's victory in the special election makes her the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination in 2008. I know that those of us who supported her during the nomination this spring very happy. I don't know if we have any local office-holders willing to give up a safe seat to challenge her for this position -- and David Wallace lacks credibility after his behavior back in August. I have no doubt that CD22 will be safely back in Republican hands two years from now -- and am pretty confident that Shelley Sekula-Gibbs will be returned to Washington for a full term at that time. After all -- being the face of hope for the party when all seems lost is what made ultimately made Ronald Reagan President of the United States.

By the way, let's attribute the loss of this at to the man who deserves the blame -- Tom DeLay. If, as is often claimed by the Democrats, DeLay knew he was not going to run in the general election as early as January, he should never have filed for office. His decision to drop out after getting an atta-boy for the GOP primary voters was selfish and led, I believe, to the Lampson victory and the larger GOP meltdown nationwide.

MORE ON THE CD22 RACE AT Texas Safety Forum.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.

Unless a huge line is straggling out the door of the library, the polls are closed in my little corner of Texas.

Here's hoping that I can get everything shut down and delivered to the county pretty quick -- I want to get to the celebration for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs!

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Female Genital Mutilation in Georgia: Who is the Perp? by Gates of Vienna, and Isis' Guide to Sensible Islam Posting by Smart and Final Isis.  Here are links to the full results of the vote

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 06:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 4 kb.

Polls here in Texas just opened at 7:00 AM. You have 12 hours to get out and cast your vote.

I expect a heavy turnout, so don't wait until the last minute to come to the polls -- PLEASE!

By the way, in my precinct I've had a 12% early voting/absentee rate this year.

Posted by: Greg at 01:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

If so, it is one more step towards the canonization of the much loved Pope John Paul II.

A man apparently cured of lung, kidney and spinal cancer just weeks after doctors said he had no hope left has been cited as the final miracle required to secure the sainthood of Pope John Paul II.

Nicola Grippo, 76, a tailor from Salerno, southern Italy, contracted the cancer three years ago. Until a few months ago his body was riddled with tumours and his doctors told him he would die.

However, he made a dramatic recovery after a vision of John Paul II apparently came to his wife Elisabeth. "One night, the Pope appeared to her in a dream, holding a small child in his hand and walking on a road of white cobblestones," he told La Stampa newspaper.

"The doctors came to me and asked if I was a believer, if I had prayed to a saint. So my wife told them about her dream. They told me that my lungs were clear of all traces of cancer, and that they could not claim credit for the cure," he added.

His recovery has been held up by a senior Vatican prelate, Archbishop Gerardo Pierro, as the second miracle that John Paul II needs to be canonised. "It was a prodigious intervention, a miracle of the first order," he said.

This is the second miracle ascribed to the late pontiff. We may see the canonization of Saint John Paul the Great in our lifetimes.

And yet, this miracle is tinged with sadness for the Grippos.

He also spoke of his sadness that the miracle did not come to save his daughters, both of whom died young. "Now I and my wife are alone. I have lost two daughters. One was 20 and died of leukaemia. The other died in a car crash. I would have wanted the miracle for them," he said.

May God look with great love on these dear people, and comfort them in their old age. And may He also bless those considering the cause of Pope John Paul II.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

1) Shooting the guy in the head was the stupidest thing Jerry Rose had ever done – before he confessed to the murder as a part of a game of truth or dare.

2) It seems that American isn’t the only country where the Left would rather ignore Islamic extremism rather than risk someone thinking an un-PC thought about Islam.

3) How much voter fraud will there be in St. Louis this year?

4) This is unprofessional, and the principal in question should be fired. No educator should be trying to use his or her job to influence the political views and voting patterns of students or their parents. That is why I have fought so hard to keep this blog anonymous – I view it as a professional responsibility.

5) Looks like the people of West Virginia will send a Klansman back to the US Senate – Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.

6) British doctors proclaim that Hitler was right – Disabled children should be killed.

7) The poll margins are closing, favoring the GOP – turnout tomorrow will be the key. We can win if we show up and vote GOP.

8) In another oppressive move, Iran’s president has closed down newspapers and broadcast outlets critical of the government and its policies. So much for human rights.

9) If you want to talk about absolute moral authority on the war in Iraq, maybe it is best found among the men and women serving our country over there – and they say “Fight on!” So shut up, John Murtha, John Kerry, and Cindy Sheehan!

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1) Shooting the guy in the head was the stupidest thing Jerry Rose had ever done – before he confessed to the murder as a part of a game of truth or dare.

2) It seems that American isnÂ’t the only country where the Left would rather ignore Islamic extremism rather than risk someone thinking an un-PC thought about Islam.

3) How much voter fraud will there be in St. Louis this year?

4) This is unprofessional, and the principal in question should be fired. No educator should be trying to use his or her job to influence the political views and voting patterns of students or their parents. That is why I have fought so hard to keep this blog anonymous – I view it as a professional responsibility.

5) Looks like the people of West Virginia will send a Klansman back to the US Senate – Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.

6) British doctors proclaim that Hitler was right – Disabled children should be killed.

7) The poll margins are closing, favoring the GOP – turnout tomorrow will be the key. We can win if we show up and vote GOP.

In another oppressive move, IranÂ’s president has closed down newspapers and broadcast outlets critical of the government and its policies. So much for human rights.

9) If you want to talk about absolute moral authority on the war in Iraq, maybe it is best found among the men and women serving our country over there – and they say “Fight on!” So shut up, John Murtha, John Kerry, and Cindy Sheehan!

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

A former head of the KKK is dead -- too bad it is of natural causes.

Former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel H. Bowers, who was convicted eight years ago of ordering the 1966 bombing death of a civil rights leader, died Sunday in a state penitentiary, officials said. He was 82.

He died of cardio pulmonary arrest, said Mississippi Department of Corrections spokeswoman Tara Booth.

Bowers was convicted in August 1998 of ordering the assassination of Vernon Dahmer Sr., a civil rights activist who had fought for black rights during Mississippi's turbulent struggle for racial equality. He was sentenced to life in prison.

"He was supposed to stay there until he died. I guess he fulfilled that," Dahmer's widow, Ellie Dahmer, told The Associated Press on Sunday. "He lived a lot longer than Vernon Dahmer did."

Booth said that the Klansman died at approximately 11:30 a.m. in the Mississippi State Penitentiary Hospital in Parchman, a sprawling prison carved out of the cotton and soybean fields in the impoverished Mississippi Delta.

Here's hoping that not even Bowers' family mourns this creep's death -- though I'm sure that I'll hear from at least one of his fans on this site.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

The murderous tyrant will die like a common criminal!

BAGHDAD, Nov. 5 -- Former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was found guilty by a special tribunal Sunday of crimes against humanity for the torture and execution of more than 100 people from a small town north of Baghdad 24 years ago. He was sentenced to death by hanging.

Hussein, 69, was led into the courtroom by seven guards and immediately sat in his chair, refusing to rise for his verdict until Chief Judge Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman ordered guards to force him to his feet.

"Long live the people!" Hussein shouted as the verdict was being announced. "Down with the stooges! Down with the invaders! God is great!"

Just before his appearance in court, one of Hussein's co-defendants, Awad Hamed al-Bander, the former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, repeatedly bellowed: "God is great!" as he, too, was sentenced to death. "On the tyrants, God is great!" he shouted. "On the colonizers, God is great! On the agents, God is great!"

The verdict and sentence will automatically be sent to a nine-judge appellate panel for appeal. That panel has wide latitude to review the case and call for additional testimony, and it has an unlimited time to rule. But once it does, any sentence must be carried out within 30 days.

Celebratory gunfire rang out over Baghdad as jubilant Iraqis expressed their happiness with the outcome by racing to rooftops, front yards and windows to fire into the air. National television showed smiling Iraqis dancing in the streets of cities around the country, including in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad, which technically was under an all-day curfew.

I'm curious -- are the Democrats in mourning yet? I know one is pretty upset.

H/T Michelle
Malkin

UPDATE: The New York Times isn't happy with the verdict or sentence. Why am I not surprised? Maybe they will deck the paper our in mourning black when the dictator is dead.

Posted by: Greg at 08:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

My fellow Americans -- do you want more Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and Alito, or would you prefer that they have to pass Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer's litmus tests? And a seat on the Court could come sooner than you think.

For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”

Normally, this news might be too ghoulish to repeat publicly. Nevertheless, with the election just days away, it is news that should be considered. It points out what could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the 20-year movement to recast the court with a constitutionalist majority. It would be a cruel twist indeed for conservatives to “teach Republicans a lesson” next Tuesday, only to be taught a lesson themselves within months when new Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) leads a Democratic majority against the most important Supreme Court nominee in decades. Conservatives whose mantra is “no more Souters” should bear in mind Robert Bork’s fate after the Senate changed from Republican to Democratic hands in 1986.

And the "moderate" Democrats running this year? What would they do?

With 55 Republican senators, the majority needed for the “constitutional option” was never a sure thing. But with significant Republican losses on Tuesday, it will surely be buried, leaving Senators Teddy Kennedy (D.-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) free to return to filibusters, including against Supreme Court nominees. Schumer is reported to have assured Democrats that Bob Casey Jr. -- despite running as a moderate Senate candidate -- would be supportive of Democratic efforts to block constitutionalist judicial nominees. “There’s no worry on judges,” said Schumer. “And judges is the whole ball of wax.” Other supposedly centrist Democratic candidates including Harold Ford Jr. (Tenn.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Jim Webb (Va.) have refused to rule out filibusters against judicial nominees.

So my friends, get out and vote Republican if you have a Senate race (not to mention in your local House race). Even if you don't like the candidate, vote for Republican.

Or else all the progress we have made over the last six years in filling judgeships with strict-constructionist judges will be ended in an instance.

Posted by: Greg at 08:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Turkish secularists are protesting in opposition to Islamist influence in Turkey.

About 12,000 Turkish secularists marched in the capital on Saturday to protest against what they see as a rising Islamist influence under Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's government, Anatolian news agency said.

The demonstrators, who represented 112 non-governmental organisations, shouted "Turkey is secular, will remain secular" and "Independent Turkey" and protested against Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has roots in political Islam.

Overwhelmingly Muslim, Turkey is governed by secular laws that separate religion and state.

Since winning 2002 elections, Erdogan's government has alarmed secularists by promoting an increase of religious schools, seeking to lift a ban on wearing Islamic headscarves in universities and government offices and filling senior government posts with Islamists.

I support this movement against further erosion of the constitutional secularism of Turkey. The difficulties that would be created by a NATO member falling under the sway of the same ideology that motivates our enemies in the War on Terrorism cannot be overestimated.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 07:56 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

I spent part of the morning (while my wife was out with friends) working preparing a last-minute mailing to go out to local Republicans on behalf of our local congressional candidate, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs -- and stopped to participate in a block walk in a friend's precinct along with Shelley while driving up to get supplies for the polling place.

The Washington Post covers the race today.

National Republican luminaries, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, have stumped through this congressional district recently, praising the conservative credentials of candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

What Sekula-Gibbs has been doing is much more basic: She is trying to get voters to understand that she's running.

Congressional District 22, encompassing parts of four suburban counties south of Houston, used to be a slam-dunk for Republicans. Then its representative -- Tom DeLay, who was the House majority leader -- ran into ethics and legal troubles.

Under an ethics investigation and indicted on state money-laundering and conspiracy charges, the 12-term congressman handily won the March GOP primary but then announced his resignation from Congress and his official move to Virginia. DeLay assumed Texas Republican officials would replace him with a viable candidate -- but that was when the race got complicated.

One lawsuit and several federal court decisions later, DeLay officially withdrew as the nominee in late August. Sekula-Gibbs, a Houston City Council member, subsequently emerged as the GOP choice, but under Texas election law it was too late to put her name on the ballot. Voters instead will get a ballot with a blank space next to "Republican" for District 22. But Sekula-Gibbs will be listed as the GOP nominee for the special election -- also to be held on Tuesday -- to fill the remainder of DeLay's term, which will officially end in January.

Sekula-Gibbs, 53, has tried to simplify the story: "Vote Twice for Shelley," goes her campaign jingle, to the tune of "Roll Out the Barrel." "Write In" and "Vote Twice," say her blue-and-yellow campaign signs.

"That's probably the number one issue to get across," Sekula-Gibbs told GOP activists called together for a Friday breakfast to ask them to promote her write-in candidacy in the final 72 hours before Election Day. "We think 92 percent of voters know there is a write-in," she said of the Republican electorate. "We're in the final quarter of the game, and we cannot take anything for granted."

Shelley is surging in the polls and supporters are enthusiastic. Indeed, she is more energetic, enthusiastic and excited this close to the end of a campaign than any candidate I have ever worked with. I believe that we have a winner.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 4 kb.

The junior senator from Illinois and presidential hopeful proves that even election to high office doesn't guarantee that one knows or speaks the truth.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Friday urged hundreds of blacks not to vote along racial lines next week in Maryland's Senate race.

Obama, the only black U.S. senator, came to the state to rally support for Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, who is white. Cardin's Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, is the first black candidate ever elected statewide and has been courting black Democrats.

"Listen, I think it's great that the Republican Party has discovered black people," Obama said to laughter from students at the rally at predominantly black Bowie State University. "But here's the thing. ... You don't vote for somebody because of what they look like. You vote for somebody because of what they stand for."

Let's give this man a quick history lesson.

If one goes back to the birth of the GOP, it was a party that had the rights of blacks as its primary issue. Remember, the GOP was the party of abolition -- and that among those who were a part of its founding meeting was Frederick Douglass. At a time when the Democrats believed every black should be a slave, the Republican Party was co-founded by black men like Douglass -- an escaped slave. While they could not vote because they were women, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman were also active supporters of the Republican Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, fought tooth-and-nail to keep blacks from voting in general elections -- or participating in party primaries, until the Supreme Court told Texas Democrats in Fort Bend County (and, by extension, Democrats in the rest of the country) that such actions violated the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment.

When the Civil War came to an end and the black slaves of the solidly Democrat South achieved the freedom guaranteed them by Republican President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the Republican Congress' Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the Republican controlled legislature of Mississippi sent Hiram Rhodes Revels to be the first black United States Senator (filling the seat left vacant by the resignation of Democrat Jefferson Davis -- President of the Confederate States of America. He was later succeeded in the Senate by Blanche Bruce, the first black United States Senator to serve a complete term. At the end of his term, the Democrat-controlled Mississippi legislature replaced him with a former Confederate officer who had helped draft and sign the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession.

Incidentally, the next black man to serve in the US Senate was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts -- another Republican, from 1967-1979, at a time when the Democrat Party was still fighting against civil rights and trying to determine if blacks should have representation at Democrat nominating conventions. On the other hand, should the Democrat Party regain control of the US Senate next week, they will choose a former leader of the KKK, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to be the president pro tempore of the Senate, placing him third in line for the presidency of the United States.

Republicans were active in their defense of the rights of African-Americans for the next century -- and every significant piece of civil rights legislation passed during that time was the product of GOP authors and/or an overwhelming number of GOP votes in Congress. Democrats, on the other hand, fought against civil rights every step of the way, writing and enforcing Jim Crow policies. It took a Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to craft a decision to overturn such segregation.

It was a proud Republican who, in 1963, gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial that clearly enunciated the Republican position on civil rights and racial equality -- of an America in which all people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Today the GOP continues to stand for the vision of our brother Martin Luther King, Jr., while the Democrats continue to seek to divide and balkanize along racial lines.

So you see, Senator Obama, it is pretty clear that neither party needed to "discover" black people. The problem is that one of them is the party of Ol' Massa, Jim Crow and the Klan, while the other is the party of emancipation, civil rights, and equality. Michale Steele is a part of the latter -- and any African-American should be ashamed to vote for or serve in office as part of the former.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Third World County, Bullwinkle Blog, Adam's Blog, Clash of Civilizations, Right Nation, Uncooperative Blogger, World According to Carl, People Are Idiots, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Conservative Cat, Amboy Times, Blog-O-Fascists, Church & State, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Wing News, Blue Star Chronicles, Echo9er, Wake Up America, Pursuing Holiness, Dumb Ox, Is It Just Me?, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 01:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 9 kb.

Well, I suppose if you consider writing a 300-hit-a-day blog and being a party precinct chair (about as grassroots as you get) makes me really important, but most folks would consider that reasonably obscure. But I guess the Democrats need something to run on down here in Texas, so one of them (running for a local office some 40-50 miles from me) has decided to send out a campaign mailer devoted to... ME!!!!!!

It's the same sort of crap that I wrote about last week -- in fact, the exact same crap. Same quotes, edited and/or removed from context to achieve maximum distortion. But let's go over them again, just to make it clear what was really said. And while I am at it, how about if I put a few pointed questions to Farhan Shamsi, Democrat candidate for Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace in Fort Bend County. After all, it seems to me that this prospective judge ought to answer some questions for the voters.

1) HE OBJECTS TO:

"That's one more dead terrorist in Hell with Allah."

MY RESPONSE: Of course, that statement comes from a post making fun of a jihadi suicide bomber who blew himself up early while riding a bicycle to his target. He believed he was going to spend eternity in Allah's abode, and I presume he knew best -- and since he was on a mission of murder and mayhem, I can only presume that his final destination was Hell. I simply acted upon the assumption that both of us are correct.

I'd like to ask Farhan Shamsi what he thinks -- did Allah reward this would-be murderer or is he burning in Hell? After all, sir, if you are going to question my theological assertion, I'd like to know your position -- and I believe the voters have a right to know.

2) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

MY RESPONSE: I was commenting on a story about the arrest of a group of would-be terrorists under arrest for their conspiracy. That should be clear from the excerpt from the news story, so I was clearly talking about extremists. Unfortunately for Islam, it is such folks that have become the public face of Islam. Why are you more concerned about the fact that someone would criticize your faith and connect it to terrorism than you are about the fact that there are so many folks engaged in acts of murder and mayhem in the name of your religion, Mr. Shamsi? Why didn't you spend those campaign dollars sending out a denunciation of jihadi terrorism and a pledge to fight it, instead of a condemnation of someone who doesn't like jihadi terrorism and dares to say so. You would have my respect and support if you had -- but I guess I can tell what your priority is, and it isn't cleaning up your religion or stopping terrorism. I think your decision speaks volumes to the voters, sir.

3) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

MY RESPONSE: Sir, do you really respect a man who violates a child custody order, takes his twelve-year-old daughter to a foreign country, with the intent of marrying her to a man in his twenties? Most Americans would call those actions criminal and disgusting -- and the religious and/or cultural motivations beneath contempt. If you don't, I question your fitness for public office.

As for the assertions regarding Muhammad, I suggest you read up on his marriage to Aisha -- who he married at age six and with whom he consumated his marriage at age nine. Those are not my numbers -- these come from various hadiths and early Muslim historians, among these being Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan NasÂ’ai, Ibn-i-Majah, ibn Ishaq, and al-Tabari. It is hardly an act of disrespect to speak the truth about Muhammad by citing authoritative Muslim sources -- unless you consider these same sources to be unreliable and unworthy of respect.

So let's get a quick answer -- does Islam REALLY condone kidnapping and child marriages? Do you? Are these good and noble aspects of your religion? The voters deserve to know.

4) HE OBJECTS TO:

"Israel has the capability to nuke your camel-humping ass."

MY RESPONSE: This is a statement made about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denying Jew-hater who has expressed a desire to remove Israel from the map of the world and is seeking to develop nuclear weapons in order to carry that out. That is the context of my comment. Mr. Shamsi -- do you support the Madman of Teheran's policies, and his desire to commit a second genocide against the Jewish people? Do you support his intent to attack America's closest ally in the Middle East? If you don't, would you explain what you find objectionable in my insulting comment directed at a man who took American diplomats and military personnel hostage in the US Embassy in 1979? I'm sure the good people of Fort Bend County would like to know, sir -- especially since Iran today tested missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to targets in Israel.

5) HE OBJECTS TO:

Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

MY RESPONSE: Since it is only one paragraph, why don't I let you see the complete context.

Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy (which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of Barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

Is hostage-taking to accomplish a religiously-based aim a barbaric practice or not? Is demanding that an individual be turned over for execution because they have left Islam an act of barbarism? Would you characterize the actions of these terrorists to be a part of a religion of barbarism -- or are such actions acceptable? Please, Mr. Shamsi, there are voters whose decision depends upon your answer.

6) HE OBJECTS TO:.

"In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam."

MY RESPONSE: Mr. Shamsi, this was commentary about a case involving a woman who has been baptized and seeks to be recognized as a Christian. She has been told by Malaysia's civil courts that it is a matter for the Muslim religious courts, and the Muslim religious courts have indicated the she will be imprisoned until she recants her so-called apostasy. Do you believe in religious freedom, Mr. Shamsi, as embodied in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or do you believe, as has been the ruling of sharia-based courts around the world, that no Muslim has the right to follow their conscience on religious matters, and that those who would do so must be coerced against their will to practice Islam? The voters have a right to know, sir.

Most Muslims that I know (and I have known many) are good and decent people. Indeed, my wife is alive today because of a group of medical professionals who are almost exclusively Muslim. I hold them in great esteem as individuals -- as I have any number of Muslim classmates, students, co-workers, and neighbors over the course of my life. Indeed, at the 2000 GOP State Convention I worked to see to it that a young Muslim woman was selected as a delegate representing CD22 at the Republican National Convention. I gladly extend the hand of friendship to any Muslim who wishes to enjoy the blessings of liberty that this nation and our Constitution stand for.

Now there are those who would argue that my views indicate an intolerance for Islam. To the degree that Islam is expressed in acts of terrorism, I'd agree. But I do know there is more, a heritage of art, literature and architecture that are worthy of honor and respect. As a lover of history, I see much in Islam to praise -- and recognize that Western Culture lives today because the Muslim world preserved it during the Middle Ages.

Unfortunately, that is not the face of Islam that presents itself to the world today. Sadly, there is a cancer at work within Islam -- one that manifests itself in events like those in New York, Washington, London, Bali, and Madrid. Its symptoms include acts of oppression and violence against those who reject the Muslim faith. It looks like this.

Mr. Shamsi, will you be as strident in your condemnation of this real hate speech by real Muslims in the name of Islam as you are of what you and your fellow Democrats imagine is "hate speech" on my blog? Or will you remain silent because there is no partisan or electoral value in speaking out?

Regardless, I must be clear about something. I do not consider Muhammad a prophet. I do not accept the Quran as the word of God. And I have some doubts about whether or not my God and Allah are really the same deity, for all of Islam's insistence that they are one-and-the-same. But why would you be surprised? If I accepted those things, I would be a Muslim!

However I am not a Muslim, and I reserve the right to speak critically of the Islamic faith (or things done in the name of that faith) -- just as I support the right of every Muslim to speak critically of Christianity.

That's not bigotry -- it is the American way.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, Third World County, Bullwinkle Blog, Adam's Blog, Clash of Civilizations, Right Nation, Uncooperative Blogger, World According to Carl, People Are Idiots, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Conservative Cat, Amboy Times, Blog-O-Fascists, Church & State, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Wing News, Blue Star Chronicles, Echo9er, Wake Up America, Pursuing Holiness, Dumb Ox, Is It Just Me?, Jo's Cafe

Posted by: Greg at 02:04 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 1749 words, total size 13 kb.

1) Note to all those Christian-hating leftists out there ranting about “theocracy”: THIS is what a theocracy looks like.

2) Looks like a group of African-American politicians have strayed off the Democrat plantation. Will the voters in their county follow, and help elect Michael Steele to the US Senate?

3) Another reminder about why the issue of judicial nominations requires that conservatives get out and vote for Republicans in this year’s Senatorial races – Justice John Paul Stevens.

4) Democrat candidate steals signs to suppress opponent’s message – but of course, it is the GOP’s fault. I guess that is because the Dems are the party of no personal responsibility.

5) Looks like the terrorists are getting another pass from the UN. How much longer until the Israelis are forced to go after the Hezbollah rats in the sewer that is south Lebanon?

6) Drew Brees tells his Democrat mama – I don’t support you, so quit using me in your campaign ads!

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve got no doubt that the senator was aiming to disrespect the President of the United States, but instead he hit every man and woman in the United States military. But then what do you expect from this pampered imbecile who sold out his own comrades in arms with false claims of war crimes, all to advance his own political career.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Clearly not the sort of man who should have ever been considered for the role of Commander-in-Chief.

But let’s look at the numbers from one branch of the service – the Air Force.

Academic Education

-- 49.2 percent of officers have advanced or professional degrees; 39.4 percent have master's degrees, 8.5 percent have professional degrees and 1.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 22.8 percent of company grade officers have advanced degrees; 16.5 percent have master's degrees, 5.9 percent have professional degrees and 0.3 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 85.4 percent of field grade officers have advanced degrees; 70.7 percent have master's degrees, 12.1 percent have professional degrees and 2.5 percent have doctorate degrees.

-- 99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree.

I’m curious, Senator – what other employer would have such high educational attainment among its employees? I don’t think you would find such achievement in your average corporation, school district, police or fire department. It would take a highly specialized organization – a law firm, hospital, or NASA.

No, our armed forces are made up of dedicated, educated individuals who love our country – something that apparently cannot be said of the Democrat party, given this statement and the lack of Democrat outcry against it.

But then again, let’s assume that my charitable speculation about John Kerry’s ignorant insulting comment is correct. Let’s assume that he meant to insult the President of the United States, George W. Bush. As I recall, they both attended the same university – and Bush out-performed Kerry academically.

Lots of great coverage of this story in the Blogosphere. Ms. Michelle Malkin is great, as is Captain Ed. Jawa Report is fantastic as well.

UPDATE: OH MY GOD! I cannot believe the gall of this arrogant piece of shit from Massachusetts. He makes Teddy Kennedy and Barney Franks look like they have class.

This is how John Kerry responds to critics who defend our troops.

Statement of John Kerry Responding to Republican Distortions, Pathetic Tony Snow Diversions and Distractions

Washington – Senator John Kerry issued the following statement in response to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, assorted right wing nut-jobs, and right wing talk show hosts desperately distorting Kerry’s comments about President Bush to divert attention from their disastrous record:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

IÂ’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. FoxÂ’s ParkinsonÂ’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.

The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor.

Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

In other words, the John Kerry dares to question the right of Americans to question his defamatory statements about the American military! Rather than apologize for his ill-chosen words, he attacks anyone who would dare to call criticize him for them. The arrogance of this son of a bitch!

An reckless driver who caused an auto accident stole my dream of a military career many years ago, and so I chose a career of service to my country by going into teaching. Along the way, I have encouraged my students to consider serving their country in the military – and many have entered the Armed Forces. Often, they are among my best and brightest. So while I didn’t get the opportunity to serve, I want to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of young men and women who I love and respect as if they were my own flesh and blood.

Screw you, Senator Kerry! Go to Hell!

UPDATE II: American Legion condemns Kerry comments. So does John McCain.

Update III: Even though his words are on tape, Kerry denies that he said what he said – and even dares to question John McCain’s right to question him. I guess only left-wing, anti-American vets have a right to speak out on this issue. Heroes like McCain need not apply.

Posted by: Greg at 09:50 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 1044 words, total size 8 kb.

All of us know it is true -- the first rule that new teachers learn is to forget most of what they learned in their education classes back in college. Indeed, some of the worst teaching we experience comes from our education professors, so following that advice is not difficult.

This should be a shining moment for education schools. Never has the nation paid so much attention to improving the quality of teaching. Yet the institutions that produce teachers have never faced so much criticism.

"Teacher education is the Dodge City of the education world," said Arthur Levine, former president of Columbia University's Teachers College. "Like the fabled Wild West town, it is unruly and chaotic."

Stanford University educational historian David F. Labaree wrote in a recent book: "Institutionally, the ed school is the Rodney Dangerfield of higher education; it don't get no respect. The ed school is the butt of jokes in the university, where professors portray it as an intellectual wasteland."

The attacks have become so frequent and intense that some educators say they have gone too far. But a growing number of educators say ed schools fail to give teachers enough background in their subject matter, fail to prepare them for the difficulties of urban schools and fail to recruit the best students.

For a study on ed schools released in September, Levine surveyed administrators with firsthand knowledge of these problems: principals. Only two of every five principals surveyed said ed schools were preparing teachers very well or moderately well to get new curriculum and performance standards into the classroom. Only one-third said their teachers were very or moderately well prepared for maintaining classroom order. Only one-fifth said their teachers were that well prepared to work with parents.

Of course, there is little agreement on what to do to make things better. I'll put in my two-cents worth on the matter.

1) Require that students get a degree in their subject matter. My college allowed education students to take two fewer classes in their subject area so that they could take teaching methods classes. I had already taken the full class-load for a regular history degree before switching to the education program, so I was the exception among my classmates in having just as much preparation as a student seeking a regular degree.

2) Make education degrees a five-year program. Heck, maybe make it a Master's degree program.

3) Talk about how to deal with parents. My first parent conference was at 22, during student teaching. Many of my colleagues didn't have their first until after they were hired. It is a daunting experience, and one that most new teachers are ill-prepared for.

4) It is all nice to prepare teachers for a classroom where every kid has a computer at home, reads on grade level, and isn't worried about the food and shelter components of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. That isn't where I teach, nor is it where most teachers teach. help us learn about real kids, not ideal kids -- or the children of professors at the campus laboratory schppl.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 521 words, total size 3 kb.

No wonder I've noted a touch of desperation among left-wing bloggers in recent weeks -- it looks like the Democrats may be about to lose what they believed to be a "sure-thing" election here in CD22.

That isn't my assessment -- that is the conclusion that one has to draw based upon the polling data found in Monday's Houston Chronicle.

The Republican write-in effort to hold former Rep. Tom DeLay's congressional seat, once viewed as a long shot, has created a tight race, according to a Houston Chronicle-11 News poll.

Thirty-five percent of respondents said they would vote for a write-in candidate, a statistical tie with the 36 percent support for Democrat Nick Lampson, according to the poll of more than 500 likely voters in the 22nd Congressional District.

Most who say they will write in a candidate plan on naming Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the Houston city councilwoman backed by the Republican Party. Two lesser-known candidates also are running as write-ins.

One voter in four is still undecided.

Libertarian Bob Smither, the only person besides Lampson on the general election ballot, drew 4 percent support.

The third option on that ballot is "write-in." Voters who make that selection on the electronic voting machines that most will use are directed to an alphabet screen, where they use a wheel to spell out their choice's name a letter at a time.

And since the names of all eligible write-in candidates will be posted in each voting booth, I feel confident that people will not be intimidated by the process. Indeed, I keep hearing from folks who have early voted that they are hearing the sound of wheels spinning and buttons being pushed by those around them -- an indication that there are a great many CD22 voters who are taking the time to use the write-in option to select a candidate.

What the polls show is that Lampson has only 36% of respondents saying they will vote for him -- while 35/1% indicate a plan to vote for a write-in candidate. Of that percentage, 79.4% (or 28% overall) plan on voting for Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. That is an incredible total at this point, and likely to grow as the undecided vote breaks Republican in this heavily GOP district.

Even more important -- both for this year and for 2008 -- if Shelley Sekula-Gibbs were on the ballot, she would be leading Lampson 52% to 35%. There is clearly a preference for her in this race, and only Democrat efforts to keep any Republican off the ballot following DeLay's resignation make this seat one that can be considered "up for grabs".

And actually, I would note this is a Zogby poll, and they tend to favor Democrats. I'm therefore betting the numbers are actually even closer than this result indicates.

UPDATE: And look who came stumping for Shelley today -- President George W. Bush himself!

UPDATE II: Some interesting pieces from RedState.com on Shelley's campaign.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are A Liberal Manifesto and Other Halloween Frights by Right Wing Nut House, and Archaeological Temple Artifacts Drive PalArabs Crazy by Elder of Ziyon.  Here are the full results of the vote.

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 207 words, total size 5 kb.

1) Not only is illegal immigration a crime, but it appears to have become the province of organized crime. Those “good, hard-working people willing to do jobs Americans won’t” are being charged hundreds (or even thousands) of dollars by traffickers in human flesh. It is almost a latter-day slave trade. No wonder the Democrats are unwilling to act to stop it – after all, they supported the trade in human beings in the 1800s, too.

2) The Duke Rape Case continues to implode. First we find out the DA has yet to interview the victim, now we find out that she may have asked to be marked up during her ride home. The morals of those young men may be suspect, but it continues to look more and more like their actions were not criminal.

3) Which party is the Party of the Rich? Take a hint from the top political donors in this country – they support the Jackass Party.

4) What should the GOP focus on for the next week? Judges. Judges. And Judges.

5) I could be happy with a Mitt-Jeb ticket in 2008 – but would still prefer seeing a Mitt-Condi ticket instead. But then again, I’m one of those conservatives who like Mitt Romney.

6) IsraelÂ’s preemption of terrorist violence is justified under international law and the UN Charter. An excellent article explaining why appears at TCS Daily.

7) When will Gary Kubiak realize that David Carr is not consistent enough to start for the Houston Texans – and that Sage Rosenfels is? Texans fans want to know – and soon.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

I think Suzanne Fields says it quite well in this piece, which demonstrates the anti-Semitism underlying so much of the criticism of Israel today -- and the tendency of some people to blame every evil on the Jews.

When Jews is news

"Jewcentricity" is a word that sounds like it was coined by an embittered anti-Semite. But it's actually the inspiration of Adam Garfinkle, a Jew, writing in The American Interest magazine to call attention to a phenomenon that has roots in anti-Semitism and runs from the silly to the sublime: " . . . the idea, or the intimation, or the subconscious presumption . . . that Jews are somehow necessarily to be found at the very center of global-historical events."

"Jewcentricity" is most evident in the recycling of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a fictitious text commissioned by the czar's secret police for a Russian audience at the end of the 19th century, describing a fanciful cabal of Jews who plan to take over the world. Some critics of the neoconservatives, some of whom are Jewish, cite the protocols, so called, in their accusations that Jews have hijacked American foreign policy. Others, critical of Israel, hyperventilate over the power of the "Israel lobby."

"The Protocols" have naturally become a best seller in several Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, where they were turned into a television series. ("Semitic Sex in the City," however, it was not.) "The Protocols" were featured on the Iranian stands at last year's book fair in Frankfurt "to expose the real visage of this Satanic-enemy," along with an abridged edition of Henry Ford's literary thriller, "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" (which never made it to the screen). "The grip of the Jewish parasitic influence," asserts the preface of the new edition, "has been growing stronger and stronger ever since [Henry Ford's time]."

Serious examples of "Jewcentricity" are reflected in the media obsession with Sen. George Allen's Jewish mother, who was born in Tunisia and barely escaped the Holocaust, and before that, with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's Jewish roots in Czechoslovakia. The national newspapers and television networks spent considerably more time investigating the senator's "blood" parentage and its likely effect on his re-election campaign than the blood being spilled in Darfur. "Why?" asks Adam Garfinkle. "Because . . . Jews is news and there are no Jews in Darfur." That doesn't slow down the conspiracy theorists in other countries, with or without Jews, from obsessing over the myth of sinister Jewish power.

Germany's Jewcentricity is of a completely different order. No negative slur against Jews goes unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. This has hardly eliminated prejudice against Jews. In an anti-Semitic prank with echoes of the Third Reich, a high-school student in eastern Germany was forced by bullies not long ago to wear a sign around his neck in the school yard: "In this town I'm the biggest swine because of the Jewish friends of mine." The teacher reported it, the chief of police was firm in his outrage, and the state minister of the interior promised an investigation. Germany does not tolerate public exhibition of Nazi symbols.

But the strain of anti-Semitism that many thought would vanish after the horror of the Holocaust has again risen again in the Middle East and among European fellow travelers of the Islamists, whose rhetoric targets Israel in a way that Hitler would readily recognize. Israel is the euphemism for the demonized Jew. The Jews become, as Jonathan Rosen observed in The New York Times, "interchangeable emblems of cosmic evil."

It's not simply an empty gesture that maps available in Middle Eastern countries show Israel erased. Hezbollah demonstrated its capacity to send rockets into Israel, and the Iranian nuclear threat is aimed first at Israel.

Jews remain convenient scapegoats as they continue to haunt the fantasies of rationalizers and haters who want to avoid responsibility for their own culpability. In the 1930s, Jews were blamed for everything that went wrong in Germany (and later in Eastern Europe). Today they're perceived as the seminal cause of Islamic terrorism, subject to the same old media stereotypes that thrived in Nazi newspapers. Getting rid of the Jews in Europe wasn't enough.

"Jewcentricity" serves a specific purpose both in the Middle East and in Europe. It unites the Muslims against a common enemy and conceals their own divisions and discontents, which would be there even if there were not an Israel to hate. Increasing Muslim populations in Europe threaten the peace in ways that absent Jews do not. But we can blame the Jews, anyway.

The Nobel Prize-winning Hungarian novelist Imre Kertesz observes that Europeans mask their criticism of Israel in mournful tones about the Holocaust but use the language that led to Auschwitz. "Because Auschwitz really happened, it has permeated our imagination, become a permanent part of us," he says. "What we are able to imagine -- because it really happened -- can happen again."

And that some today wish to minimize or deny the historical reality of Auschwitz and the other death camps makes such a repeated attempt at genocide all the more likely.

Posted by: Greg at 11:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 870 words, total size 5 kb.

I've recently been accused of racism by a local blogger (echoed by a commenter here) because, among other things, I offended liberals by making a comment about a local African-American Democrat and crack cocaine.

But now I have a question for those who want to make such an accusation.

On liberal blogger Taylor Marsh's site, she makes this assessment of a prominent Republican.

Liddy Dole was on crack this morning on Fox "News."

Do you find that statement unacceptable? If not, is the statement acceptable because Dole is white or because she is Republican -- or is it the combination of Dole's whiteness and Republicanism that makes it acceptable?

Or is it just that you folks are are alarmists who like to make the charge of racism whenever possible, just to discredit your opponents?

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

I certainly think this rather disgusting "toy" would qualify. Thankfully, public pressure got it pulled -- sort of.

A "sexy" pole-dancing kit has been pulled from the toys and games section of a website run by Britain's biggest retailer after protests from outraged parents.

The Peekaboo pole-dancing kit, which has a "sexy garter" to help "unleash the sex kitten inside" was sold in Tesco Direct's toys and games section, the Daily Mail newspaper reported.

"Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars," its blurb reads.

"Unleash the sex kitten inside ... simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!"

The £50 ($125) kit includes a 2.6 metre chrome pole, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves, the report said.

Do we really want our children to be "strippers in training?

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

After all, if you claim that black votes are not counted or not counted accurately, eventually people are going to start believing you and decide that going out to vote just isn't worth the time.

or Democrats like these in tight races, black voter turnout will be crucial on Election Day. But despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally, there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.

“This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we’re having to go out of our way to counter them this year,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist.

This will be the first midterm election in which the Democratic Party is mobilizing teams of lawyers and poll watchers, to check for irregularities including suppression of the black vote, in at least a dozen of the closest districts, Ms. Brazile said.

DemocratsÂ’ worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.

And more than three times as many blacks as whites — 29 percent versus 8 percent — say they do not believe that their vote will be accurately tallied.

Voting experts say the disillusionment is the cumulative effect of election problems in 2000 and 2004, and a reaction to new identification and voter registration laws.

Long lines and shortages of poll workers in lower-income neighborhoods in the 2004 election and widespread reports of fliers with misinformation appearing in minority areas have also had a corrosive effect on confidence, experts say.

The harder question is whether this jaded outlook will diminish turnout.

Won't it be amusing if the Democrats are hoist on their own petard, and a big part of their coalition stays home because tehy believe -- incorrectly -- that their vote won't be counted anyway?

Posted by: Greg at 10:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 2 kb.

That is what it looks like to some observers, especially to former representative Talmadge Heflin, who lost to current state representative Hubert Vo in 2004 by a mere handful of votes.

A Vietnamese-language radio ad campaign that backers call a get-out-the-vote effort amounts to a dollars-for-votes scheme to help a Vietnamese-American legislator, his challenger claims.

The state House District 149 flap concerns ads urging early votes at an Asian-American community center, and pointing out that $5 coupons available at the center can be used at a nearby mall.

The Vo campaign disavowes all involvement in the ad campaign, which is sponsored by a Vietnamese community group. And the group insists {wink nudge} that the intent of the ad is to boost anemic voter turnout in their community, NOT to help Vo.

"We have 35,000 Vietnamese registered voters and only 12,000 actually vote, so what we did was create the One Brings One campaign urging people to bring a family member to the polls to vote with them," said Van Huynh, executive director of the group.

"Our businesses felt it would be helpful and fun to create something enjoyable for voters, so they offered coupons for use at the Hong Kong Mall. Anyone can come for the coupons. We don't obligate them to vote. And we have a disclaimer on our ads saying this campaign is not related to any candidate or any election."

Huynh said the group is awaiting an official opinion from Harris County officials on the legality.

"We have turned over all our scripts," he said. "If the officials say this violates election laws, we will immediately drop the whole campaign."

David Beirne, spokesman for Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman, the county's elections administrator, said he advised the group to stop running the ads and initially thought they had been dropped.

When group leaders continued running them and asked for an official opinion, Beirne turned the matter over to the District Attorney's and U.S. Attorney's offices for review.

But the ad only runs on Vietnamese-language radio, not on any stations that cater to teh wider community in the district. Given that this just happens to be Vo's base, it seems mighty convenient.

And an awful lot like traditional Democrat tactics of offering a beer, a pack of smokes, or five bucks to those who go out and vote "the right way."

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't agree with the content on the mailers in question, but I still believe that there is a right to say what is said. Allowing government employees to stifle that right is unacceptable.

Vancouver postal workers have walked off the job to protest an anti-gay pamphlet theyÂ’re being asked to deliver to hundreds of homes.

They say the brochure distributed by a religious group amounts to hate mail -- but they face disciplinary action if they refuse to handle it.

Ken Mooney, the Vancouver president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, says the walkout sends a message that posties will not “participate in the dissemination of homophobic material.”

The pamphlet says AIDS is “the plague of the 21st century” and calls homosexuality “ungodly, unhealthy and unnatural.”

Mooney says postal workers are “deeply offended” by the mailing, which he says subjects members of the gay community to “scorn and hate.”

Frankly, I'd take offense at large parts of the message and much of the language in the pamphlet. I'd drop mine in the nearest garbage can after first using it to scoop up the dog crap in the back yard.

But I don't see where the union or individual postal workers have any place determining what goes through.

And I applaud Canada Post for indicating that those who refuse to deliver the flier will face serious punishment.

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Since he left office, former President Carter hasn't met a terrorist leader or Third World dictator whose side he won't take against the US or Israel. For doing so, the Left has declared him to be a revered elder statesman.

But now he has gone too far -- even for his own Democrats.

Top Democrats are rushing to repudiate former President CarterÂ’s controversial new book on the Middle East, in which he accuses the Israeli government of maintaining an apartheid system.

Two key party leaders — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, party chairman, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and several congressmen issued statements Monday saying that the book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” does not represent their views on the Jewish state.

“It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,” Pelosi wrote in a statement. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.”

Carter’s book is being published by Simon & Schuster and is slated for release November 14. In an advanced draft copy of the work, obtained by the Forward, the former president asserts that Israel’s current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” He argues that Israel’s settlement policy is principally to blame for the failure of peace initiatives in the Middle East.

Dean also took issue with CarterÂ’s assessment.

“While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Dean wrote in a statement. “On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

Several Democratic members of New York’s House delegation — Reps. Steve Israel, Charlie Rangel and Jerrold Nadler — also have issued statements criticizing Carter’s book, as did Rep. John Conyers, Jr., a Michigan Democrat who is often criticized by members of the Jewish community for his failure to support Israel in a certain instance. Last summer, Conyers was one of eight House members who did not vote for a resolution backing the Jewish state in the wake of the Hezbollah attacks.

Good grief -- when even an anti-Semite like Conyers denounces someone for being too critical of Israel, you have to recognize that they have gone way too far.

And another sign that the argument goes way too far is when French government officials start taking the opposite side of the issue.

rench Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy declared last week he has changed his opinion on Israel's controversial separation barrier in light of its drastic effect on terror, forcing French authorities to clarify their position on the issue.

The barrier, which separates the West Bank from the rest of Israel, has garnered much criticism for creating a ghetto-style situation for the Palestinians and for allegedly appropriating Palestinian land on the Israeli side.

But although the French government has been critical of it since the start of its construction four years ago, Douste-Blazy has now reversed the feeling.

“I have significantly evolved on the matter of the separation fence” said Douste-Blazy on French Jewish television TFJ on Thursday. “Although the wall was a moral and ethical problem for me, when I realised terror attacks were reduced by 80 percent in the areas where the wall was erected, I understood I didn’t have the right to think that way.”

Douste-Blazy is the first high ranking French official to openly state his support for the security fence.

Remember -- he is part of a government that opposed and led the condemnation of the security fence. That there is now support for the fence from a member of that government should be seen as significant.

Buit not to worry -- Hamas is still in Dhimmi Carter's side.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 5 kb.

1) ACORN, long connected to voter registration fraud cases around the country, is now accused of more voter fraud in St. Louis. “Hundreds of fraudulent voter address changes have been submitted to St. Louis County election officials.” Just trying to win one more for the Democrats.

2) Female circumcision. Just gotta love those Islamic folk remedies for promiscuity in two-year-olds. Can the sentence include using the same scissors of the “dad” who did this to his daughter?

3) More charges in this espionage case – American military secrets being given to the Red Chinese.

4) Looks like the Foley outing came from within the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. The staffer involved has been fired – for unauthorized use of the organization’s computer equipment, not for violating Foley’s right to keep his sexual orientation a secret. None of which, of course, mitigates teh fact that Foley is a perv.

5) Some folks think their ethnicity entitles them to do what they want – even if it is against the rules and disrupts school. And these claim they want to join the US military? They sure don't seem loyal to THIS country.

6) Imam to rape victims – It’s your fault for dressing like a whore. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab (veil), no problem would have occurred."

7) This clown would be a great companion for my Holocaust-denier troll KKKen – an Australian convicted of intentionally spreading the virus that causes AIDS is challenging the existence of the HIV virus in court.

Build it so they wonÂ’t come! Bush signs border fence bill.

9) Coming home! The Bnei Menashe (children of Manasseh) will return to their ancestral homeland in Israel after 27 centuries of exile from the land God gave to their ancestors at the time of Moses.

10) Freedom of speech trumps Islamo-censors in Denmark.

Posted by: Greg at 09:20 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 3 kb.

I understand that there are arguments on both sides of the gay marriage issue that folks find persuasive. But yesterday's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court should frighten and offend folks on either side of the issue. After all, it is a case of judicial activism run amok.

The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that gay couples are entitled to rights no different from those of heterosexual couples.

The court gave state legislators 180 days to craft a bill offering same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, though it appeared to leave open a choice between calling the status "marriage" or "civil unions."

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state constitution," the court said in its 4 to 3 ruling.

Now the problem here should be obvious to anyone who isn't looking at the decision from a "results-oriented" perspective. The justices do not find a right to gay marriage in the state's Constitution -- and then go on to overturn the status quo anyway on vague theory taht "the status quo is intolerable". They order that the legislature act in 180 days to create gay marriage -- in fact, whetehr or not they do so in name. And the minority dissented not because of this radical judicial activism -- no, they don't feel the court was activist enough! they wanted teh court to create gay marriage and implement it through judicial fiat! In both cases, however, they ignore th specific policy decisions of the state legislature to NOT create gay marriage when they passed a domestic partnership law.

This could have some serious impact in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The New Jersey decision could stoke the fires for social conservatives elsewhere in the nation, who during this election cycle have complained loudly of their unhappiness with the Republican Party. New Jersey, however, tends toward social liberalism -- albeit with strong pockets of social conservatism. As the court's decision stops short of mandating same-sex marriage, few expected it to unhinge a taut race for the U.S. Senate between Sen. Robert Menendez (D) and Republican Thomas H. Kean Jr., according to political observers. Menendez and Kean oppose same-sex marriage, although Kean has gone further and called for a state constitutional amendment to ban it.

"If the Supreme Court had flatly forced the state to recognize gay marriage, it would have had a negative effect and rallied the conservative Republican base in New Jersey and hurt Robert Menendez," said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "As it stands, he should be okay, but this could rally evangelicals elsewhere."

I disagree. The Kean-Menendez race has been tightening. I think it could be enough to push Tom Kean over the top -- all without becoming "unhinged".

If Kean were to focus on the issue of judical activism and the importance of keeping a GOP majority to ensure that judges who recognize the constitutional limits of their office are confirmed, it could gain him votes. Ditto a stronger emphasis on the constitutional amendment issue.

On the other side of the river in Pennsylvania, this could help Rick Santorum defeat Bob Casey, Jr..

In Maryland, this could help Michael Steele garner a few more black votes for his GOP race, given that blacks tend to be conservative on the gay marriage issue.

Similarly, this could swing a few House races to the GOP as well.

And those eight gay marriage referenda around the country? I think they could now be wins for the traditional marriage side of the issue, which was in doubt after New York and California courts refused to do what the New Jersey judges have.

UPDATE: And that is a new direction being tried by conservatives around the country.

MORE AT: Malkin, Hot Air, Church & State, Blogs for Bush, Ace of Spades, Riehl World View, Wide Awakes, Gay Patriot, Wizbang, Don Surber, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 6 kb.

Having been part of a church doing a renovation, I know what passions can be arroused. And when you are renewing a historic building with great sentimental value to an entire faith, I can imagine things only get more difficult.

When the historic Tabernacle, the egg-shaped building that is home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, reopens next year after a lengthy face-lift and seismic retrofit, visitors will find something new: the pews.

The loss of the original, and uncomfortable, pine pews, handmade in 1867 and meticulously etched and painted to look like oak, angers many Mormons, whose religion is strongly defined by its history and its forebearsÂ’ hardships.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, released a two-sentence statement saying some original pews — Ms. Farah would not say how many — would be returned and that others would be replaced with oak copies “to maintain historicity.” “No determination has been made on what will happen to the unused original benches,” the statement said.

Church officials would not give an explanation for the change, Ms. Farah said in an interview.

“The church is circumspect about the pews, because it is a work in progress,” she said of the Tabernacle renovations, including the pews.

Lack of an explanation angered LaMar Taft Merrill Jr., a retired schoolteacher who grew up here and lives in Lexington, Ky. Mr. Merrill, a descendant of an early church apostle, said not returning the pine pews would be a “shameful act” by the church’s “misguided top echelon.”

“You can’t ever replace what’s original,” he said. “And an oak bench is no more comfortable than a pine bench.”

I'm sure there are reaons for the new pews -- but I cannot think of what they are. The original pews are still in good shape? Why replace that link to the past?

Posted by: Greg at 10:03 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Good grief -- the Democrats are attacking pro-abortion liberal GOP write-in candidate Don Richardson, who hasn't voted for a Republican in a primary in this century, as "too conservative for Texas".

Republican Congressional Write-In Candidate Don Richardson Is Too Conservative For Texas

Republican congressional write-in candidate Don Richardson wants to:

- Put American troops on the border to stop illegal immigration
- Allow law enforcement officials to wiretap suspects without a warrant
- Permit the government to read suspects' e-mails without a warrant
- Allow the government to conduct random searches without a warrant

Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

The man doesn't even register in opinion polls. Why is the DCCC attacking him? Could it be an attempt to get some conservatives to vote for him to ensure the defeat of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, the official GOP write-in candidate? Could it be that the Democrats are running scared in the race, believing that the good doctor might beat the Democrat carpetbagger?

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

BUMPED: Since I've now been deemed worthy of no fewer than three posts on his website by the lying, thieving Demo-dirtbag, I figured I'd celebrate by bumping this to the top of the page.

Some weeks ago, I wrote a post in which I used a term that I probably shouldn't have use. I'm told that it is a racist term, though I have always understood it to be a label based upon illegal conduct. After much discussion on another blog, weeks after the fact, I became convinced that my understanding was wrong, admitted as much, and offered an apology. I even included a disclaimer on the post, as I don't believe in sending things down the "memory hole" when they are inconvenient.

That apprarently was not good enough for one moonbat moral midget. He stole a family photo from my site and infringed upon my copyright by having it hosted on no fewer than three separate image-hosting services claiming that he held copyright to the image (and then entered into an illegal agreement with another local Democrat blogger to host the image on her server under her account). I directed him to quit violating my copyright and suggested that he remove defamatory statements about me. I'm taking steps -- not including legal action, which I never intended or threatened -- to deal with him.

He has decided that I threatened a lawsuit or violence against him, and so he decided to "expose" me as a "disgusting racist." He even quotes me from a number of posts -- quotes which are in some cases taken out of context, in other cases legitimate policy or social positions, and in others cases of satire on a level far beyond his comprehension.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. He has also decided I have no right to blog under a pseudonym -- which I have done out of a professional obligation to make sure that there is never any question of my trying to indoctrinate my students with my political opinions -- and posted my name on his site and in a couple of other locations. As such, I won't be linking back to him, for I still intend to maintain as much of my anonymity as I can.

So let's look at the offensive quotes.

The first thing he objects to besides the offensive term is found here.

He then goes on to accuse Councilwoman Ada Edwards of "scrambling for a few more Hispanic votes like they were crack rocks."

As the councilwoman is black, he clearly means to imply that I was using racist stereotypes to attack a black woman. But let's look at the whole quote in context.

"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.

So as most folks of any degree of intelligence would recognize, I was playing on Edwards' own invocation of pimping, extending her own metaphor. I guess that escaped his understanding, even though I explained it elsewhere when he objected.

And then he goes on listing other excerpts from posts on my site, claiming "there is obviously no context in which these hateful remarks are acceptable." In doing so, of course, he gives himself license to take the quotes out of context.

I'll let you decide -- both if they are acceptable, and if he is honest in his characterization of what was said in these ofhter posts.

1) He objects to this.

"That's one more dead terrorist in Hell with Allah."

Of course, that statement comes from a post making fun of a jihadi suicide bomber who blew himself up early while riding a bicycle to his target. He believed he was going to spend eternity in Allah's abode, and I presume he knows best -- and since he was on a mission of murder and mayhem, I can only presume that his final destination was Hell. I see nothing to apologize for -- but if my Democrat friend chooses to be an apologist for terrorists, he is welcome to that role and should fit right in with Sheehan, Murtha, and Lamont.

2) He is also troubled by this excerpt.

"In return, we will ship the Arab Muslims in the United States -- regardless of their citizenship -- back to the Middle East...They and their relatives back in their homelands have shown their utter inablility to live at peace with neighbors who are different from themselves....After all, if the Jews are not a good fit in the Middle East, why should the unassimilable Muslims be welcome in America?"

I might almost agree with his assessment -- were it not for the fact that he raped the context to post it. You see, the entire piece was a satirical response to an editorial in a Jordanian paper advocating the expulsion of all Jews from the Holy Land. And my conclusion? Try this on for size.

And if my proposed solution -- excluding people from America based upon religion and ethnicity -- is unacceptable, upon what basis can anyone support the expulsion of Israel's Jews from the land given them by the international community in the 1940s and which they have defended time and again over the last six decades? The only possible answer is a rank, festering anti-Semitism which abides in the blackened souls of the opponents of Israel.

I'm not sure if this moonbat is an anti-Semite or simply never read "A Modest Proposal" in 12th Grade English -- or the entire post from which he quoted.

3) Now this quote might appear hard to defend at first.

"Where are the peacemakers from the Religion of Peace? All I see are jihadi swine."

But then again, it was a story about one more group of would-be terrorists -- and my excerpt from the story once again made it clear I was talking about Islamic extremists being a threat. However I, like many Americans (indeed, like many people worldwide), am waiting to hear more forthright, non-nuanced denunciations of terrorism and unambiguous moves to expel the extremists from their midst or to marginalize them within the Islamic faith. Or is it that my liberal friend is offended that I would hurt the feelings of jihadi terrorists by calling them so vile a name as "pigs"?

4) I'll concede I might have done better on this one, and further thought and reflection might have led me not to phrase this quite the way I did.

"Sorry, no respect for any ethnicity or religion with this scumbag...Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too. Would somebody please remind me what is there in Islam that is good and noble?"

But then again, I refuse to offer a lick of respect for someone who decides that his religion and culture dictate that he violate a court order regarding custody, take his child to another country beyond the reach of the courts that awarded custody, all with the intent of having his 12-year-old daughter marry a guy in his mid-20s. If it is the position of my esteemed opponent that I should respect such behavior, that is fine -- but then I want to know what principled objection he could possibly offer to the Mark Foley "talk dirty to me" IMs? Or does he object to my stating the historical fact, acknowledged in Muslim religious works, that the "Prophet" married a girl at age 6 and had sex with her at age 9 to cement an alliance with her father? Maybe he just likes the idea of sex between older men and young children. I just don't know.

5) This one looks bad.

"Israel has the capability to nuke your camel-humping ass."

Of course, the quote does come in the context of a commentary on news that Iran is buying subs capable of launching nuclear missles -- shortly after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map and at a time when his nation is working to develop nukes. Now I suppose members of the Ahmadinejad Fan Club might take exception to my insulting the genocidal Holocaust-denier who is the leader of Iran, but I don't -- especially since he was one of the folks who took Americans hostage at our embassy in 1979. I hope that my critic doesn't find my anti-Fidel quotes, either -- after all, if he likes Ahmadinejad, he must love Castro.

6) You decide on this one.

"In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam."

This was commentary about a case involving a woman who has been baptized and seeks to be recognized as a Christian. She has been told by Malaysia's civil courts that it is a matter for the Muslim religious courts, and the Muslim religious courts have indicated the she will be imprisoned until she recants her apostasy. I guess that this leftard doesn't find that sort of theocratic infringement on human rights to be offensive -- only Christians in America being allowed to vote and have their policy preferences make it into the law.

7) You could argue that this one is bad.

Under no circumstances should any alien not yet legally admitted to the United States be held to have any rights beyond the right to continue breathing.

I think the remark stands on its own -- but if you wish to shill for those who violate our nation's immigration laws, go right ahead. I will add that I believe such folks do have one other right -- the right to immediate deportation, with the associated costs deducted from the foreign aid appropriated for their homeland.

I was simply pissed-off when I wrote this -- but he does a creative editorial job to make it appear I am saying something else entirely. Here is his version.

"Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans?"

Then there is the complete sentence (note to moonbat -- when you edit, make sure you punctuate it so that is evident).

Why are we sending one thin dime to a backwater, Third World hell-hole like New Orleans -- especially as long as this jackass is in charge?

Oh -- it was actually a commentary on Ray Nagin, who had just described Ground Zero as "a hole in the ground" that New Yorkers have been unable to get fixed. Given the conduct of our "guests" from New Orleans over the last year (hey, folks, thanks for the soaring homicide rate!), I see nothing to repent or apologize for -- and as far as Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin is concerned, I described him in significantly more polite terms than the average lefty moonbat uses for our president in daily conversation.

9) Not only is my critic a supporter of illegal immigration, but he objects to criticism of other criminals as well -- even when their actions causs the suspension of search-and-rescue efforts in the aftermath of a major natural disaster. After all, this is viewed as hateful.

"What needs to happen is that those caught looting especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about simply need to be shot on sight."

Here comes what I actually said, and you will see that the context is everything.

First, the priority is wrong. Search-and-rescue needs to be the primary mission, not property protection. What needs to happen is that those caught looting (especially those armed thugs we have all been hearing about) simply need to be shot on sight.

Yes, I have sympathy for those who have been getting food, diapers, and other necessities. However, the situation is so out of control that order needs to be restored ruthlessly. I don't believe there are many recipes that call for a boom-box, a 32-inch flat-screen television or ten pairs of designer jeans.

I think you see where there is serious dishonesty at work. But if he wants to oppose the imposition of law and order so that people can be rescued from the riseing waters of a hurricane, let him defend that position.

10) Oh, and he objects as well to this, though he doesn't bother to provide more than a snippet.

A reader emails to tell me that [he] is still at it, and yesterday called Islam "the religion of barbarism."

Well, yeah -- but I think you need to consider exactly what was written.

Italian journalist who converted to Islam kidnapped by jihadis in Afghanistan – who demand the return of an Afghan convert to Christianity for application of the sharia penalty for apostasy (which is, of course, death). Am I the only one who smells a set-up here? Better idea – the civilized world will keep the Christian and the followers of the Religion of Barbarism can keep their co-religionist.

Hey -- I'd argue that anyone who doesn't find the actions committed in the name of Islam by these folks to be barbaric has the problem, not me. I guess we see what some Democrats really stand for.

Now I considered closing this blog in response to this controversy. I'm not going to do so. This attack means that my blog has become important in a way I never expected and never dreamed -- and never wanted.

The Left is afraid of ME.

This is an attempt to embarrass me and silence me -- and there have also been email and online threats to try to get me fired from my teaching job (I guess you have to be a left-wing academic fraud and faux-ethnic like Ward Churchill to qualify for free speech in the academy). But I look around at folks I admire -- Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Michelle Malkin, Dr. Mike Adams -- and I recognize my beliefs as mainstream. Yes, my rhetoric is Coulteresque, but it certainly is more elevated than what is found on "mainstream" leftwing sites like Kos or Democrat Underground.

So here I stand; to do otherwise is to betray the First Amendment and my own beliefs.

And to quote a bunch of liberals whose politics I despise, "I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down."

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2428 words, total size 15 kb.

After all, she will be beholden to Dingell and Rangel and Murtha and all the other hard-lefties in her party who are afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

So while she might not push such a move, would she block one by other members -- members of her own senior leadership?

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged not to pursue impeachment of President George W. Bush if Democrats win the November election.

"Impeachment is off the table," said Pelosi in an interview aired Sunday on CBS "60 Minutes."

Asked if that was a pledge, Pelosi said it was.

"Yes, it is a pledge," she said. "Of course it is."

Pelosi called impeachment "a waste of time," and suggested Republicans -- who have controlled the House for 12 years -- would make political hay out of it if Democrats tried to impeach Bush.

"Wouldn't they just love it if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth after 12 years is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."

Actually, Nancy, they are lame ducks whether you people win or not. And I see nothing in your "pledge" that is binding on any other Democrat.

Posted by: Greg at 10:37 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 1 kb.