I found this interesting column raising issues about embryonic stem cell research. I think the point made is a good one.

Pro-embryonic stem-cell research proponents, like the snake-oil hucksters of old, have done a masterful job of rolling their wagon into the town square and selling the quick and easy.

Embryonic stem cells, they argue, hold the cures for everything from Alzheimer's to diabetes - if only embryonic stem cell research wasn't banned by the dark emperor, George W. Bush.

In truth, however, embryonic stem cell research hasn't been banned. Private labs have spent millions trying to see if healing potions could be unlocked using embryonic stem cells. But as the private sector money dried up, a push for federal funding ensued. Bush has said no to that.

Yet why does the private-money river mirror the Rio Grande trickling through the bosque? If this research truly promises cures for cancer, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's, for example, private companies' stockholders should be counting their money, right?

Could it be that after years of such research, there is no honest indication that embryonic stem cells hold the keys to anything

Where is the private money for this research? Why the push for government funding? Is the problem that there has been a lack of results to justify private funding? If so, why the demand to throw money down what private industry has determined to be an unprofitible rat-hole?

This question isn't just an academic one for me. My wife suffers from a cluster of conditions that could benefit from stem cell research -- whether based upon adult stem cells, cord blood, or embryonic cells. I want to see good research done. What I don't want to see is money or opportunity wasted on bad research. That's why I'm suspicious of the push for embryonic stem cell research which seems to have yielded very little when adult stem cell research and cord blood research seems more promising.

The British are going to engage in terrorist profiling in an attempt to safeguard its people.

People from certain ethnic groups are more likely to be stopped and searched on London transport in the wake of the bombings, British Transport Police say.

A force spokesman said communities were not being singled out, but police have to "target the people we think may be involved" in bomb attacks.

The policy has been supported by Home Office minister Hazel Blears.

***

She told BBC News: "That's absolutely the right thing for the police to do.

"What it means is if your intelligence in a particular area tells you that you're looking for somebody of a particular description, perhaps with particular clothing on, then clearly you're going to exercise that power in that way."

She said it was important people were kept informed and those who were stopped were given an explanation.

"I think most ordinary decent people will entirely accept that in terms of their own safety and security," she added.

Consider the common sense nature of that concept. We know the profile of the folks we are fighting. We know that they are among us, ready to kill innocents. it makes sense to give scrutiny to those meeting the profile -- not mass detentions or lock-ups, simply heightened scritiny.

Most ordinary decent people would accept that.

And we know that the usual suspects object -- the ACLU, Muslim groups, liberals in general -- quite loudly to any procedure that doesn't make black grandmothers, Japanese tourists, Congressional Medal of honor winners and babies in diapers subject to the same level of scrutiny as Muhammad Atta's identical twin brother. Scratch that -- they object to any procedure that scrutinizes Atta's twin at all.

After all -- who on earth did Albert Eisele think he was, treateing her like she was subject to the same rules as everybody else. Why -- she didn't mean for THAT COMMENT to make it into print.

But Thomas said yesterday at the White House that her comments to Eisele were for his ears only. "I'll never talk to a reporter again!" Thomas was overheard saying.

"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.

But Eisele said that when he called Thomas, "I assume she knew that we were on the record."

"She's obviously very upset about it, but it was a small item -- until Drudge picked it up and broadcast it across the universe," Eisele said.

Still, he noted that reporters aren't that happy when the tables are turned. "Nobody has thinner skin than reporters," Eisele said with a laugh.

Additional comments from Instapundit and The Violence Worker.

Remember the terrible act of hatred experienced by the pregnant widow of Pfc. Tim Hines and his family last week? You know, the one in which someone uprooted American flags from their yard and set them ablaze underneath one of the family car on the night of his funeral.

Well, police have arrested two teens, age 15 and 13, and charged them with this crime.

Be prepared to be outraged by the bogus comments of the cops.

Two teenage boys were charged Thursday with burning 20 small American flags set up in honor of a soldier who died from injuries suffered in the Iraq war.

Police said the boys apparently did not know the significance of the flags they took from the yard and set afire under a car belonging to the soldier's sister-in-law. The vehicle was destroyed.

Excuse me -- what the hell do you mean that they didn't know the significance of the flags? Where the f*ck are they from that they don't know that an American flag signifies this country and our love for it -- not to mention the many men and women who have fought beneath it and laid down their lives for the nation it symbolizes?

It appears that the little miscreants were involved in other vandalism that morning. Here's hoping that the judge in this case is sure to include public service time at a rehabilitation facility for veterans. These boys need to know why those flags were there, and why what they did was horrendously wrong.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY from The Violence Worker, Instapundit, and NeoBabble.

And there is no room for argument -- this IS Lauren Bacall, after all.

"When you talk about a great actor, you're not talking about Tom Cruise," Bacall says.

"His whole behavior is so shocking. It's inappropriate and vulgar and absolutely unacceptable to use your private life to sell anything commercially, but I think it's kind of a sickness."

That pretty much says all that needs saying on the matter.

And as for you, Ms. Bacall, you are still one of the most beautiful women in the world today.

BUMPED DUE TO UPDATE & ANNIVERSARY

One of the worst naval disasters of World War II was the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. Some 900 men made it into the watter after it was hit by two torpedoes on July 30, 1945. Only 316 survived to be rescued five days later -- their shipmates the victims of injuries, exposure, and sharks.

Sixty years after he narrowly avoided death in the U.S. Navy's worst sea disaster, World War II veteran Loel Dene "L.D." Cox is haunted by a dream.

He's with buddies somewhere — the faces and places change from night to night — and suddenly they disappear.

"I turn around and they're gone. I hunt for them, and I may accidently find one of them, and I lose him again," he said. "It's that way every night."

The nightmare forces the 79-year-old West Texan to relive an unforgettable ordeal. Cox was among 316 survivors of the sinking of the heavy cruiser USS Indianapolis between Guam and the Philippines on July 30, 1945.

Of the 1,199 crewmen, about 900 lived through a Japanese submarine attack, but they abandoned ship in shark-infested waters and were left for dead until rescuers arrived almost five days later.

By then, nearly 600 more crewmen had perished. In all, about 880 Indianapolis sailors and Marines lost their lives.

"They don't hardly talk about it in the history books. They talk more about Marilyn Monroe than the Indianapolis and it's a crying shame," Cox said last week.

The retiree from Comanche is among 93 living members of the Indianapolis crew. Sixty of them gathered in the ship's namesake city last week to mark the 60th anniversary of its sinking and the recent exoneration of Capt. Charles Butler McVay III of Navy charges of putting the ship in harm's way.

"We thought it was a travesty — every crew member who survived," said Cox, who in 2000 helped persuade Congress to posthumously clear the captain. McVay survived the sinking but took his own life in 1968.

When survivors put aside memories of their harrowing experiences, they take solace in having accomplished a crucial top-secret mission. Four days before the Indianapolis went to the bottom, the ship delivered the inner workings of the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6.

The Indianapolis returned from near Japan to San Francisco after a kamikaze attack off Okinawa on March 31, which killed 13 sailors. After repairs, mysterious crates were put aboard, and with record speed, the ship delivered the bomb components to Tinian Island.

Before that mission, Cox was aboard the ship for two other historic missions. The Indianapolis was the command ship during the assault on Iwo Jima and assisted in the first air raids on Tokyo.

There is more to read about this naval tragedy, one more chapter about the lives -- and deaths -- of the Greatest Generation.

UPDATE: Dave Goodman from eMusings at Chez Goodman shares the story of one member of the crew of USS Indianapolis. I think I've found my non-council nominee for this week's Watcher's Council. Prepare to be touched.

I've had it with Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. I'm serious -- I'm washing my hands of the man. This Republican precinct chair will not be passing out any of his material, will notbe making phone calls, and certainly won't distrubute yard signs to the party faithful. And I know that a lot of other Republicans have lost their enthusiasm for him.

What is my beef? It isn't his failure to get appraisal caps on property taxes passed. It isn't the fact that he can't control the state Senate, despite holding the most powerful job in Texas government (the Governor is a distant third). No, it is his utterly inane comment about a proposal to strip all the controversial elements from the education bill being debated in the second special session of the year.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he was worried that there was support for what he called a "poison pill" amendment that would have removed nearly all of the reform measures in the bill, leaving only provisions for a teacher pay raise and textbook funding.

Yeah, you read that right. Paying for textbooks and raising teacher salaries (Texas teachers make about $6000 a year below the national average) constitutes a "poison pill". Good Lord -- they are the two things that most Texans agree on, according to polling data! If this man thinks that they are "poison", I'm willing to do all I can to make sure he is defeated, even if that means biting the bullet and voting for his eventual Democrat opponent. The stuff that would have been stripped from the bill were provisions raisng the age for teacher retirement while cutting the benefit level; and, if a school or district meets state standards to be classified as exemplary, gutting due process and workplace rights for teachers (guaranteeing that no school or district will ever meet those standards again).

No, Dewhurst has got to go -- and I put that above any party loyalty that I might feel. If he is going to label textbooks and teacher raises as "poison" after presiding over a vote to give legislators an $6500 annual increase in their pensions for their $7200-a-year part-time job, he clearly is the wrong man to hold this or any other public office.

Oh, and by the way, I find it interesting that the Houston Chronicle didn't find that "poison pill" quote to be sufficiently important to report on it. in its article on the new education bill -- nor did most of the rest of the news media in the state. I guess they don't consider textbooks and teachers to be important, either.

For all the attempts by the Communist dictators in Beijing to domesticate Christianity, it appears that faith in Christ is growing by leaps and bounds in that oppressed nation.

The precise figures cannot be known, in a country in which Christians are still persecuted. But the evidence suggests that there may be as many as 80 million or even 100 million members of underground Christian churches in China, unapproved by the state.

The Chinese Communist Party, meanwhile, has only 70 million members. If those figures for worshippers are even roughly accurate, then we are looking at a very remarkable development in the history not only of Asia but of all mankind.

While the Communists have the weapons, they seem to be losing the hearts of the people. Will we find that, like in Poland, the yearning for Christ will be sufficient to undermine the atheistic system of Marx, Lenin, and Mao?

I particularly love this observation by the author of this editorial.

[C]ommunism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible - in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America - for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine. Christianity teaches that each of us is a moral being, responsible for our actions to our Maker, and individually bound to love our neighbours as ourselves.

A century from now, Communism will be a distant memory, supported only by college professors and others lacking contact with reality. May our descendants, by the grace of God, see a similar comparison between the evil force that is Islamist jihadism and Christianity.

The paper also has an excellent article by Richard Spencer about Christians in China. I encourage you to look at it, as well.

A Utah boy, age 8, was charged with lewd conduct after his 14-year-old babysitter persuaded him to touch her breasts during a game of truth-or-dare.

After hiring the teenager to baby sit, Grosbeck got the feeling something was wrong.

“It was just that sense that something wasn’t quite right with this 14-year-old girl,” she said. She asked her son what had happened. “He just came right out as if nothing was awry, and just started talking about what had happened.”

Grosbeck went to police and child protection workers, and the case went to the district attorney, after which her son, age eight, had been charged with an act of lewdness with a minor.

Grosbeck says the Salt Lake County District Attorney told her both the child and teenager were equal participants. But Mrs. Grosbeck didn’t believe that.

“My son is eight, he’s a little boy. He does not have the ability to participate on the same level as a fourteen-year-old,” she said.

Although the charges against her son were dropped, she is concerned that the same thing could happen to other victims of sexual abuse.

“I don’t want parents to be afraid to go to the state agencies that are supposed to be protecting our children when things like this happen, out of fear that their children are going to be charged

The district attorney’s office confirmed the charges had been made, and that they had been dropped. Other than that, they wouldn’t comment. The Division of Child and Family Services also declined to comment.

Sounds to me like some folks in Salt lake City need to be fired. An 8-year-old in such a situation is clearly the victim -- unless we want to make "willing participation" a defense available to child molesters everywhere.

As we approach the sixtieth anniversaray of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I suspect we will see more articles discussing the decision to use the weapon. This morning I've come across two that strike me as grist for the mill.

"Why Truman Dropped the Bomb" author Richard B. Frank offers a persuasive rebuttal of those historians who take a critical or revisionist view of Truman's decision to drop the bomb. In it, he argues that the traditionalist view of the decision is more accurate and better explains why Truman used the bomb.

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

The displacement of the so-called traditionalist view within important segments of American opinion took several decades to accomplish. It will take a similar span of time to displace the critical orthodoxy that arose in the 1960s and prevailed roughly through the 1980s, and replace it with a richer appreciation for the realities of 1945. But the clock is ticking.

In "What would you have done? ", Max Hastings argues that a decision that may be easy to question in hindsight was the one which seemed most reasonable to those charged with making the decisionin 1945.

The decision-makers were men who had grown accustomed to the necessity for cruel judgments. There was overwhelming technological momentum: a titanic effort had been made to create a weapon for which the allies saw themselves as competing with their foes.

After Hiroshima, General Leslie Groves, chief of the Manhattan Project, was almost the only man to succumb to triumphalism. He said: "We have spent $2bn on the greatest scientific gamble in history - we won." Having devoted such resources to the bomb, an extraordinary initiative would have been needed from Truman to arrest its employment.

Those who today find it easy to condemn the architects of Hiroshima sometimes seem to lack humility in recognising the frailties of the decision-makers, mortal men grappling with dilemmas of a magnitude our own generation has been spared.

In August 1945, amid a world sick of death in the cause of defeating evil, allied lives seemed very precious, while the enemy appeared to value neither his own nor those of the innocent. Truman's Hiroshima judgment may seem wrong in the eyes of posterity, but it is easy to understand why it seemed right to most of his contemporaries.

I raise a question with my students each year, one which brings out the stark calculus Truman faced.

"You are the president duing time of war. Your military advisors present you with a weapon that could end the war at the cost of a few hundred thousand enemy civilian lives. Failure to use this weapon will likely cost the lives of up to a million American troops and at least an equal number of enemy lives, both military and civilian. What do you do?"

I've had only one student ever argue against dropping the bomb -- and even then, she questioned how she would be able to justify that decision to the families of a million dead American soldiers.

That is why I really think the question is not "How could Truman justify dropping the bomb?" Rather, the appropriate question is "How could Truman justify NOT dropping the bomb?" And i think the answer is that he could not have justified a negative decision, regardless of what evidence there was of Japanese disarray. He had a primary responsibility to safeguard the lives of American soldiers.

I'm starting to think we need to begin impeachihg judges who inhibit national security. U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins strikes me as a good candidate to start with.

A federal judge has ruled that some provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act dealing with foreign terrorist organizations remain too vague to be understood by a person of average intelligence and are therefore unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins found that Congress failed to remedy all the problems she defined in a 2004 ruling that struck down key provisions of the act. Her decision was handed down Thursday and released Friday.

"Even as amended, the statute fails to identify the prohibited conduct in a manner that persons of ordinary intelligence can reasonably understand," the ruling said.

Collins issued an injunction against enforcement of the sections she found vague but specified that her ruling applies only to the named plaintiffs and does not constitute a nationwide injunction.

"I'm pleased that the court has recognized that people have a right to support lawful, nonviolent activities of groups the secretary of state has put on a blacklist," said David Cole, the attorney and Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Humanitarian Law Project.

***

"The court finds that the terms 'training,''expert advice or assistance' in the form of 'specialized knowledge' and 'service' are impermissibly vague under the Fifth Amendment," the judge concluded at the end of 42-page decision.

Excuse me, but given that money is fungible and knowledge and skills can be used to aid terrorist activities, it would strike me that ANY assistance to a terrorist organization constitutes impermissible aid. If they are on the list, there you can't give them money, give them assistance, or do work for them. PERIOD.

So I guess it is now permissible for someone to go set up a computer network for al-Qaeda and design their websites. Yeah, it may aid in terrorist activity, but you can't really understand that it violates the law.

You don't get much bluer than Massachusetts, and in particular the city of Boston. That is why I believe this story is important -- it shows what the allegedly "pro-minority" Democrats do when they have power.

In a lawsuit filed yesterday, the Justice Department alleges that the city and its poll workers interfered with voters' rights by ''improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot choices of limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian-American voters" and of generally ''abridging" their voting rights by treating Hispanic and Asian voters disrespectfully at the polls and by failing to provide adequate translation services for them.

The lawsuit says the Justice Department has been urging the city to comply with the Voting Rights Act since 1992, spanning a period when the city's Hispanic and Asian populations have swelled, making the groups a potentially formidable political force. Justice Department lawyers contend that the city has failed to respond to repeated requests to improve the city's treatment of Hispanic and Asian voters with limited English skills. It does not provide specific instances of violations of voters' rights.

''The violations of the Voting Rights Act that we discovered in Boston are deeply disturbing, and there is no place for such misconduct in 2005," Bradley J. Schlozman, acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said in a prepared statement released yesterday. ''Furthermore, despite having had an unequivocal obligation -- for 13 years -- to provide Spanish language information to voters who need it . . . the City of Boston has consistently fallen well short of the mark."

Under the Voting Rights Act, if more than 10,000 of a city's voting-age citizens are members of a single-language minority with limited English skills, all elections materials must be available in their first language. The city is required to offer all ballots and instructions in Spanish for the 34,000 Hispanic citizens of voting age in Boston. The federal law also forbids officials from imposing any requirement or procedure that denies or abridges the rights of minority citizens to vote.

It's Florida and Ohio all over again -- except with actual evidence of actual violations of the voting rights of minorities.

Cook County GOP Chairman Gary Skoien offered a reward for evidence tying Chicago Mayr Richard Daley to the latest corruption scandal in his administration on Tuesday.

On Thursday, Skoien was fired from his job as executive vice president and chief operations officer at The Prime Company, a real estate development company. The reason?

Prime Group’s chief executive officer, Mike Reschke, delivered the news to Skoien that he was out as executive vice president and chief operations officer.

Reschke says Skoien’s actions went too far.

“I’m not very happy with what Gary did,” Reschke said. “I think it was inappropriate and irresponsible. I don’t think he should continue in his role with the company.”

Reschke praised Daley as the greatest mayor in America -- but somehow overlooked the latest scandals to his his administration. A federal investigation of a $38 million program that allows the city to outsource its hauling work, which has already resulted in 21 guilty pleas, and another in which federal prosecutors have charged two city hall officials with rigging the city’s hiring system. It seems that good-will from city officials is more important to Reschke than honest government. Folks might want to consider that before doing business with Prime.

Not, of course, that Skoien is unemployed. His primary source of income comes from his work as chief executive officer of Horizon Group Properties Inc., which owns factory outlets around the country.

Not many newspaper articles move me to tears. But this line did.

Shannon Maxwell says her husband doesn't remember rolling his wheelchair through a ward at Bethesda Naval Hospital just days after brain surgery in January, searching for Marines. He does remember the first thing he told her after awakening: "I want to be with wounded Marines."

Her husband is Lt. Col. Tim Maxwell, one of the highest ranking members of the US military wounded in Iraq. He suffered his head wound and other injuries last October. He still struggles with memory issues and some physical problems. But the Marine officer refuses to let that stop him from doing something for his fellow Marines.

This spring, his solitary mission evolved into an informal effort approved by Marine brass. Maxwell has recruited several other injured Marines to help wounded comrades — most of them very young and far from home.

They tell them what to expect during surgery, therapy and recovery. They help them negotiate the military health system. They have heartfelt talks with wives and parents.

They also display graphic photos of their own wounds to show that even the most grievous injuries can heal. Mostly, they try to lift spirits during what is probably the most trying period in the lives of these soldiers.

"I want these families to know that their guys aren't forgotten," Maxwell said. "There are Marines here for them, right by their side."

Maxwell says the military will provide a small office and vehicles as he recruits more volunteers. A 10-bed living quarters for wounded Marines will open at the base on Aug. 8, he said.

This is incredible stuff -- most of us, faced with such injuries, would probably be more concerned about our own healing and own progress. This man is truly one of a band of brothers, and he wants to make sure that each one of his brothers knows he is not forgotten. Along the way, he has picked up a few fellow Marines to help out with this project.

Maxwell finds camaraderie in what he calls his "wounded warrior team." There's Staff Sgt. James Sturla, 26, a tank commander whose right hand was "de-gloved" — the skin, tissue and muscle ripped from the bone — during an attack in western Iraq in September. And there's Gunnery Sgt. Ken Barnes, 35, whose left arm was shattered by a roadside bomb in central Iraq in November.

If you read no other article I've linked to from my blog, I beg you to read this one. It will inspire you and move you. It might even bring a tear to your eye, too.

God bless you, L. Col. Maxwell, SSGT Sturla, and Gunnery Sgt. Barnes. You are truly the sort of men who make this country great -- and who make the Marine Corps what it is.

MORE COMMENTARY at Spartacus.

Astronomers have discovered a tenth planet in our solar system.

A California astronomer has found what could be a new planet, a body of rock and ice which orbits the sun every 560 years.

If confirmed, the discovery would be the first of a planet since Pluto was identified in 1930.

California Institute of Technology astronomer Michael Brown says the new body is the most distant object ever detected orbiting the sun and ranks as the solar system's 10th planet.

The possible new planet is at least the size of Pluto and was discovered orbiting about 14.5 billion kilometres from the sun.

Dr Brown says the object is a typical member of the Kuiper belt - which extends from the orbit of Neptune out through the solar system for about 3,000 million kilometres - but its sheer size in relation to the nine known planets means it can only be classified as a planet.

However, Dr Brown conceded that the discovery would likely rekindle debate over the definition of a 'planet' and whether Pluto should still be regarded as one.

Dr Brown says the new object was detected in January by the Samuel Oschin Telescope at the Palomar Observatory near San Diego.

He says the planet went undiscovered for so long because its orbit is tilted at a 45-degree angle to the orbital plane of the other planets.

Fine. I accept that the thing qualifies as a planet, especially if it is larger than Pluto (the status of which is still disputed by some astronomers).

Word is, though, that the discoverer may want to name the newly discovered planet Xena, after the title character of Xena: Warrior Princess. Dare I say that such a name is a bit undignified? I would suggest several possibilities from Greco-Roman mythology that are more fitting and also in keeping with the current naming protocol for planets -- Apollo, Vulcan/Hephaestus, Minerva/Athena are all excellent choices. One would honor the manned space program, another would still have the pop-culture connection, and the third would honor the goddess of the Parthenon, one of humanity's greatest achievements.

But I suppose the discoverer is probably entitled to naming privileges. I guess I could get used to "Planet Xena".

I didn't get the chance to look at the fatwa issued by CAIR-associated clerics and scholars yesterday. I finally got to look at it on the group's website tonight, and I've added bold type where I see some ambiguity.

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.

Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not “martyrs.”

The Qur’an, Islam’s revealed text, states: "Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur’an, 5:32)

Prophet Muhammad said there is no excuse for committing unjust acts: "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." (Al-Tirmidhi)

God mandates moderation in faith and in all aspects of life when He states in the Qur’an: “We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind.” (Qur’an, 2:143)

In another verse, God explains our duties as human beings when he says: “Let there arise from among you a band of people who invite to righteousness, and enjoin good and forbid evil.” (Qur’an, 3:104)

Islam teaches us to act in a caring manner to all of God's creation. The Prophet Muhammad, who is described in the Qur’an as “a mercy to the worlds” said: “All creation is the family of God, and the person most beloved by God (is the one) who is kind and caring toward His family."

In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

We issue this fatwa following the guidance of our scripture, the Qur’an, and the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him. We urge all people to resolve all conflicts in just and peaceful manners.

We pray for the defeat of extremism and terrorism. We pray for the safety and security of our country, the United States, and its people. We pray for the safety and security of all inhabitants of our planet. We pray that interfaith harmony and cooperation prevail both in the United States and all around the globe.

Now let's look at the problem with this statement. It condemns attacks on "innocent lives" and "civilians". Those phrases constitute loopholes so big you could fly the space shuttle through them.

Define "innocent lives". Was Theo van Gogh an innocent, or did film which "insulted" Islam make him guilty of an offense that required blood atonement? How about Salman Rushdie? Is he an innocent, or may Islamists murder him becasue of The Satanic Verses? Are Jews in Israel innocents, or is there presence there an offense that requires genocide? Was Daniel Pearl an innocent, or did his Jewish faith constitute a legitimate basis for his kidnapping and murder? For that matter, is any non-Muslim an innocent, given that we offend against the Muslim faith by our very refusal to drop our infidel ways and take up the practice of Islam?

But some might argue that the later use of the word "civilians" makes up for that. However, that phrase lends approval to the attack on the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the murder of a Navy SEAL on a hijacked plane, the bombing of the Khobar towers and the USS Cole, and the suicide attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. For that matter, it also constitutes a justification for continued attacks on US troops by insurgents in Iraq. It is unclear to me if the condemnation extends to embassy personnel or governemnt officials.

So even a cursory reading of the document shows that terrorism is not really condemned by this fatwa -- merely some terrorism, and the extent of the condemnation is unclear. That very ambiguity makes the fatwa fundamentally unacceptable. Why the lack of clarity?

Well, Stephen Emerson points out who the folks behind this fatwa really are, and what their prior connection to terrorists has been.

The Chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began in June 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Alwani has been named in court documents as an official of several entities in northern Virginia suspected of being connected to terrorist financing. Documents released in the Al Arian trial show that Alwani funded the Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.

Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud, has admitted to his part in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince, and has vocally announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Additionally Alamoudi was just named by Treasury as having been a financier for Al Qaeda.

In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that “Allah will curse the Americans and British” and “Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.” Additionally, Hanooti is strongly linked to Hamas, having served on the board of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). A 2002 INS memo extensively documented IAP’s support for HAMAS and noted that the “facts strongly suggest” that IAP is “part of HAMAS’ propaganda apparatus.”

On October 28, 2000, Muzammil Siddiqui, the President of FCNA, at a rally in Lafayette Park in Washington D.C., said, “America has to learn -- if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come!"

In the past 4 years, several CAIR officials have been convicted of or charged with various terrorism-related offenses.

CAIR has championed and defended officials of Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraiser Fawaz Damra, and the radical Egyptian cleric Wagdy Ghoneim.

CAIR has repeatedly attacked the prosecutions of Islamic terrorists arrested and/or convicted since 9-11 and has attacked the government’s freezing of Islamic terrorist fronts as part of a “war against Islam” by the United States.

CAIR has led protests against the deportation of radical Islamic clerics who have called for Jihad or who have been fundraisers for Hamas.

CAIR has asserted that the indictment of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian on conspiracy to murder more than 100 people was “politically motivated” and instigated by “the attack dogs of the pro-Israeli lobby."

CAIR has been named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the family of former FBI official John O’Neill, who was killed on 9-11.

One of the signatories to today’s fatwa is Fawaz Damra who was convicted of immigration fraud related to his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and denaturalized. He is currently awaiting a deportation hearing.

Another signatory, the Muslim American Society, is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and whose publications have repeatedly supported suicide bombings.

Are we really supposed to believe these folks are condemning terorism? One would think that theeir expulsion from the room would be the first move of any group seeking to condemn terrorism in a complete and unambiguous manner. For more complete documentation on the terrorist links, click here.

Theo van Gogh, who was martyred for his exercise of freedom of speech, was murdered last year by an Islamist terrorist. His murderer remains unrepentant. Now Islamist punks are harrassing his son, Lieuwe van Gogh, age 14.

The 14-year-old son of controversial film director Theo van Gogh, slain by an Islamic extremist last November, is said to have been threatened and assaulted by Moroccan teenagers in Amsterdam and insulted by his classmates. The allegations were made during an interview the boy's grandparents gave to the Dutch television channel Nova. Amsterdam police have not confirmed any threats or aggression against Lieuwe van Gogh.

The family lawyer, Gijs de Westelaken, specified that after the murder, which profoundly shocked Dutch society, Lieuwe was attacked by some young Moroccan youths while he was walking the dog. The boy is said to have suffered bruising, but only spoke about the incident to his mother and did not lodge a police complaint.

On another occasion he is said to have been threatened with a pistol by two young men of North African descent in the neighbourhood where his father had lived. Neighbours called the police but when they arrived the attackers had fled.

According to his grandparents, Lieuwe was also subject to harrassment and insults at school, and was forced to change class after various classmates told him "it is a good thing your father is dead".

When will we in the West act to rid ourselves of the ihadi pigs in our midst? Therre are many fine and upstanding Muslims in our societ, and I welcome them, but we must make such extremism as unacceptable in our societies as Klan and Nazi activity.

I'm still backing Condi in 2008, but would like to see Vice President Cheney declare for the nomination.

“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” [Hearst columnist Helen Thomas] told The Hill.

And this is supposed to keep him from running?

Although this does actually put me in agreement with Ann Coulter, a most unusual event.

What is it with these Arabs and suicide?

And screw Media Matters if they don't like the satire.

San Antonio Express-News fifth-columnist Mansour El-Kikhia insists he won't apologize for Muslim terrorist attacks. He also does not think other Muslims or Muslim organizations should apologize for them either. That's fine with me, because I don't see him (or them) as bearing any personal responsibility for those attacks.

Unfortunately, and has often been the case with individual Muslims and Muslim groups, we don't get an unambiguous condemnation of terrorism, either.

It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic.

More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn't come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn't care as long as their interests were served.

In other words, not only are non-terrorist mainstream Muslims not reponsible for the terrorist attacks, the terrorists are not responsible for them. Rather, terrorism is the fault of the US and the UK, and it is therefore the wictimized nations that are responsible and need to apologize.

No, Mansour, I didn't expect you to apologize. But that does not mean that i find your apologia on behalf of the terrorists acceptable, either. If you find the need to defend the terrorists, please go back home to Libya and do it from there.

More commentary on GOPBloggers, Strata-Sphere. and Decision '08.

NASA wants the shuttle flying by year's end, if possible.

NASA Chief Michael Griffin said Friday he hasn't given up on launching another space shuttle later this year, despite suspending flights until the space agency can stop foam insulation from snapping off and threatening the spacecraft. He said he has set up a "tiger team" to try to solve the problem as quickly as possible. "We don't expect this to be a long drawn-out affair," he said by telephone from Washington in a briefing with reporters in Houston.

My concern? You've had this problem for a quarter century, and it contributed to one horrible accident. Two years of work didn't fix the problem. What makes you think you can get it fixed in time for a year-ending launch?

Please understand that I want to see it happen, but I also recognize that another catastrophic failure will have dire results for NASA and the manned space flight program.

That is, of course, why liberals oppose allowing recruiters in public schools and deride military service. In New York City, Councilman Charles Barron (whose racist statements and antics in favor of dictators and cop-killers are legend) is seeking to ban military recruiters from city shools in violation of federal law, claiming that they "prey" on minority students, "taling advantage" of them.

What says one of those students, after graduating from one of those schools and performing exemplary service in the armed forces?

If Mr. Barron doesn't believe that serving one's country is an honor and not a trick, let him have a chat with Corporal Charles Grant - one of the black youngsters Mr. Barron thinks is being taken advantage of by the military. Corporal Grant, aged 22, told The New York Sun he joined the military when recruiters came to his high school in the Bronx, Adlai E. Stevenson, four years ago. He's part of the 82nd Airborne Division, served both in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and received Army commendation medals in both wars.

In response to Mr. Barron's view that he had been taken "advantage of," Corporal Grant described his military career to The New York Sun as "actually an advantage for me," providing him with "mental, physical, and financial stability" while many of his high school peers fell on hard times. More importantly, he was proud to be of "service to the country" and "part of something great," "providing a blanket of comfort for the next generation." Corporal Grant, in his wisdom, values his military career so highly that he persuaded his older brother, Gary, to join the military a few months ago, and his brother is set to graduate from his Army training program today.

So whose word do we take -- a former member of a terrorist organization whose words and actions betray a contempt for the values of this nation, or one of the soldiers who has put his life on the line so that such a disgusting individual has the freedom to make contemptible comments? I think the answer is obvious.

God bless you, Corporal Grant. And when you finish with your service, come back home and run against Barron. There are lots of real Americans out here who would gladly support your campaign.

Some folks complain that the Minutemen and other similar groups are vigilantes. I think they are wrong, especially since those doing the criticizing are opposed to any effort to control immigration and secure our borders.

Well, Congressman John Culbertson has a solution to that problem -- he wants to permit states to establish Border Militias to help enforce the nation's immigration laws.

Adding an unusual proposal to the searing debate over illegal immigration, U.S. Rep. John Culberson of Houston introduced a bill late Thursday to let Texas and other border states establish armed militias to catch people trying to illegally cross from Mexico and Canada. ADVERTISEMENT

The bill, which he called a "thunderclap," is more than a solitary, symbolic gesture by the Republican lawmaker: It has 46 Republican co-sponsors.

It comes as the White House, Congress and local officials are becoming increasingly immersed in efforts to find the best way to secure the borders and perhaps also establish a "guest worker" program to let immigrants stay in the United States as temporary legal residents.

Gov. Rick Perry indicated he is open to Culberson's idea.

"Illegal immigration has become a pervasive problem in this country, and it is a drain on our economy," Perry said. "Regardless of the mechanism, the federal government must provide a stronger presence along the border and must provide substantially more funding for border protection."

Among Culberson's co-sponsors are 10 Texans, including freshmen Reps. Ted Poe of Humble and Michael McCaul of Austin.

The measure's stated goal is to let governors create a Border Protection Corps of citizens to shield the country from "uniquely devious, criminal, cowardly and fanatically determined" terrorist organizations.

Culberson said the militia provisions in the Constitution must be invoked because the U.S. Border Patrol lacks the resources to deal with any surge in illegal crossings by people who may have ties to terrorist groups.

"The tools are all there in the Constitution," Culberson said. "America's best defense against terrorists trying to sneak into our country is to trust the good hearts and the good sense of American citizens."

This sounds like an excellent way of meeting the criticisms offered against the Minutemen. They will be trained, regulated, and officially deputized for the task for which they organized. They will be able to do more than merely take pictures and make phone calls -- they will be authorized to take action and actually stop the immigration criminals. And they will provide needed relief for the under-staffed Border Patrol.

Good for John Culbertson, and his 46 co-sponsors. Call your congressman and encourage him to join as a co-sponsor.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are History and Fantasy by Right Wing Nut House, and Anonymous Rectal Intercourse by Hog on Ice.  Here are the full results of the vote.

If you only speak English, you won't understand the music or on=-air personalities on the top radio station in Dallas. That's because KESS-FM has a format devoted to Mexican music.

A Spanish-language radio station beat its English-language competitors for the first time in the Dallas-Fort Worth market to gain the No. 1 spot among listeners.

Playing Mexican regional music, KESS-FM outranked urban contemporary KKDA-FM in the most recent Arbitron spring ratings. Another Spanish-language station, KLNO-FM (94.1), rounded out the top five in the DFW listener survey, which was conducted from March 31 to June 22.

"It's not a fluke. It's only going to get better," said Betina Lewin, director of Hispanic marketing at Spanish Broadcasting System in New York.

Spanish-language radio stations have regularly reached the top five in New York, Los Angeles and Miami.

In the Houston-Galveston market, Mexican regional station KLTN-FM dropped to the fourth spot after being second in the two previous listener surveys.

El Paso's KBNA-FM was No. 1 in the Arbitron winter survey with its Spanish contemporary format.

And KESS-FM's owner, Univision Communications Inc., has already made history in U.S. broadcasting. Its television network gained the top spot in prime-time viewing among the coveted 18- to 34-year-old demographic during the final week of June, according to Nielsen Media Research.

I'm not surprised by this development -- here in the Houston area, there are already more Spanish music stations than there are country music stations.

Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt doesn't think that HPD officers have any business enforcing immigration laws. Not only that, he indicated his opposition to HPD providing assistance to federal immigration officials.

During the question-and-answer portion of the program, Hurtt said HPD should not assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, as some city leaders have recently suggested. Already struggling with a staffing shortfall, HPD could not take on the extra burden, he said.

"Immigration is a federal responsibility," he said. "We'll do our job and they should do theirs."

On the other hand, Chief Hurtt has made it clear that he intends to use HPD officers to harass and interfere with the Minutemen and their legal activities when they come to Houston this fall.

Then again, maybe Hurtt has a point. According to statistics released yesterday, Houston homicides are during Hurtt's tenure as chief.

Thanks to reader Mary Leverett for pointing me to this article which i had overlooked.

The city of Galveston is looking to ensure the preservation of one of the few structures to make it through the 1900 hurricane. The city will begin a fundraising effort toraise $5 million to purchase the "Bishop's Palace" from the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and refurbish the structure. In the process, it will also make possible the renovation of one of the island's other historical structures, St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica, which was built in 1847.

As mayor of Galveston, Lyda Ann Thomas will spearhead a $5 million fund-raising campaign for the city to purchase and refurbish the 112-year-old Chateauesque home, which towers above Broadway, the island's main street. The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has owned the historical home since 1923 and operated it as a museum since 1963.

Thomas and Archbishop Joseph A. Fiorenza have agreed in principle to the sale of the structure to the city, they said Wednesday.

"Historically, it is one of the most important buildings in the country," Thomas said. "It attracts more visitors than any of our other house museums on the island."

The city and the archdiocese have not yet agreed on a sale price for the building, which is in need of repairs, including work to stop a leaking roof. No tax money will be used for the purchase or restoration, the mayor said.

"We can see from the street the deterioration that has been occurring," Thomas said. "I just decided to go up and talk to the archbishop and see if the archdiocese would be willing to let the citizens begin to raise money to restore the building, since the church was struggling with it."

Fiorenza conceded that the Bishop's Palace is a financial burden on the archdiocese, adding that running a museum is "not particularly our mission." He said he thinks the city can do a better job of maintaining it.

"The city has great experience in managing historical homes and museums," Fiorenza said. "We feel under the direction of the Galveston Historical Foundation that beautiful architectural gem will be better preserved as a great tourist attraction for the city of Galveston."

Although the foundation operates several Galveston attractions, including three home museums, it has not been determined whether it will run the Bishop's Palace.

"That is a possibility down the road," said Marsh Davis, head of the historical foundation. "It's going to take some time to gauge the feasibility of it all. But the foundation will be part of the planning process."

The foundation wants to ensure covenants attached to the deed in perpetuity "protect every square inch inside and out" of the structure, Davis said.

The Friends of the Palace campaign, announced at a news conference Wednesday, intends to raise approximately $5 million during the next five years.

"Initially, we will be looking for around $3 million, part of which will be for the purchase," Thomas said. "Part of that $3 million will be used for immediate repairs."

The Bishop's Palace began its life as a private home, and was given as a gift to Bishop Christopher Byrne in 1923. Besides Byrne, no other Bishop ever lived in the structure.

According to Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza, proceeds from the sale of the Bishop's palace will be used to aid in the renovation of St. Mar's Cathedral Basilica, the oldest Cathedral in the state of Texas and the oldest church building on Galveston Island.

All in all, this sounds like a win for everyone.

This little story comes out of my hometown outside of Houston. It appeared in the local "throw-away" paper that turns up on the lawn each Wednesday.

Seabrook City Councilman Paul Richard Sammons, 36, was arrested at his home on La Rochelle early Saturday morning in an incident involving a gun.

When police arrived at the scene in response to a call about a man with a gun, they arrested Sammons and charged him with deadly conduct, a Class A misdemeanor, according to Lt. Sean Wright.

He was taken to the City of Seabrook Jail and booked, after which the case was forwarded to the Harris County district attorney's office, Wright said.

So I checked out the local media.

Channel 11 covered it.

Seabrook police arrested a member of the city council over the weekend.

Councilmember Paul Richard Sammons was arrested and charged with deadly conduct.

The police department says officers found him with a gun, but the specifics about what happened have yet to be released.

An arraignment is scheduled for Friday on the deadly conduct charge.

Sammons is serving his second consecutive term on the Seabrook City Council.

And that's it -- none of the other local media, including the Houston Chronicle (our "paper of record" here in Harris County), covered the story at all.

Let's see. Local elected oficial arrested on a weapons charge. Cops are keeping mum. Press is virtually silent. Is it a cover-up? Or just piss-poor coverage?

I've always laughed when that line shows up in the credit card commercial about identity theft.

And I haven't been able to get it out of my head since seeing this story.

Japanese scientists have unveiled the most human-looking robot yet devised - a "female" android called Repliee Q1.

She has flexible silicone for skin rather than hard plastic, and a number of sensors and motors to allow her to turn and react in a human-like manner.

She can flutter her eyelids and move her hands like a human. She even appears to breathe.

Professor Hiroshi Ishiguru of Osaka University says one day robots could fool us into believing they are human.

Repliee Q1 is not like any robot you will have seen before, at least outside of science-fiction movies.

She is designed to look human and although she can only sit at present, she has 31 actuators in her upper body, powered by a nearby air compressor, programmed to allow her to move like a human.

My girl robot -- indeed.

UPDATE: Dirty Harry, Tony B, and Kim DuToit have some related comments.

Yesterday it was triumph.

Now we know it could have been tragedy.

And we have no idea of what the future holds.

NASA has announced that all shuttles will be grounded due to more problems with foam insulation breaking free during launch. Discovery will complete its mission and return, to be followed by...?

The shuttle Discovery, like Columbia, shed a large chunk of foam debris during liftoff that could have threatened the return of the seven astronauts, NASA said today.

While there are no signs the piece of insulation damaged the spacecraft, NASA is grounding future shuttle flights until the hazard can be fixed.

``Call it luck or whatever, it didn't harm the orbiter,'' said shuttle program manager Bill Parsons. If the foam had broken away earlier in flight, when the atmosphere is thicker increasing the likelihood of impact, it could have caused catastrophic damage to Discovery.

``We think that would have been really bad, so it's not acceptable,'' said Parsons' deputy, Wayne Hale. But he said early signs are Discovery is safe for its return home.

A large chunk of foam flew off Discovery's redesigned external fuel tank just two minutes after what initially looked like a picture-perfect liftoff Tuesday morning. But in less than an hour NASA had spotted images of a mysterious object whirling away from the tank.

Mission managers did not realize what the object was - or how much havoc it would cause to the shuttle program - until Wednesday after reviewing video and images taken by just a few of the 100-plus cameras in place to watch for such dangers.

Officials do not believe the foam hit the shuttle, posing a threat to the seven astronauts when they return to Earth on Aug. 7. But they plan a closer inspection of the spacecraft in the next few days to be sure.

``You have to admit when you're wrong. We were wrong,'' Parsons said. ``We need to do some work here, and so we're telling you right now that the ... foam should not have come off. It came off. We've got to go do something about that.''

The loss of a chunk of debris, a vexing problem NASA thought had been fixed, represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2½ years and over $1 billion trying to make the 20-year-old shuttles safe to fly.

``We won't be able to fly again,'' until the hazard is removed, Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.

Damn!

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE VI; Cl. 3 The Senators and Representatives..., and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. [Emphasis and bold added.]

Do inquiries by Senators about the intersection of religious beliefs and the performance of official duties constitute a religious test under the terms of the Constitution? Does the refusal of a Senator to vote to confirm a candidate because of that candidates "deeply held personal/religious beliefs" constitute a violation of the Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution? Those are questions we have dealt repeatedly over the last several years. They arise again with the nomination of Judge john Roberts, a faithful practicing Catholic, to the US Supreme Court..

Let me answer the question forthrightly in the negative -- neither situation constitutes a violation of the constitutional ban on religious tests.

Let me explain, in the context of discussing an editorial in the New York Sun.

Senator Durbin of Illinois, fresh from slandering American GIs by comparing them to Nazis, introduced a new slander into the public debate after meeting on Friday with President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts. Mr. Durbin, according to several press reports, asked the nominee to the high court whether he had considered potential conflicts between the moral imperatives of his Roman Catholic faith and his responsibilities as a judge.

Mr. Durbin's press secretary, Joseph Shoemaker, promptly denied that his boss asked such a question. But law professor Jonathan Turley, who reported on the meeting between Mr. Durbin and Judge Roberts in a Los Angeles Times column that appears on the adjacent page, said he heard about the conversation directly from Mr. Durbin - and confirmed the senator's account with Mr. Shoemaker as well. Mr. Durbin has since clammed up.

Based on the senator's performance so far, it's no doubt a wise policy, one that would serve him well all the way through the confirmation hearings, in which Mr. Durbin will participate as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Interrogating a nominee in respect of his religious beliefs is not only grossly inappropriate. It's unconstitutional. In Article 6, the Constitution provides that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No, ever, any. It's the most emphatic single sentence in the entire Constitution.

Now let me say that I find the position taken by Senator Durbin to be repugnant. However Durbin, an anti-Catholic Catholic if there ever was one, has raised an important question. How would this nominee respond if the law required one outcome to a case but his faith compelled a different one? On its face, this is not an improper question. In light of the current War on Jihadi Terrorism, it would be prudent to raise a similar question with a Muslim nominee to a high office which dealt with defense, national security, intelligence, or homeland security. Would it constitute a "religious test" for office? No -- it would go to the heart of the issue of the nominee's ability to properly carry out the duties of the office. The issue is not one of religious beliefs per se. Rather, it is focused on the ability of the nominee to do the job for which he or she is nominated. In the current situation, it is designed to determine whetehr or not Judge Roberts has an appropriate sense of the role of a judge and the temperment/character to carry perform in that role.

Now please note tahtDurbin seems to reserve his religious scrutiny for his fellow Catholics who are more faithful to Catholic teachings than he is, and for Protestants with a more fundamentalist/evangelical bent. There is no record of his making such inquiries of jews or non-Christians, nor of those Christians whose religious views are less respectful with the historical tenets of Christianity. As such, I find his questions tinged with a religious bigotry which is fundamentally unAmerican -- but the questions themselves are reasonable and proper.

Now we all know that these religious questions are primarily a proxy for questions about abortion and the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Again, these are proper areas for scrutiny. If a hypothetical nominee were, for example, a member of the Christian Identity Movement (White Supremacy dressed up with a facade of theology), would it not be proper to inquire about the nominee's ability to uphold the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Acts enacted pursuant to them? Of course it would -- and the failure of the nominee to give "the right answers" would be a more than sufficient basis for rejection without running afoul of Article VI.

But how does that square with the many weighty and serious quotes from the Founders regarding religious tests for office?

How could the Founders of America have made it any more plain? From Tench Coxe, in his examination of the Constitution ("No religious test is ever to be required of any officer or servant of the United States. The people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of the various duties of the government") to William Lancaster of North Carolina ("... we form a government for millions not yet in existence. I have not the art of divination. In the course of four or five hundred years, I do not know how it will work. This is most certain, that Papists may occupy that chair, and Mahometans may take it" ) to Luther Martin ("there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism") to Edmund Randolph ("A man of abilities and character, of any sect whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under the United States"), the Founders debated the religious test from every angle and then, by an overwhelming margin, excluded it.

The answer, of course, is to understand what constituted a religious test in the mind of an educated American in the latter part of the eighteenth century -- to strictly construe the original intent of the text at the time of its writing and adoption. These were men whose context was fundamentally British, and whose historical points of reference were usually those which came from that heritage. It is no accident, for example, that the rights protected in the Bill of Rights are a reaction to the abuses of the British monarchs over the previous two centuries. Viewed in that context, the prohibition on religious tests is designed to prevent the imposition of "test oaths" which excluded members of certain sects from holding public office or exercising certain rights. The most famous of these were the anti-Catholic oaths which forced individuals to repudiate certain tenets of the Catholic faith and the authority of the pope. Those who refused to take such an oath were barred from public offices and faced certain restrictions on their liberties. Such is not the case with Durbin's questions, which could NEVER rise to the level of a "religious test" in the sense intended by the Founder. Durbin's refusal to vote for a candidate because of those views also does not violate the religious test provision, any more than my refusal to vote for a Satanist does.

Mr. Durbin insisted to reporters last week that he wasn't interested in applying a "litmus test" to judicial nominees. The senator told Judge Roberts, "If you will be honest and forthcoming, you're going to find a warm reception from our side of the aisle, even if we disagree with you on any given issue." But two days later, Mr. Durbin went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to say that if Judge Roberts did not find an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, on which the right to abortion is based, "It would disqualify him in my mind."

Now notice, please, that Durbin's basis for giving or denying his vote is NOT religious, but is instead based upon constitutional interpretation. That is a legitimate basis for a Senator to use in making a decision. After all, a nominee who stated that he believed that Plessy is right and Brown is wrong would merit rejection. While I disagree with Durbin's litmus test (and it is a litmus test, despite his protestation to the contrary), I don't have a problem with rejecting a nominee on the basis of jurisprudential principles, regardless of the source of the "deeply held personal beliefs" which lead to such a conclusion. I wish we on the conservative side had made a practice of doing so over the last few decades.

Yet the Democrats persist. "You wouldn't run for the United States Senate or for governor or for anything else without answering people's questions about what you believe," Senator Bayh of Indiana said this week. "And I think the Supreme Court is no different." This attitude is the side effect of using the courts to make laws rather than interpret them. But it will be an even greater debasement of the Constitution to see the judicial nomination process tarred by religious bigotry. Forty-five years after America finally elevated a Catholic to the presidency we will see whether Senators Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, and Kennedy recognize that Judge Roberts can't be tested on his "deeply held personal beliefs" in respect of religion.

Now I will agree with one statement here -- it is a debasement of the Constitution for religious bigotry to enter into the confirmation process. That said, it is not a violation of the Constitution for religious bigots like Senators Durbin, Leahy, Schumer, Kerry, and Kennedy to reject a nominee based upon such bigotry, any more than racist Senator Robert Byrd's votes against the only two African-Americans ever nominated to the Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution despite violating fundamental principles of human decency. For all their appeals to that which is worst in human nature, their questions and their votes do not violate the Constitution. To claim otherwise is to violate the very originalist principles that we conservatives ask our judges to apply.

All archaeological and anthropological research on ancient man in America could be stopped by an amendment proposed to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by Senator John McCain. An editorial in today's Seattle Times does a fine job of explaining what is at stake.

EIGHTY years after the Scopes trial dealt a blow to the anti-evolution movement, a similar face-off between science and religion is slated tomorrow in the U.S. Senate.

This time the issue is whether to preserve the right of science to discern the stories of the earliest Americans or to accede to beliefs of some Native American tribes that all ancient remains belong to them — even when there is no provable connection.

An action against science could stall the court-ordered study of Kennewick Man, the 9,300-year-old remains stored at the University of Washington's Burke Museum.

Science should win again.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing likely won't draw 1,000 spectators, as crowded around the Dayton, Tenn., courthouse for the trial of high-school teacher John Thomas Scopes, accused of illegally teaching evolutionary theory. But the debate no doubt will be as passionate as that rendered by William Jennings Bryan, for the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow, for the defense.

At issue now is whether to amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act with the addition of two words: "or was." So the act would redefine Native American to be "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is ... or was ... indigenous to the United States."

That means modern-day tribes could claim the remains from ancient tribes that long since moved on or died out — even remains of their ancestors' foes.

The proposed change is in response to last year's unequivocal federal rulings that scientists should be able to study Kennewick Man. When the skeleton was found in 1996 on federal land, the government quickly moved to repatriate the remains to four tribes that claimed them. Eight leading scientists sued and won. This month, they are studying the remains for the first time.

The tribes argued their oral histories say they always have been in the Northwest and contain no references to visitors — contrary to scientific evidence of widespread migration.

The federal courts sided with science, finding none of the Act's required proof of a connection to the tribes. Republican Sen. John McCain's proposed amendment would remove that burden of proven affiliation.

In other words, science would be stopped based upon the unsubstantiated claims of native American rligious traditions.

This would be like preventing the excavation and study of dinosur fossils because some whack-job points out that T-Rex isn't mentioned in Genesis.

Before anybody says "stem cells", please recognize that this is not about denying federal funding -- this is about preventiing all research.

And, of couse, the sponsor of this lousy legislation is John McCain. has he ever sponsored a worthwhile bill?

Yeah, I know that sounds like a bit of a stretch, but this decision by PA Gov. Ed Rendell seems to make that outcome the likely conclusion.

Even though Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll makes occasional malaprops and mistakes in judgment, Gov. Ed Rendell says he'll stick with her when he runs for re-election next year.

Asked yesterday if she'll be his running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2006, Rendell said, "I have no reason to expect differently."

Rendell told a state Capitol news conference that as lieutenant governor, Knoll takes her job seriously and "has conducted herself in office with dignity. A lot of people have been touched by the fact she is a caring and sensitive individual."

There is continuing speculation among some Democratic officials that Rendell might want a different running mate next year. Knoll's age, 74, and her occasional bouts of confusion in running the Senate during late-night sessions have raised some doubts about her performance.

But Rendell said, "Name me one thing the lieutenant governor has done wrong, substantively. Sure, she occasionally makes some malaprops, such as referring to me as Edward G. Robinson

So Rendell plans on keeping the confused, mind-fogged, Marine-hating, America-betraying witch on the ticket. Plenty of us will remember what she has done wrong.

Looks Like We've Made A Difference!">End This Arrogant Pol's Career
Looks Like We've Made A Difference!
Knoll Responds
Goodrich Family Accepts Apology

Oh, the humanity!

A tractor-trailer truck overturned on Interstate 10 this morning near South Wilmot Road, scattering 30,000 cases of Bud Lite beer along the highway.

The incident shut the left lane of I-10 West for hours, according to a state Department of Public Safety spokesman.

The driver, whose name was not available early today, sustained minor injuries and was expected to be released from a hospital this morning, said Frank Torres.

The DPS officer did not know what caused the truck to overturn about 5:30 a.m., but expected the freeway's left lane to be closed until at least 8 a.m. while workers clean up the beer.

"I don't know if it's cans or bottles," Torres added.

Really.

I mean, a Catholic parish has set up a monument to those slain by abortion. It is on church grounds, and is a reflection of the teachings of the church. On the last three months, the monument has been desecrated seven times -- vandalized and knocked off its pedastal. Do you think we have a prima facie case for treating this as a hate crime?

"When it's the seventh time, I question whether this is some sort of desecration or hate crime," said the church pastor, Father Henry Zinno. "When it's constant, obviously someone is making an effort to knock it down. By the seventh time there is a clear message."

The pastor has called the police. He's asked the church's 1,600 families to pay close attention as they drive by. And he had metal bars installed on the front and back of the stone memorial.

And still, the 4-foot monument that has been blessed by the bishop keeps being knocked to the ground.

"We keep putting it back up and calling the police," Zinno said, adding that it takes three or four men to lift it each time. "There's not much we can do."

But when Zinno found the stone rectangle lying on its side this weekend, he knew something more had to be done.

"Every time something like this happens, we announce it to parishioners," he said. "People got pretty upset about it."

The church has decided to put up motion detector lights. And a parishioner agreed to put iron rods into the monument to make it impossible to move.

One does not "accidently" knock over a piece of stone that takes three or four people to re-seat.

The wind does not simply start blowing it over.

This is a deliberate malicious attempt to silence a religious message.

It is an intentional act of hate against those who believe the truth that the monument proclaims.

It is a planned assault on rights explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by those who seek to coerce acceptance of one which is not there at all..

Space Shuttle Discovery has successfully launched, taking astronauts into space on the shuttle for the first time since the destruction of Space Shuttle Columbia on reentry in 2003.

Thundering upward atop a pillar of fiery exhaust, Discovery soared safely into orbit today to end a near 30-month ban on NASA shuttle flights imposed by the 2003 Columbia accident.

The shuttle and its seven astronauts lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center at 9:39 a.m. CDT, climbing steeply on a northerly course into a brilliant blue sky.

The rush of emotion that accompanied the dramatic display of NASA's long recovery from Columbia's demise was evident in the cockpit as the final moments of the countdown ticked away.

The firing room in the Launch Control Center was hushed of all but the crisp exchanges between NASA launch and test directors made their last moment safety checks and reporterd the outcome to the mission management team.

"We are go for launch!," barked Wayne Hale, the mission managment team chief.

"Our long wait may be over. On behalf of the many millions of people who believe so deeply in what we do. God speed," Leinbach told Discovery commander Eileen Collins and her six colleagues.

"The crew is go for launch!" Collins barked.

"Our hopes and prayers are with you," added Mark Taffet, the Discovery test conductor.

"Thank you very much," said Collins.

And then they were off.

Collins' crew includes pilot Jim Kelly, flight engineer Steve Robinson as well as mission specialists Andy Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, Charles Camarda and Soichi Noguchi of Japan.

God speed you all on this voyage, and bring you home to us safely.

And may I add a special congratulations to friends Roger, Tracy and Kevin just down the road at Johnson Space Center. I know your hearts have ached these last 30 months -- may this success help to soothe the loss and sadness.

The family of SSGT Joseph Goodrich has accepted the apology of Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll.

"We asked for an apology and that's what we got," said Rhonda Goodrich, Joseph Goodrich's sister-in-law, who has been speaking on behalf of the family. She said the apology was accepted, although the family had also wanted Knoll to apologize to the Marine Corps.

"Probably, in all honesty, she didn't even know she was acting inappropriately, she's so out there," said Goodrich, of Indiana. "The business card, I will always believe, was handed out as campaign fodder."

Knoll said in her letter that she arrived too late to offer her personal condolences. That rankled Rhonda Goodrich, who said she believed Knoll came to get publicity.

"She didn't have time to be with Amy or Joe's parents, but she made time for the TV cameras," she said. "That's where I'm still a little bitter."

Goodrich said Knoll remarked to Joseph Goodrich's aunt that "our government" was opposed to the war.

And just to back up Rhonda's comment about Knoll not having time for the family, but being quite available to the press on the day of the funeral, Annie O'Neill of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provides us with the photographic evidence.

One development I've noted -- and which is also noted by the Post-Gazette -- is that Rhonda Goodrich has now come under attack by the Left. It seems that she was involved in a protest against a taxpayer-funded pre-election program featuring Michael Moore at the local university. That appraently makes her a "Right Wing activist" with an axe to grind whose complaints should be dismissed as "exploiting her brother-inlaw's death for political reasons." I guess that those making such statments believe that only Left Wing activists may avail themselves of the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Such statements, I believe, tell us more about them and their moral depravity than it does about Rhonda.

(Hat Tip -- Michelle Malkin)

Previously:
End This Arrogant Pol's Career
Looks Like We've Made A Difference!
Knoll Responds

Reuters included this little gem of an error is an article about Sony buying the movie rights to Richard Clarke's first novel.

His novel, "The Scorpion Gate," will be published in October by Putnam Adult. The studio hopes the film adaptation will be the first in a series of John Clancy-style political thrillers. The project will be produced by former studio chief John Calley.

Uhhhh -- I think you mean TOM Clancy?

I know mistakes happen -- but isn't that what editors are for?

I wonder when and if they correct the error -- and if they acknowledge having done so.

Reading that headline, you may think I am nuts. After all, who could be against justice for slain police officers (or any murder victim)? Certainly not me, which is why I oppose the bill. It does nothing to get justice for murdered cops -- and has the effect of lowering the maximum sentence for cop-killers who manage to skip across the border into Mexico. Speaking as the brother of a cop, I don't find that acceptable at all.

Bob Baker, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, does a good job of explaing the problem with this well-intentioned bill sponsored by Congressman David Dreir.

Mexico has become a fugitive paradise, willingly harboring and giving sanctuary to hundreds of murderers who have fled the United States after their crimes. A 2001 Mexican Supreme Court decision in essence halted all extraditions of Mexican citizens, or those Americans of Mexican descent. That decision forbade Mexico from extraditing any person, whether or not a Mexican citizen, if that person faced a sentence that carried the possibility of life imprisonment, saying it would violate the Mexican constitution and was "cruel and unusual punishment." In addition, Mexico has consistently refused to extradite murderers if they faced the death penalty.

Dreier's legislation only worsens the situation.

The legislation, ostensibly designed to get cop killers returned to the United States, gives exclusive jurisdiction over such cases to the federal government. Washington then gets to decide, in negotiation with the foreign government harboring the cop killer, the sentence the killer will face. Only after the sentence is agreed upon would there be an extradition. The terms of the extradition treaty would preclude any state prosecution.

Yeah, that's right -- if someone managed to slip out of the US, they would be subject to a lesser penalty than if they were caught within the borders of the United States. Prosecution would be handled by the Federal Courts, with state charges forbidden (a violation of federalism). That's not acceptable to me, and shouldn't be to any American.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley succinctly pointed out these shortcomings in a blistering letter to Dreier. Cooley noted that while nicely titled, Dreier's legislation is nothing more than a sleight of hand that would, in the end, cheapen the sentence for the murder of police officers, acquiesce to the demands of Mexico, and provide an incentive for the murderers of law enforcement officers to flee to Mexico.

Let me be clear. If -- God forbid! -- something ever happens to my brother, I want to see the creep involved get the maximum possible penalty. (If it isn't the death penalty, I want 5 minutes with the cameras off so that I can administer 9mm of justice on behalf of my sister-in-law and my niece and my nephew.) What I do not want is for some Joe Wilson-type mint-tea-and-cookies diplomat to sit down with his corrupt Mexican government amigo and work out a sentence in advance of the trial and without regard to the penalties set forth by law.

The district attorney also pointed out that the Peace Officer Justice Act ignores the plight of all the other violent crimes committed by those who flee the country. It also discounts the considerable experience and expertise of local prosecutors who routinely prosecute murder cases.

I also object to the fact that this does nothing for the victims of crimes against ordinary citizens. This December will be the tenth anniversary of the "thrill-kill" murder of a former colleague's daughter by a couple of Mexican gangbangers who jumped back across the border. One was eventually arrested in Mexico, but the same ruling that prevents the extradition of cop killers also prevents the extradition of Kristie's murderer. Where is the justice in ignoring the deaths of ordinary Americans?

In the end, all I can say is that the status quo is better than the Dreier bill.

Michelle Malkin has been chasing down Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knall's response to the outrage at her conduct at the funeral of SSGT Joseph Goodrich.

Knoll won't speak publicly about her conduct. She won't hold a press conference to take questions about her conduct. She won't take press phone calls on the matter. She is even refusing calls from constituents and veterans groups on the matter.

And here is her "letter of apology".

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 25, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Office of the Lieutenant Governor Commonwealth News Bureau Room 200, Main Capitol Harrisburg, PA 17120 LT. GOVERNOR CATHERINE BAKER KNOLL LETTER OF APOLOGY HARRISBURG: July 25, 2005

Dear Mrs. Goodrich,

I am writing to further apologize and clarify what happened at the funeral of your beloved husband, Joseph. As a wife and mother, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to lose your spouse so suddenly. As an adored member of your family and one of Pennsylvania’s sons serving with soldiers from across the commonwealth, SSGT Joseph Goodrich, is one of this nation’s heroes.

As I said in my phone message to Rhonda, after I learned through press reports that your family was offended by my attendance, I was incredibly upset. I wanted to assure you once again that my intention was not to add to what must be a tremendously, heartbreaking, difficult period.

The war on terror is an immensely personal conflict for the thousands of people whose families continue to serve with honor, and I have attended dozens of funerals to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

My heart and prayers are with your family, and to the families of all the men and women serving the cause of freedom in the fight against terror. I unfortunately, did not arrive at the church services for SSGT Goodrich’s funeral in time to offer my personal condolences to you. As I also mentioned on Rhonda’s phone message, as I do with many Pennsylvanians I meet, I offered my business card so she could contact me, and as a sign of my willingness to help the family through this difficult time in any way I can. To do anything that was deemed insensitive was completely counter to my intent.

Sergeant Goodrich’s service was beyond the call of duty. If my regard for his family’s grief was seen another way, it is thoroughly regrettable. The fact that you have been offended deserves and receives my most profound apology.

I will continue to support our troops in my role as Lt. Governor and support our President as an American. That I somehow conveyed an impression that was interpreted as other than that will forever be saddening and upsetting to me.

Again, please accept my heartfelt apology and deepest sympathy.

Sincerely,
Catherine Baker Knoll
Lieutenant Governor

Let's assume that the explanation of the business card issue is accurate. It sounds sort of reasonable, and is at least plausible. I'd be willing to let that go -- EXCEPT for what she conspicuously leaves out of the "apology".

Yeah, that's right. There is something that is not addressed.

You know. The comment.

"I want you to know our government is against this war."

The letter completely fails to address what she said to this hero's family in the church during the funeral. She glossed over the most egregious offense by saying she 'supports the troops' -- and offered a Durbinesque apology for impressions, feelings and interpretations by the family. SHE NEVER APOLOGIZES FOR WHAT SHE SAID!

More commentary from The Anchoress, Bill Hennessey, Rambling's Journal, Brian J. Noggle and Blackfive.

Yesterday, I helped make a fuss over the disgusting actions of Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll, along with many other folks around the blogosphere, including Blackfive and Michelle Malkin. Well, we seem to have had some effect.

Written apologies will be sent to a fallen Marine's relatives angered by Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll's uninvited appearance at the soldier's funeral and her criticism of the war in Iraq, Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday.

Rendell said he will send a personal letter to the family of the late Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, of Westwood, and will ask Knoll to do the same. Goodrich, 32, a police officer and infantry unit leader, died July 10 in a mortar attack in Hit, Iraq.

Rendell said he hadn't spoken with Knoll about the incident, but was disturbed by the family's charge that she made a political statement against the war.

"It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war," Rendell said during an appearance in Mt. Washington.

Lt. Governor Knoll, on the other hand, is trying to backpedal through her spokesperson -- but has failed to speak herself, or to contact the offended family.

Knoll spokesman Sean Pendrak would not comment specifically on the Goodrich family's allegations.

"Obviously, the lieutenant governor extends her most sincere condolences to all families who have lost loved ones in the fighting," Pendrak said. "She also wants to convey her support of all of our fine young men and women in uniform."

That support means little to Rhonda Goodrich, who believes Knoll was more interested in jump-starting next year's re-election bid than offering genuine sympathy to mourners.

"She never said to anyone, 'If there's anything I can do to help, just call my office,' " Goodrich said. "It seems like she's going to funerals and using business cards as campaign fliers."

Rhonda Goodrich remains angry, but she is grateful for one thing.

"I'm glad she didn't sit down next to me and say those things," Goodrich said. "I would have smacked her on the spot."

You know, part of me wishes that Knoll HAD sat down next to Rhonda -- she might have gotten a small measure of what she deserves.

Now if we can just get this woman out of office -- she is still a disgrace.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin, Narcissistic views on News/Politics, Blackfive, and Irish Pennants)

And look -- Chris Muir has taken notice!

No, I'm serious -- who is responsible for feeding the children? Is it the parents, or is it the government?

That is my reaction to an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle.

Last month, needy children ate more than 2 million free, nourishing meals thanks to the Houston Independent School District. The Galena Park school district fed wholesome meals to 48,000 hungry youngsters.

Both school systems should be commended for recognizing the importance of a reliable, accessible source of food for children whose parents can't provide it. So it's inexplicable that both districts left the same kids utterly adrift when both shut their doors to prepare for the school year.

Now wait just one minute here. What is the business of a SCHOOL district? Is it providing an education for its students, or is it the complete care and feeding of the kids year round? I think the answer is obvious to sensibele, thinking people. That would explain why the Chronicles editorial staff gets the answer wrong.

Now I have to be careful here, because I work in one of these districts, but it seems to me that we have lost focus on the mission of the public schools. That mission is the intellectual, social, and moral education of children. It is not to be a one-stop medical/feeding/day-care center. During the school year, my district offers a free day-care program for the offspring of our students, a free/low-cost heath care clinic for students, and a free/reduced lunch program for all students. This summer it offered free breakfast and lunch for any "child" who walked in off the street, regardless of income -- and "child" was defined as AGE 20 AND UNDER! That's right. We had "children" age 18-20 (what most thinking people would generally refer to as "adults") walking into school buildings and being fed at taxpayer expense. What was even more absurd, the regulations imposed by the federal government forbade the sale of these same meals to school employees who were working in the building, including those of us who were actually teaching summer school!

Now, though, that the program is over, the Chronicle is upset that these districts are shirking some sort of purported moral responsibility to feed the children when there is no school in session.

Like other school districts around the country, Houston and Galena Park are eligible for reimbursement from the federal government for food and operating costs of student free meal programs. The government pays $2.74 for each meal a child consumes, which can be used to hire staff to handle the food and monitor the number of meals served. But as summer school ends and the fall semester starts to loom, school systems apparently find it difficult to keep serving the federally-funded meals on their campuses. Galena Park stopped serving its meals Friday; HISD shut most of its 256 cafeterias several weeks earlier.

This needless lapse in stewardship should not be allowed to happen. Even if entire school systems must close their doors for maintenance, the schools can still act as conduits to get that free food to poor children. Even after a district has ended its program for the summer, it can restart it again as a sponsor for another site, almost until the start of the school year. All the district needs to do is contact nonprofits, whether community centers or churches willing to provide a site where children can eat. Schools can invite teachers or contract cafeteria personnel to freelance as food managers at the interim locations. More than likely, some parents and other community members would be happy to oversee a meal program for free.

Arranging interim food service in the summer might be time-consuming, but what task could be more urgent?

I don't suppose that the Chronicle ever considered proposing that private groups run such programs without government money or oversight. After all, how can we possibly expect there to be positive results without government involvement? And I can't help but laugh at the notion that teachers should volunteer to run such programs -- after all, Texas teacher salaries are only about $6000 below the national average. Why doesn't the Chronicle send its employees out during the middle of the day to run such programs if, as they claim, "there is no task which could be more urgent"? All of this overlooks such antiquated notions as having the children fed a meal at home, prepared by a parent or other family member.

It's certainly feasible: In San Antonio, the schools have organized an almost seamless transfer of summer meals. There is no excuse for Harris County school districts to deny the same services for our own hungry children.

Right now, tens of thousands of Houston children are going without needed meals. Administrators at HISD and GPISD should get on the phone to help them right now. They'll likely find plenty of nonprofits eager to lend a hand. Galena Park Boxing Academy, which is also a child enrichment center, has space for 200 children to eat free meals at once, academy President Kenny Weldon said. The facility can even supply a monitor.

"Of course we'd be willing," Weldon said. "What do you do — take care of kids for one part of the year but not the other?"

But then again, maybe I am too hard-hearted. Maybe the editorial is right. Children need to be fed year-round, and parents are clearly not up to the task.

But what about other school breaks and holidays? These children should not be left to fend for themselves for a week or two at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Spring Break! Clearly, the cafeterias must remain open during those times off as well.

And what about the irresponsible practice of sending children home on Friday afternoon and closing the cafeterias over the weekend? It seems absurd that we would expect children to survive through a Saturday and a Sunday without a hot breakfast and lunch. School districts need to keep the cafeterias open on the weekend as well, to avoid subjecting our nation's children to two whple days without nutrition.

I've also got a solution to what I see as the "dinner problem". By extending the school day by two or three hours, we can make sure that each student gets a hot dinner, ensuring three square meals a day. The interim time could be devoted to additional instructional time, though I certainly see the objections of those who see the extra classroom time as educators over-emphasizing academics.

But what I've not managed to solve is how to guarantee that evey child gets a bowl of ice cream and a kiss on the forehead before bed. What do you think -- are parents up to such a task?

For once I agree with the Houston Chronicle on something.

It's official: Lance Armstrong makes it a magnificent seven

Lance Armstrong closed out his amazing career with a seventh consecutive Tour de France victory today -- and did it a little earlier than expected.

Because of wet conditions, race organizers stopped the clock as Armstrong and the main pack entered Paris. Although riders were still racing, with eight laps of the Champs-Elysees to complete, organizers said that Armstrong had officially won.

The stage started as it has done for the past six years -- with Armstrong wearing the race leader's yellow jersey. It ended the same way, too -- with him celebrating, this time by a comfortable margin of more than 4 1/2 minutes.

One hand on his handlebars, the other holding a flute of champagne, Armstrong toasted his teammates as he pedaled into Paris to collect his crown. He held up seven fingers -- one for each win -- and a piece of paper with the number 7 on it.

When it was over, Armstrong saluted the race he's made his own.

"Vive le Tour, forever," he said.

Well done!

Once again, the Israelis are making noise about the "unjust" sentence of traitor Jonathan Pollard, who betrayed the United States by spying for Israel.

Knesset Law Committee chairman Michael Eitan, a former chairman of the Knesset Pollard caucus, expressed disappointment with the US legal system. Israel has proven to be more humane than the US, Eitan said, noting that nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu served only 18 years.

"Pollard is serving a sentence disproportionate to his crime," Eitan said.

He said he believed that the Pollard case could now only be resolved between the US president and the Israeli prime minister.

Now I'll agree that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime -- but unfortuantely, Pollard did not qualify for the death penalty which he richly deserved. And it is an injustice that he is serving this sentence alone -- but the Isaelis refused to turn over those officials who recruited and coordinated his betrayal of the United States, as well as those who approved his spying.

Let me offer Israel this easy-to-understand message from one American citizen -- shut up about Pollard, and quit trying to get him released. Remember that you are the JUNIOR partner in this strategic relationship, and that you need the US much more than we need you, given that you suck at the US foreign aid teat to the tune of at least $4 billion annually. Any American president who lets Pollard go will be rejected by the American people, if not impeached. So Pollard will stay in a US prison, where he belongs, until he rots -- and that is how it should be. Deal with it.

Congressman Tom Tancredo makes an excellent point in response to those who criticize his misreported, mishcharacterized "nuke Mecca" statement.

Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.

In many respects, the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves.

Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.

Exactly -- and until "condemnations" of terrorism and extremism by Muslim groups and organizations stop having a "but" in them, I don't care if how offended the Muslims are.

I really didn't. I never imagined hat anyone could sink lower than the arrogant politician I listed below. I didn't think that any so-called American could degrade our honored war dead and their faimlies any further.

And now I find that I am wrong. That someone could do this to the pregnant widow of a dead soldier is so incredibly infuriating.

Vandals are compounding the grief of a Tri-state soldier's family.

Not even 24-hours after Private First Class Tim Hines's wife and family said goodbye at his funeral, American flags that had adorned their Fairfield yard were piled beneath a car and burned.

Hines' sister-in-law woke up to hear her car alarm around 5:30 a.m. and saw her car on fire.

As firefighters brought the fire under control they discovered a pile of around 20 American flags underneath the car.

Neighbors say Hines' wife's family had flags line their front yard and on the porch.

Those were taken as well as flags in neighboring yards.

Hines was injured in Iraq and flown to Walter Reed Hospital in the Washington, D.C. area, but succumbed to the injuries before he could return home.

Hines' wife Katy is eight-months pregnant with their second child. She buried her husband on Friday.

Katy Hines had just moved back into her parents' home and woke up to find her sister's car consumed by flames.

Investigators believe the flags piled underneath were used to start the fire.

There are no words -- only fury.

And yet some still want to claim that their "dissent" is a higher form of patriotism than support for our troops. Yet such actions prove that it is really treason.

God bless and comfort the Hines family -- and may He righteously deal with those who committed this evil act.

(Hat Tip -- NeoBabble, Instapundit, Along The Tracks, The Anchoress, and The Violence Worker.)

UPDATE -- I've just come across this article, which adds a beautiful act of kindness to this sad story.

Hines met his wife, Katy, at Cincinnati Christian School. They had a 2-year-old daughter, Lily, and Katy expects to give birth to their second child in about two weeks.

An anonymous donor gave Cincinnati Christian $130,000 to cover tuition for Hines' children.

I do not know who you are, but God bless you for this gift. May you be richly reqarded in heaven.

Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich of Indiana, PA died on July 10, 2005, fighting for his country in Iraq. He is a hero, and as such he and his family deserve to be treated with the utmost respect. That is why the actions of Pennsylvania Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll are particularly egregious.

Now put yourself in the place of the Goodrich family. You have lost a family member. You are at the funeral in a church full of mourners. And then someone you don't even know shows up at the church and plunks down among the family. I'll let Rhonda Goodrich, Staff Sgt. Goodrich's sister-in-law, pick up the narrative.

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

Goodrich said she is positive that Knoll was not invited to the funeral, which was jammed with Marines in dress uniform and police officers, because the fallen Marine had been a policeman in McKeesport and Indiana County.

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.

Yeah, you read that right -- during the funeral for one of our honored war dead, this arrogant BITCH of a politician had the audacity to look a member of the family in the eye say "I want you to know our government is against this war."

I'm sorry -- I've never been a big believer in having politicians at funerals unless they are friends of thedeceased, the family or are otherwise invited guests. They certainly should not be showing up in any sort of "official capacity" without clearing it in advance with the family. And no one at a funeral should do or say anything to add to the distress or the grief of the surviving family. There are other times and places for that.

But that is what Lt. Governor Knoll did. She showed up uninvited. She dishonored the deceased hero. She deeply hurt and offended the family.This woman needs to be driven from office by the people of Pennsylvania and loyal Americans everywhere -- whether they be supporters or opponents of the war in Iraq. Some things are simply beyond the pale. Dishonoring a dead Marine and distressing his family falls into that category, and must be reason to end her career.

Further commentary on this issue from Blackfive, Large Bill Pontificates, Pennywit, Media Lies, The Indepundit, and Michelle Malkin (who even quoted me!)

Today's horrific terror attack in Egypt has taken at least 88 lives, according to the most recent reports.

Egypt's president vowed Saturday to hunt down terrorists who unleashed a rapid series of car bombs and another blast in this Egyptian Red Sea resort, devastating a luxury hotel and a coffee shop and killing at least 88 people in the nation's deadliest terror attack.

The early morning attacks, which used more than a half-ton of explosives, came just two days after the latest strikes in London and sent an already jittery world reeling again. At least 119 people also were wounded, the Interior Ministry said.

With two extremist groups claiming responsibility, Egypt tightened security at other busy tourist sites like the Pyramids and Luxor, and the government and British tourist agencies sent large aircraft to the Sinai to fly home nervous tourists.

"This cowardly, criminal act is aimed at undermining Egypt's security and stability and harming its people and its guests," President Hosni Mubarak said during a live national broadcast. "This will only increase our determination in chasing terrorism."

Let's hope that Mubarak is able to run these folks to ground. Terrorists are teh enemies of all humanity.

But despite the admissions of guilt by al-Qaeda associated jihadi swine, guess who is being blamed for the attack on television bradcasts in the Arab world. You got it -- the Jews!

Shortly after the attacks, Egypt's state-run television interviewed retired army general Fuad Allam. He said that he was almost certain that Israel was behind the attacks at Sharm e-Sheikh and Taba.

According to Fuad, investigations have shown that the mastermind of the Taba attack was a Palestinian "apparently linked to Israel's security forces."

He added: "I'm almost certain that Israel was also behind this attack because they want to undermine our government and deal a severe blow to our economy. The only ones who benefit from these attacks are the Israelis and the Americans."

Allam's remarks were re-aired several times during the day by Egyptian TV. Other commentators who made similar charges against Israel included political figures and prominent journalists and editors.

Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, the Arab world's leading satellite TV stations, also hosted a number of commentators who claimed that Israel was behind the latest wave of terror in Egypt.

Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamic terror groups, from Cairo, said in a phone interview with Al Arabiya: "Israel is the only country that benefits from this," he said, referring to the attacks in Sharm e Sheikh.

Dismissing the theory that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, Rashwan explained: "We are giving Al Qaeda more credit than it deserves. What happened here negates the possibility that the attacks were carried out by ordinary elements. This is the work of an extraordinary element – one that benefits from such attacks. All the available details indicate that only the Israelis could have done this."

Majdi Birnawi, another "security expert," told Al Jazeera that he was confident that the Mossad was behind the attacks. "I believe that Mossad or some other [Israeli] security organization carried out this attack," he claimed.

Birnawi said he believed Saturday's attacks were in response to the attack at the Taba Hilton Hotel, in which 12 Israelis were killed. "Everyone knows that there are no Israelis in Sharm e-Sheikh," he said. "There are only Western tourists there. That's why it's wrong to assume that the perpetrators were targeting Israelis."

So I guess it doesn't matter if their co-religionists make a voluntary confession -- only Israel could possibly be guilty for this and every act of evil in the world. Such rampant anti-Semitism is but one more symptom of the disease of Islamist radicalism that underlies such terrorist acts.

Congratualtions to Houston City Councilman Mark Ellish for his move to undo the city's sanctuary policy and have HPD officer's trained to enforce immigration law.

Since 1992, Houston police officers have been officially forbidden from enforcing immigration law in most cases. Other city departments generally take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach toward immigrants, officials acknowledge.

Now those policies are under attack. Locally, City Councilman Mark Ellis called this week for training HPD officers to enforce immigration laws. And in Washington, D.C., congressional conservatives have proposed legislation to require local police to help patrol for illegal immigrants.

Ellis, a Republican, said city officials should have heeded a 2002 proposal from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to increase federal and local cooperation on immigration law.

"If we had done what Ashcroft and the Bush administration had asked us to do, we wouldn't have the Minutemen coming to Houston," Ellis said of the Arizona-based organization opposed to illegal immigration that has announced it will begin patrols in Houston in October.

Ellis said he does not advocate using HPD officers for raids or roundups, but critics say they fear that would be the result of such a policy change.

"It's so unjust to stop someone and ask them for their papers because they look Hispanic," said Harris County District 6 Constable Victor Treviño.

Now the only problem with Treviño's comment is that nobody is talking about random stops to check papers. What is being talked about is allowing police to inquire about immigration status and to cooperate with immigration officials who want to check the status of those being held in the city lock-up. Treviño is simply being dishonest when he talks about anything else.

ICE spokeswoman Luisa Deason said her agency would still appreciate closer cooperation from Houston police in searching for illegal immigrants who are also criminals. She noted that HPD will not let immigration officials in the city jail to check the immigration status of those detained.

An investigation last year by the Congressional Research Service cited 31 cities across the country with policies that prevent local authorities from enforcing immigration laws. That includes Houston, Katy and Austin, as well as cities such as Fairbanks, Alaska.

Some conservatives in Congress, including U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, support legislation that would cut off federal funding to such "sanctuary cities."

Not only will this extend to law enforcement, but other city departments may undo the unofficial ban on checking immigration status.

But the policy has never been formally approved by the City Council and does not officially govern other departments. Before he became a city councilman, immigration attorney Gordon Quan lobbied for a law that would make Houston a "Safety Zone" for illegal immigrants. The proposal died in 1997 after garnering no council support.

But even without the official policy, city officials outside the Police Department are not encouraged to cooperate with immigration officials, Quan notes. He does not see any point in revisiting the issue.

"I just think it would be very divisive to talk about this immigration policy," he said.

Yeah, Mr. Quan -- it might well divide you from some of your voters, namely the ones who support the enforcement of American immigration laws and those who believe in American sovereignty.

But most frightening of all is this comment by Constable Treviño.

But Treviño said that if citizens and even police started entering Hispanic neighborhoods and asking locals for their documents, it would create a major backlash.

"It'll be worse than the Civil War," he said.

So what you are saying, sir, is that there is a lawless minority among us -- folks who have broken the law to come to this country -- which will engage in acts of violence in the event we begin to enforce the laws of this country. Do you not see that it is therefore incumbent upon law enforcement to root them out, and to get them out of this country for the safety of American citizens and those aliens legally in the country? Do you not see that you are advocating surrender to the immigration criminals, jin the same manner as those who advocate appeasement of the jihadi terrorists? Frankly, sir, if you cannot bring yourself to support the enforcement of the law, you are unfit to hold your job and should resign.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Is Britain Too Decadent to Survive? by Gates of Vienna, and Apologists Among Us by Normblog.  The full results of the vote are here.

And there is another opening on the Watcher's Council. See this post for further information.

The death toll continues to rise in Egypt.

The most recent reports indicate that the death toll is now over 80, and that it is expected to rise further.

The attack, Egypt's deadliest terror hit ever, appeared well coordinated. Two car bombs, possibly by suicide attackers, went off simultaneously at 1:15 a.m. just more than 2 miles apart. A third bomb, believed hidden in a sack, detonated around the same time near a beachside walkway where tourists often stroll at night.

A total of 83 people had been confirmed dead, said Dr. Saeed Abdel Fattah, manager of the Sharm el-Sheik International Hospital where the victims were taken. Among the dead were two Britons, two Germans and an Italian, he added, and Czech officials said one Czech tourist was also killed. Rescue workers were still searching for victims at some attack scenes.

Several hours after the attacks, a group citing ties to al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the explosion on an Islamic web site. The group, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, al-Qaida, in Syria and Egypt, was one of two extremist groups that also claimed responsibility for October bombings at the Egyptian resorts of Taba and Ras Shitan that killed 34. The group also claimed responsbility for a Cairo bombing in late April.

The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately verified.

According to reports, there may be more dead in one of the hotels.

The death toll could rise, rescue workers said. The lobby of the 176-room Ghazala Gardens hotel in Sharm's Naamah Bay, the main strip of hotels, collapsed into a pancaked pile of concrete. After hours of clearing through piles of rubble and scrap metal, emergency workers called off rescue efforts, at least temporarily, there around midday.

This could get much uglier, depending on what is found in the rubble.

May God have mercy on the soulds of the dead, may he heal the injured, strenthen the resue workers -- and fling the perpetrators headlong into the very bowels of Hell.

After all the discussion last Tuesday about Judge Edith Brown Clement, President bush nominated Judge John Roberts tot he Supreme Court. What happened?

Mentioning the little-known Judge Edith Brown Clement as front-runner for the Supreme Court vacancy was not a ploy to obscure the eventual selection of Judge John Roberts. She was the real runner-up, after evoking mixed reviews from conservatives.

President Bush was very much impressed with Clement during his interview with her, and sources say he gave her a White House tour. However, anti-abortion activists were not happy, contending that she has no record on their issue. Clement's supporters say she is very well thought of by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and that she would follow his lead on the court. Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a social conservative and prominent Catholic layman, is a strong Clement backer who vouched for her.

Given Bush's early inclination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with another woman, the reason why he passed over Clement is not clear. Sources close to the selection process speculate that the president may have suspected that Clement's supporters were too vocal in publicly promoting her.

Sounds reasonable to me -- although I suspect that the president simply decided to nominate the superior candidate.

And I say that as one who was on the Clement bandwagon.

I noted a few days ago that London's Guardian newspaper had an honest-to-God (or should that be "honest-to-Allah") terrorist supporter working for it, and writing columns in support of terrorism. Well, the paper has finally done the right thing, and dumped trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam.

Trainee journalist Dilpazier Aslam had his contract with the Guardian terminated today.

The move followed an internal inquiry into Aslam’s membership of the political organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

A statement said: “The Guardian now believes continuing membership of the organisation to be incompatible with his continued employment by the company.”

“Mr Aslam was asked to resign his membership but has chosen not to. The Guardian respects his right to make that decision but has regretfully concluded that it had no option but to terminate Mr Aslam’s contract with the company.”

The inquiry followed a piece written by Aslam for the Guardian’s comment pages entitled “We rock the boat”.

The statement added: “The Guardian accepts that it should have explicitly mentioned Mr Aslam’s membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir at the end of his comment piece.”

A correction will appear in the paper’s Corrections and Clarifications column.

The paper also went into a deeper explanation of its association with this jihadi wannabe, and the group of which he is a member.

Now normally I get upset when employers fire people over their religious and political associations (though, for the record, I recognize the moral right of a private employer to fire for any reason -- including race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc). But this case falls into the exemption from my outrage. Decent people do not associate with members of certain organizations -- The black panthers, the Klan, the Nazi Party, NAMBLA, the Jewish Defense League, and the like. Aslams's group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, falls into this catgory. So far from feeling a need to condemn the Guardian, I applaud it -- and hope that it eventually the paper drops its own anti-Semitic, terrorist-apologist editorial line.

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE: Ripclawe at Narcissistic views on News/Politics points out that the Guardian can't seem to get its story straight about what they knew, when they knew it, and why the got rid of Aslam. And Princeton Progressive Review's Asheesh Siddique engages in a gratuitous attack on Michelle Malkin (questioning her mental health and grouping her with Aslam as an extremist) while reluctantly agreeing with her.

What else can you do when you believe that a person is about to set off a homicide bomb? Even leftist London Mayor Ken Livingston admits as much.

Mr Livingstone said: "If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them, and therefore overwhelmingly in these circumstances it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Speaking of yesterday's operations, he said: "With each of these attacks, we have responded more rapidly and effectively and I'm glad it went as well as it did."

That does not, of course, stop complaintes from the usual suspects.

Muslim community leaders said they were taking calls from fellow Muslims who are afraid they may be targeted simply because they are carrying the wrong bag or wearing the wrong clothes.

The Muslim Council of Britain urged Scotland Yard to explain why police shot dead the Asian man who has been described as a "suspected suicide bomber". According to an eyewitness report the man was shot with five bullets. Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why police felt it was necessary to unload multiple bullets into this man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear.

"It is vital that police give a statement about exactly what occurred and explain why this man was shot dead rather than arrested and brought to trial."

Mr Bunglawala said Muslims were nervous and feared reprisal attacks.

He said: "I have just had one phone call saying, 'What if I was carrying a rucksack?' We are getting phone calls from quite a lot of Muslims who are distressed about what may be a shoot-to-kill policy."

Sorry, Bunglawala, but your co-religionists have unfortunately made Muslim lives very cheap. Jihadi swine have made it necessary for police to act in a manner that stops bombings and avoids setting off explosives strapped to the body. That means that suspects are going to die -- and they will be Muslims. I'm not celebrating it, just noting the revised reality that the terrorists in your midst have created. Until and unless you people start turning in the killers and would-be killers, this is how it will be. And until you eject the radicals from your midst, it will be impossible for the police to know who is a friend and who is a foe. I think the people of London would agree with that calculus.

This one is already quite ugly, as at least seven explosions are reported to have killed at least 25 and wounded over 110.

Saturday's explosions at 1:15 a.m., when many tourists would have been asleep, shook windows a mile away. Smoke and fire rose from Naama Bay, a main strip of beach hotels in the desert city popular with Israeli and European tourists, witnesses said.

A police official in Sharm el-Sheik said at least 25 were killed and 110 wounded in multiple explosions targeting the Ghazala Gardens and Movenpick hotels in Naama Bay and the Old Market area nearby. Other officials in Sharm said there may have been as many as seven blasts: three in Naama Bay and four in the market.

Amal Mustafa, 28, an Egyptian who was visiting with her family, said she drove by the Ghazala Garden — a 176-room four-star resort on the main tourist strip in Naama — and it was "completely burned down, destroyed."

Khaled Sakran, a resident, said he saw one explosion from the Old Market. "I saw the saw the fire in the sky," he told The Associated Press. "Right after, I saw a light in the sky and heard another explosion, coming from Naama Bay."

"The blast shook my house, I can see the fire and lots of smoke," Akram al-Sherif, a Jordanian who was staying at a summer house less than a mile away, said.

No group has yet admitted its guilt.

UPDATE: While the official death toll stands at 31 dead and 107 wounded, South Sinai province's governor, Mustafa Afifi, suggests that the actual death toll is 49, with over 200 wounded. It also seems that there were only three bombs, with the earlier reports of seven being based upon echoes and secondary explosions. The dead include British, Russian, Dutch, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Qataris and Egyptians.

Jonathan Pollard, whose treasonous activities on behalf of Israel served to endanger US national security for years, lost another appeal .

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Pollard waited too long to try to contest his 1987 sentence and failed to make a convincing case that he got poor legal help.

The court also ruled that it had no authority to review Pollard's request to see secret documents the Reagan administration submitted to the judge who imposed the sentence 16 years ago.

Pollard's lawyers said they needed to see the material to rebut government arguments against any new appeal or against a request for presidential clemency.

The legal challenge to Pollard's sentence was always viewed as a long shot, and his supporters have focused much of their effort on winning presidential clemency.

Pollard, who turns 51 next month, was a civilian intelligence analyst for the Navy when he copied and gave to his Israeli handlers enough classified documents to fill a walk-in closet. He was not paid when his spying began in 1984, but acknowledged that Israel later began paying him a few thousand dollars a month.

He was caught in November 1985 and arrested after unsuccessfully seeking refuge at the Israeli embassy. Pollard initially denied he worked for Israel but later acknowledged it. He claims prosecutors reneged on a promise to seek a lesser sentence in return for his cooperation.

His case has been a sticking point in U.S.-Israeli relations. The Israeli government, which granted Pollard citizenship, repeatedly has pressed for his release.

May he never be released, and may attempts by Israeli to have him set free be grounds for a reevaluation of our strategic relationship with that nation.

It seemed that someone with the federal government had finally started thinking about how to use the desire of American patriots to help secure the border. Unfortunately, it appears that it was one man talking out of school -- and Homeland Security has squashed the idea.

Homeland Security officials backed off an idea to form a civilian border patrol, with spokespeople quickly batting down an uproar Thursday caused by the department's border commissioner the day before.

By Thursday morning, the agency produced a statement distancing itself from comments the day before by one of its top border officials that he wanted to look into forming a civilian border auxiliary.

"We are aware of Customs and Border Protection Commissioner (Robert) Bonner's comments yesterday; however, the Department of Homeland Security has not received any specific details of the idea that the Commissioner raised," the agency said in a statement.

"There are currently no plans by the Department of Homeland Security to use civilian volunteers to patrol the border - that job should continue to be done by the highly-trained, professional law enforcement officials of the Border Patrol and its partner agencies."

I guess this means that the Minutemen and fellow loyal American citizens are back to being the enemy, and the border-jumping immigration criminals, their disloyal advocates, and the Mexican government still rank higher in the eyes of the folks responsible for securing the borders and keeping out those who violate our laws.

I am stunned beyond words that this is displayed in the offices of the California Department of Justice -- and is supported and funded by Democrat Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Absolutely unbelievable!

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News)

Just a quick reminder of why it is so important that this arrogant woman be ejected from the Supreme Court and rplaced with an originalist/textualist/strict constructionist judge as soon as possible.

"In all my years of my life I don't think I've ever seen relations (between Congress and the high court) as strained as they are now," O'Connor told a conference of judges and lawyers at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conference in Spokane, Washington.

O'Connor is the Supreme Court justice who handles certain matters from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

She said an integral part of the democracy that the United States is promoting around the world is an independent court system.

"And yet, in our country today, we're seeing efforts to prevent that -- a desire not to have an independent judiciary. That worries me," she said.

As an example of the congressional tendency to pick apart court rulings, she cited a March decision that declared the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional. The ruling noted the weight of international opinion and the fact that only one other country -- Somalia -- executes young offenders.

"Some citations were found very offensive by some members of Congress. I don't personally think it's a good idea to restrict freedom of speech or thought for anybody, even if they are federal judges," O'Connor said.

The reason, Sandy, for the bad relations is that you and your colleagues have strayed further and further from the Constitution in your decisions. You have wandered further and further away from the document that is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. As a result, the American people and their representatives are PISSED-OFF at you people. Yet you, having exceeded your authroity and wandered into a minefield of impeachable offenses, expect everyone to shut up and obey your commands like some sort of incarnate deity.

Let's look at Lawrence, for example. Now I agree with you that the Texas statute was a bad idea and I supported its repeal -- but did it go beyond what is permitted by the Constitution? No, it did not. The court's own decision in hardwick v. Bowers affirmed such statutes less than 20 years before. What changed? What was the basis for this decision in the Constitution? Frankly, there isn't one -- for not one of the Framers would have supported your decision. But you knew better than the Framers, and so amended the Constitution.

And Roper v. Simmons, the case you cite -- it isn't that many years since you upheld the execution of older teens. What changed? one or two state laws -- but hardly enough to make the argument that such executions are seen as cruel and unusual under the Amendment VIII. As for the laws of other nations -- THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! The laws of the EU, Peru, and Outer Mongolia are not binding upon the United States -- and neither are unratified treaties. In Roper v. Simmons, though, you treated them as having precedent value that exceets that of the US Constitution, the laws of several states, and the court decisions of those states. Yeah -- we Americans, citizens of a nation that strived to be out from under the laws of other nations -- are going to be upset that foreign law will be used to interpret the meaning of our founding document.

Now you claim that you don't think the speech or thoughts of anyone should be restricted -- but that is exactly what you seek when you make this complaint. You want to pressure your opponents into silence. All your talk about an independent judiciary ignores the fact that the judiciary is but one of three branches of the federal government, and that its role is seen as co-equal to those of the executive and legislative branches. Yes, you folks serve as a check on the other two branches, but they also are to check you. They have failed to do so in recent decades, and now that there is a move on to do so you want to stop it. Sorry, Sandy, the time has come to put the Supreme Court back in its proper place.

See what happens when Condi gets angry.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded an apology from Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir after U.S. officials and journalists were manhandled at a meeting on Thursday.

"It makes me very angry to be sitting with their president and have this happen," Rice told reporters on her plane before leaving Khartoum for Darfur. Earlier, she told reporters she wanted an apology.

Sudanese officials shoved U.S. journalists away from the Bashir meeting and slammed the wooden doors to his palace in their faces. Some U.S. officials were also blocked for several minutes before the Sudanese agreed to allow Rice and aides in. The media was later allowed to witness briefly

Such a blatant disregard of protocol is an insult to the US, and for her entourage to be locked out is completely unacceptabel. But then again, what should we expect from a tin-pot dictator like the "president" of Sudan.

But she got results.

Sudan's foreign minister on Thursday apologized to visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the manhandling of U.S. officials and journalists in Khartoum, a U.S. official said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail had phoned Rice while she was on a plane to Darfur in western Sudan to say sorry. Rice had earlier demanded an apology.

"He apologized for the treatment of our delegation and the press corps," McCormack told journalists traveling with Rice.

Sudanese security staff manhandled U.S. officials and journalists outside a meeting between Rice and Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

She says what she means and gets what she wants.

Rice '08!

Senator James Inhofe, in the name of protecting a major local employer, is trying to stomp out its smaller, cheaper, more convenient competition.

A popular air travel route between Tulsa and Dallas would be shut down, if legislation being proposed by Senator Jim Inhofe goes through.

The True Competition Act would close Love Field to commercial air traffic and force Southwest Airlines to fly out of Dallas-Fort Worth. Inhofe says it's necessary to protect American Airlines, Tulsa's biggest employer.

But as News on 6 business reporter Steve Berg tells us, travelers don't exactly "love" the idea.

Tulsan Emily Warren is on her way to Dallas on Southwest Airlines to visit her boyfriend. It's a trip she makes frequently. And she likes Love, Love Field that is. "I would much rather go through Love. I know Dallas-Fort Worth just gets packed.

Restrictions on flights too and from Love field were implemented when DFW was opened, at the insistance of corrupt House Speaker Jim Wright. Southwest has been operating within the limits and doing so so successfully that they have been trying to get the restrictions lifted to meet public demand. As a result, Inhofe is seeking to close Love Field completely, because the competition has cut in to American's bottom line.

Something is up on the London Tube and a bus line this morning, two weeks to the day after the 7/7 attacks. Details are incredibly unclear at this point, but it involves 3 Tube stations and 1 bus. -- exactly like two weeks ago.

Some reports of small explosions around 1230-1245 local time, other reports of strong odors ("like wiring" -- "a sour smell"). Could this be a chemical or biological attack?

No reports of major casualties yet (and hopefully none will be forthcoming, God willing) -- some reports of minor injuries.

Heck, reports are simply very unclear. BBC & Sky are calling the blasts "minor" as of 1400 London Time (0900 Easterm/0800 Central/0700 Mountain/0600 Pacific).

UPDATE: As of 1600 London time, Prime Minister Blair has indicated that this is a minor attack without substantive causalties (Thanks be to God). Australia's PM Howard slapped down those who suggested terrorism is because of Iraq -- points out the many attacks by Islamofascist jihadi swine that predated that war, including 9/11 & Bali.

The best news is the lack of evidence of chemical or biological weapons.

Many years ago, long before he was president, John F. Kennedy owned a sailboat. Over the years it has passed through many hands.

Currently, it belongs to Gregory Olaf Anderson and Harry Crosby. Unfortunately, Anderson was convicted of drug smuggling, and authorities traced the cash back to Anderson's sale of marijuana.

Kennedy bought the Star Class sloop "Flash II" in 1934 and sailed it in races off Hyannis. He sold the boat in 1942 just before shipping out for World War II.

Anderson, who bought the boat in 1996, was arrested in Arizona in 2001 and sentenced to 18 months in prison for transporting 1,300 pounds of marijuana.

After his release, he allegedly contacted a partner with the intention of setting up another drug trafficking business, not knowing that the partner was cooperating with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

DEA agents, acting on a tip from that informant, seized the boat from a storage facility in Marblehead last year.

Kerner said his client, who owns a construction company, is confident the sailboat will fetch more than $500,000 at auction.

IGiven when the boat was purchased, it wouldn't surprise me if the money came from Kennedy's father, Joseph P. Kennedy -- who is known to have been involved in bootlegging during Prohibition. It therefore seems appropriate that we've come full circle, with the boat becoming governemnt property because of drug smuggling.

Americans have been organizing to monitor and report border-jumping immigration criminals for some time now. Now the head of the Border Patrol is considering creating an organized civilian auxilliary.

The top U.S. border enforcement official said Wednesday that his agency is exploring ways to involve citizen volunteers in creating "something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary" - a significant shift in rhetoric that comes after a high-profile civilian campaign this spring along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner told The Associated Press that his agency has focused on involving citizens after noting the willingness of volunteers to help federal agents catch illegal immigrants.

"It is actually as a result of seeing that there is the possibility in local border communities, and maybe even beyond, of having citizens that would be willing to volunteer to help the Border Patrol," Bonner said.

Volunteers would need training and be organized "in a way that would be something akin to a Border Patrol auxiliary," he said. "We value having eyes and ears of citizens and I think that would be one of the things we are looking at is how you better organize, let's say, a citizen effort."

Bonner characterized the idea as "an area we're looking at." Questions such as what kind of authority volunteers would be given - would they be deputized to make arrests or carry guns - haven't been answered.

"This is what we need to study," said Bonner, who was in Los Angeles to discuss port security.

You mean you've taken this long to figure out that there are folks ready, willing, and able to give you aid and assistance in doing a job for which you are under-funded and under-manned? That was the whole point of the formation of the Minutemen.

Mohamed el-Amir, father of Mohamed Atta, wants to see more Muslims follow in his son's footsteps.

El-Amir said the attacks in the United States and the July 7 attacks in London were the beginning of what would be a 50-year religious war, in which there would be many more fighters like his son.

He declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking."

The man, who gave his age as "at least 70," said he had no sorrow for what happened in London, and said there was a double standard in the way the world viewed the victims in London and victims in the Islamic world.

Cursing in Arabic, el-Amir also denounced Arab leaders and Muslims who condemned the London attacks as being traitors and non-Muslims.

He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.

When asked if he would allow a CNN crew to videotape another interview with him, el-Amir said he would give his permission -- for a price of $5,000.

That money, he said, would not be kept for himself, but would be donated to someone to carry out another terror attack.

El-Amir said that $5,000 was about how much it would cost to finance another attack in London.

He spawned one jihadi pig.

He's out to recruit jihadi pigs.

Can we target this bastard with a cruise missle smeared with bacon grease and make the world a cleaner place?

I noted last night that many folks regard John Roberts as the top Supreme Court litigator of his generation.

I've since discovered that a couple of experts share that assessment.

Consider this comment from Justice Antonin Scalia, as related by Stuart Buck of "The Buck Stops Here", crossposted at "Southern Appeal" and "Confirm Them".

For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: "No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place."

And then there is the opinion of the longest serving member of the current Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist himself, as related by former clerk Ted Cruz in the National Review.

In 1995, while clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation.

High praise from folks who know the court and the lawyers who practice before it. They think highly of the nominee. I'll accept their judgement as to his competence.

Some folks are just a part of the fabric of your life. And if you were a science fiction fan growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, one of those people was James Doohan, who played the beloved figure of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott on Star Trek.

While definitely part of the "second-tier" of characters on the show, he was a fan favorite, and those who met him at converntions unanimously reported that he was a charming man.

James Doohan died today, at age 85, following a long illness.

What was less known about Doohan was that he was a D-Day hero.

At 19, James escaped the turmoil at home by joining the Canadian army, becoming a lieutenant in artillery. He was among the Canadian forces that landed on Juno Beach on D-Day. "The sea was rough," he recalled. "We were more afraid of drowning than the Germans."

The Canadians crossed a minefield laid for tanks; the soldiers weren't heavy enough to detonate the bombs. At 11:30 that night, he was machine-gunned, taking six hits: one that took off his middle right finger (he managed to hide the missing finger on screen), four in his leg and one in the chest. Fortunately the chest bullet was stopped by his silver cigarette case.

Unlike William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, Doohan never got tired of the association with Star Trek.

In a 1998 interview, Doohan was asked if he ever got tired of hearing the line "Beam me up, Scotty."

"I'm not tired of it at all," he replied. "Good gracious, it's been said to me for just about 31 years. It's been said to me at 70 miles an hour across four lanes on the freeway. I hear it from just about everybody. It's been fun."

Yes, sir, it was most definitely fun.

I hope you are on duty when I get "beamed up" to join you.

I recently had a commenter here insisting that sucide bombings were unIslamic and condemned byt islamic teaching. he even pointed to a British group for support. he insisted that this was the only legitimate interpretation of the Koran. Interestingly enough, though, this same poster (he called himself acrobat) could not bring himself to condemn death threats against another blogger who had shot-up and burned a couple of Korans as an act of political protest That made me a bit suspicious of his assertions.

Well, guess what -- while some groups seem to be unambiguously condemning suicide bombings as unIslamic, others are hedging their pronouncements.

Britain's largest Sunni Muslim group met in Birmingham on Sunday and issued a binding religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the suicide attacks that killed dozens on three London subway trains and a double-decker bus as the work of a "perverted ideology." The group's governing council said the Quran forbade suicide attacks and called such terrorism a sin that could send the perpetrators to hell.

Three days earlier at the London Central Mosque, 22 imams and scholars also condemned the July 7 attacks and said the four British Muslim suspects should not be considered martyrs because innocent civilians were killed. But the Muslim leaders stopped short of condemning all suicide bombings.

"There should be a clear distinction between the suicide bombing of those who are trying to defend themselves from occupiers, which is something different from those who kill civilians, which is a big crime," said Sayed Mohammed Musawi, the head of the World Islamic League in London.

Underlining the sensitivity of the issue, Musawi's contention that attacks are justified against "occupiers" came only after a spokesman for the leaders read a carefully worded statement condemning the London attacks. Even so, none of the other scholars and imams at the event expressed disagreement with his stance.

So, who do we believe -- those who say that such attacks are never justified, or those who say they are justified. And given that other Islamic leaders have rejected the notion that there is such a thing as a civilian as unIslamic, who are we to believe?

When I woke up this morning, I was shocked to see that my post on the two Ediths was getting a lot of hits while I slept. With about 200 hits by 0900, I figured I might get 500-600 hits for the day.

I had a workshop to attend across town this afternoon, so I had no computer access until around 1800. I was shocked by what I found.

Day -- Tuesday
Date -- July 19th 2005
Page Loads -- 4,761
Unique Visitors -- 3,872
First Time Visitors -- 3,738
Returning Visitors24

I've since discovered that Google had me ranked #2 for searches on Judge Clement for much of the day, and high for Judge Jones. And the Supreme Court Nomination Blog had my trackbacks on both the ladies and several other candidates.

YIKES! What woulda happened if I had been Instalanched?

Judge John Glover Roberts of the DC Circuit has been appointed to the US Supreme Court by President George W. Bush.

NAME - John Glover Roberts Jr.

AGE-BIRTH DATE - Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y.

EDUCATION - BA, Harvard University, 1976; JD, Harvard Law School, 1979.

CAREER - Nominated by President Bush on Jan. 7, 2003, to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; confirmed by Senate on May 8, 2003; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989-93; private practice, Washington, D.C., 1986-89, 1993-2003; associate counsel to President Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-86; special assistant to attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981-82; law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist when he was an associate justice, 1980-81; law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1979-80.

FAMILY - Wife, Jane; son, John, and daughter, Josephine.

QUOTE - "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Two things I would like to point to in this brief profile.

First, the quote from the confirmation hearing is not what it appears to be. As a lower court judge, Roberts lacked the capacity to overrule Roe. As a member of the Supreme Court, it would be within the scope of his authority to engage in a fundamental reexamination of a case which even its supporters admit is a train wreck (7-2 as to the result, but no decision garnering majority support as to the source of the right -- in other words, "we say it is a right, but we can't begin to authoritatively say why.") Whether Roe is eventually affirmed or overturned, there needs to be a significant rethinking of abortion jurisprudence.

Second, some might note that Judge Roberts has only two years of judicial experience on the DC Circuit. This is not a problem. A number of justices have never served as a judge prior to their nomination to the high court. Others have had only minimal judicial service -- including Justice Thurgood Marshall, the greatest Supreme Court litigator of his generation (I've heard similar statements made about Roberts tonight), whose time as a judge on the Second Circuit consisted of only about three-and-a-half years judicial service before he resigned to become Solicitor General.

Not a bad pick, all things considered. While I might have preferred a different candidate, I am inclined to give Jufge Roberts my full support, barring some truly troubling disclosure during the confirmation process.

A great listing of blogs about the Roberts nomination can be found at Blogs For Bush.

And sadly, we lost another honorable man this evening -- one who has been maligned for decadees, but who deserves our honor as a hero.

General William Westmoreland has died.

Westmoreland died of natural causes at Bishop Gadsden retirement home, where he had lived with his wife for several years, said his son, James Ripley Westmoreland.

The silver-haired, jut-jawed officer, who rose through the ranks quickly in Europe during World War II and later became superintendent of West Point, contended the United States did not lose the conflict in Southeast Asia.

"It's more accurate to say our country did not fulfill its commitment to South Vietnam," he said. "By virtue of Vietnam, the U.S. held the line for 10 years and stopped the dominoes from falling."

He would later say he did not know how history would deal with him.

"Few people have a field command as long as I did," he said. "They put me over there and they forgot about me. But I was there seven days a week, working 14 to 16 hours a day.

"I have no apologies, no regrets. I gave my very best efforts," he added. "I've been hung in effigy. I've been spat upon. You just have to let those things bounce off."

Later, after many of the wounds caused by the divisive conflict began to heal, Westmoreland led thousands of his comrades in the November 1982 veterans march in Washington to dedicate the Vietnam War Memorial.

He called it "one of the most emotional and proudest experiences of my life."

Be sure to read this oobituary. It is a fitting tribute to the man -- and that is, in and of itself, a surprise, given it comes from CNN.

A London-based, Saudi-owned newspaper has spoken out against those who argue that Islamist terrorism is the fault of the West.

Arabs and Muslims must stop using the United States as an excuse for terror, a London-based Arabic paper said Monday. In an editorial, Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, which is Saudi owned, said it was time to stop using President Bush as an excuse for terrorist acts such as the July 7 London blasts and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. It said many opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, "but they don't crash planes into buildings or blow up cars, buses and underground trains in London." It said it was time to stop blaming others when "we all know there is a rise of extremism in our societies," and criticized Arab and Muslim "so-called intellectuals" appearing on Arab television channels after the London blasts. "They make you think that George Bush and Tony Blair themselves went to Leeds and led a group of youth in London and pressed the explosive buttons," it said. It called for "speaking in one voice to accept responsibility and start looking for ways to get out of this chaos that will affect all of us...if we don't do away with 'George Bush made me do it,' we will not achieve progress in wiping out extremism."

Now if we can only do away with the dhimmi-wannabes in the West who claim that this terrorism is the fault of George Bush, Tony Blair and the actions of the West, then we will have made real progress in getting rid off our extremists, too.

I blogged about the theft of Sgt. Sammy L. Davis' Medal of Honor the other day. It has been recovered.

Indianapolis Fire Department divers found Sammy L. Davis' medal on the city's south side, but police declined to release details of where or how the medal was recovered, saying the information would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

Authorities identified Gaetano Barbieri, 35, as a suspect in the medal's disappearance and a rash of vehicle break-ins. He was arrested Friday on charges in at least two cases, but as of Monday, he wasn't charged in connection with the medal's disappearance, police said.

That it took divers to recover the nation's highest military decoration seems to indicate that this creep dumped it. I hope his fellow inmates treat him appropriately.

Davis, a Mooresville native who lives in Illinois, said by phone Monday that he was grateful that the medal was recovered.

"It's been very hard the last four days not knowing where the medal was (or) if it would ever be recovered, but thanks to the efforts of many, a great burden was lifted off my of soul," Davis said.

Public safety officials will return the medal to Davis during a ceremony in Indianapolis on Thursday, Rinehart reported.

Thank you, Indianapolis, for treating this hero with the respect he deserves.

Burning of Rome.

Czar murdered.

Man whose name is synonym for traitor born.

Hitler publishes Mein Kampf.

Ted Kennedy takes Mary Jo for a drive and leaves her to die so he can sober-up and cover-up.

And it all happened today!

Makes you sort of wonder about Intel, though.

Will tusks disappear from elephants?

ELEPHANTS in China are evolving into an increasingly tuskless breed because poaching is changing the gene pool, according to new research by zoologists.

Up to 10 per cent of Asian elephants in China now have a gene that prevents them from developing tusks, up from the usual level of 2 per cent, academics at Beijing Normal University said.

Zhang Li, an associate professor of zoology, said: "The larger tusks the male elephant has, the more likely it will be shot by poachers.

"Therefore, the elephants without tusks survive, preserving the tuskless gene in the species."

Since only male elephants have tusks, there are now four female elephants for each male in China, up from the ideal ratio of two, Prof Zhang said.

Similar changes in elephants' tusk development and gender ratios have been reported in Africa and India, but China was not thought to have been as badly affected.

And for those of you who want to comment on evolution, go ahead. But let me note one simple fact for you -- this is, at best, a microevolutionary change, not a macroevolutionary one. After all, they are still clearly ELEPHANTS.

How cruel are we to the terrorists housed at Gitmo? You decide.

Abdullah M. was missing a leg when he got to Gitmo. In due course, he was fitted with a prosthetic leg and given occupational therapy to teach him how to use it. In the Orwellian inversion that dominates "world opinion" and requires us to prove we're the good guys, he was interrogated and -- after convincing our guys that he really wasn't a terrorist fanatic -- released and repatriated to Afghanistan. Now sought for involvement in the kidnapping of Chinese engineers and a bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, Abdullah is walking around on the artificial leg we evil Americans paid for.

Yep, that's right -- we did what the Lefties want and let the guy go, and he went right back to his terrorist ways. All while wearing an artificial leg we bought and paid for as part of our humanitarian treatment. I bet he walks around on that leg with his fellow terrorists, telling them how evil Americans were. If that were th case, Americna troops wouldhave left his jihadi butt on the ground to bleed out. This is why these people cannot be released until hostilities are over -- if then.

And, of course, there is this simple division of prisoners.

They are divided into separate mini-camps. Those who follow camp rules, basic stuff such as "don't throw feces on the guards," get to wear white uniforms and live in a semi-communal environment. In the minimum-security camp, I saw groups playing soccer and volleyball. One guy was jogging around in his issue slip-on sneakers. Others, who are less cooperative, get fewer privileges. Medium security camp inmates wear tan uniforms and are kept in cells, allowed out often to exercise. Everything is done in ways calculated to respect Islam.

Inmates' Korans -- in the medium security camps, hung from the steel mesh walls in surgical masks -- are accompanied, in every cell and exercise area I saw throughout Gitmo, by little black arrows painted on bunks and floors, showing the direction of Mecca. Many prayer rugs were in evidence, as were chess sets, playing cards, and -- in the minimum-security camp -- prescription sports glasses. In the maximum-security building, the Korans sit in the narrow windowsills. Interrogators will even interrupt interrogation sessions to allow detainees to pray. One interrogation I observed passed through the 4:30 p.m. call to prayer. The detainee, engaged in conversation with his interrogator, ignored the call and kept talking. To these faux-religious thugs, Islam is apparently less important than a cold Diet Coke.

Notice the fundamental difference in treatment from that received by those "detained" by our enemies -- they get to wear orange jumpsuits and have their heads cut off on videotape.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are I Despair. by The Sundries Shack, and Al Qaeda Attacks: A Flash Presentation by Winds of Change.Here are the complete results. .

Two announcements for you.

If you want to be nominated for this week's vote, see this post by the Watcher regarding link whorage.

And if you want to join us on the council, go here for details about an open seat.

How do the Democrats view the American people? As bumbling idiots who don't need to be told ther truth if it gets in the way of accomplishing the aims of the Democrat party.

Check out this bit frm the New York Times Magazine.

The facts of the filibuster fight hadn't necessarily favored them; in reality, the constitutional principle of ''checks and balances'' on which the Democrats' case was based refers to the three branches of government, not to some parliamentary procedure, and it was actually the Democrats who had broken with Senate tradition by using the filibuster to block an entire slate of judges. (''An irrelevancy beyond the pay grade of the American voter,'' Garin retorted when I pointed this out.) And yet it was their theory of the case, and not the Republicans', that had won the argument.

Isn't it good to know that the Democrats hold you in such high esteem, America?

Reenlistment rates are up -- and look at the response of the Left.

Comments from Americablog. I'll highlight some of the truly relevant parts.

Bit surprised that there are that many dipshits re-enlisting - but not really.

Anyone who would re-enlist would do so strictly for selfish reasons; to put one's life on the line for a War ran by a bunch of facist thugs for profit is insane. Of course, I don't like Judges, I don't like cops, and I don't particulary like the military (or should I say the types that join).

Brave ain't got shit to do with it -- they're over there 'cause they have to be there, and then there are others for whatever selfish reason, go after money, etc...

Though I support the troops I embrace the freedom fighters first, since we are the illegal invaders stealing oil, and running a War for profit. So long as there is chaos the theft continues. May the freedom fighters drive the imperialistic facists from their country -- and since the entire Planet thinks Bush is more of a threat than 10 bin Ladens, there is absolutely no way we can win in Iraq.

But that is what the facists want, chaos. That way, they can continue pumping 1 billion a week out of the ground while no one's looking. They are pigs, ever one.
Montiel | 07.18.05 - 10:50 am | #

AND

Wow. I guess we should be honored. The Navy recently offered our high school senior daughter $150K to pay for her intended BSRN degree. Not a chance in hell that they'll get her, as long as Bush is in office and this illegal war is going on.

The services are desperate for intelligent, skilled people.

Mainly because the intelligent, skilled ones are skedaddling out of that quagmire as fast as they can.

It's the ones who still really need the money to survive and feed their families in this BushCo downward spiraling middleclassworld that are re-upping.
kgirl | 07.18.05 - 11:05 am | #

You get the impression, I think.