I'll bet this guy doesn't get off because he is "too pretty to go to jail".

A Freeburg High School driver's education instructor and professional wrestler, whose ring name is "The Teacher," has been charged with breaking the neck of 17-year-old Ashley Reeves of Millstadt and leaving her in dense woods to die.

She was found by police at 2 a.m. Saturday. First listed in critical condition, Reeves had improved somewhat as of late Saturday afternoon after being evacuated to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital in St. Louis.

On Saturday evening, hospital spokesman Bob Davidson listed Reeves' condition as serious.

The sheriff's department held a press conference at 11 a.m. Saturday to announce the charges against Samson "Sam" R. Shelton, 26, of Wildwood Lake Estates in Smithton. Shelton was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of kidnapping. He is being held at the St. Clair County Jail with bail set at $1 million.

Shelton teaches both driver's and physical education and is a volunteer assistant baseball coach at Freeburg High School.

The formal charges state that Shelton "used his forearm with such force as to break the neck of Ashley Reeves," and also used his belt in an attempt to strangle her. The 6-foot, 1-inch, 200-pound Shelton is listed as a wrestler in the Ultimate Wrestling Alliance and has appeared in several metro-east prize rings, including in Fairview Heights and Cahokia.

After spending more than 30 hours over a rainy night in thick brush and trees behind a baseball diamond at Citizens Park in Belleville, Reeves, a student at Columbia High School, was discovered about 2 a.m. Saturday by sheriff's investigators.

She was reported missing by her family about 3:30 p.m. Thursday.

Now I will say that this guy clearly was not Ashley's teacher -- she attended school in a different district. Knowing what I do of the geography of the area, I suspect he may have been a neighbor or a member of the same church.

But regardless, this is a horrifying crime. It sounds like there is much more to come out -- but hopefully not in a manner that resembles the circus unfolding in North Carolina.

May this young lady recover and be restored to health to whatever degree is possible.

UPDATE: Just read the article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch -- this guy was a real freak!

A profile of Shelton on the Web site for his fast-pitch softball team says: "Sammy is single and currently looking for a female companion. This may include long term or short term relationship. Age does not matter, must be cute or hot."

The profile also said his hobbies include "touching hookers" and pornography, and described his occupation as a "teacher, pimp, pimp teacher, pro-wrestler."

Why do I get the impression that there may be some guys in the Illinois prison system who are hoping to have Shelton as a cellmate?

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

Those participating in tomorrow's boycott may congest our streets, and may provide a certain disruption of the economy Certainly that is their goal.

Now that immigrants have grabbed the nation's attention, what next?

Monday has been set aside for immigrants to boycott work, school and shopping to show how much they matter to their communities. But with some growing tired of street protests, and others afraid they'll be deported or fired for walking out, people are planning to support the effort in myriad ways.

Some will work but buy nothing on Monday. Others will protest at lunch breaks or at rallies after work. There will be church services, candlelight vigils, picnics and human chains.

The range of activities shows both how powerful the immigrants' rights movement has become in a matter of weeks, and that organizers don't yet have a clear focus on its next step.

But this boycott won't be absolute.

No, they aren't boycotting everything American.

They are not boycotting American liberties, the likes of which they are not guaranteed in their own homelands and which are specifically prohibitted to foreigners in Mexico and a number of other Latin American countries.

They aren't boycotting American social services -- they will still use the free health care and cash the welfare checks provided by the American taxpayer.

They will still use our roads and mass transit, again heavily subsidized by American citizens and legal immigrants.

Personally, I urge those participating in tomorrow's events to boycott one -- and only one -- American thing.

Boycott American air.

Hold your breaths until you turn blue -- for the entire 24 hours.

And meditate upon this paraphrase of a MeCHA slogan.

“Para los ciudadanos, todo. Para los mojados, nada.” -- For the citizens, everything. For the wetbacks, nothing.

Could you imagine what would happen if a white supremacist group with a history of armed violence announced its intention to come to a private university and march to protest the alleged rape of a white woman by a black athlete? There would be utter chaos, as multiple law enforcement agencies vied to arrest the thugs and protect the accused from the racists.

Why, then, is Duke welcoming this group and permitting them to be active on campus? And why is the prosecutor apparently going to meet with these thugs?

The national chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense says his group intends to march at Duke University on Monday to "deal directly" with lacrosse players about charges of rape of an escort service dancer at a team party.

Duke's campus police are coordinating with the Durham Police Department to prepare for the black-separatist group, which has a reputation for coming to its protests armed.

Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Washington lawyer who is the leader of the New Panthers, said he will be in Durham to rally with local black leaders and monitor progress of the criminal case against Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the two students charged with raping and kidnapping the dancer.

"We are conducting an independent investigation, and we intend to enter the campus and interview lacrosse players," Shabazz said Thursday. "We seek to ensure an adequate, strong and vigorous prosecution."

Duke is a private institution, and its campus is private property. Shabazz said he has not sought permission to enter but that his group has "received no word that we are not welcome."

John Burness, Duke's vice president for public affairs and community relations, said Thursday that the university will allow a controlled march on campus, as long as the New Black Panthers follow specific rules.

"As an institution we support free speech, and we will treat them like any other group," Burness said. "But we do not permit weapons. We will take necessary steps to keep the campus safe."

One of the key tenets of the New Black Panthers is owning firearms and knowing how to use them, according to the Anti-Defamation League, a national Jewish group that has monitored Shabazz and his followers for years.

In other words, the violent racists are allowed on campus to harrass students not charged with any crime, provided they leave tehir guns at home. What a double standard -- though one that has operated throughout the development of this case. Could you imagine the smae courseof action being followed by the university or the prosecutor if this case involved the alleged rape of a white stripper by the Duke basketball team?

Could you imagine the Klan being allowed to march on the Duke campus and freely "conduct an independent investigation" and "interview players" at that private school? Certainly not! But the Panthers are welcome, out of a typical academic desire to be "sensitive" and "politically correct".

I don't know if any of these boys are guilty. If they are, I hope they get the maximum available penalty --I've had too many girls and women in my life face the trauma of sexual assault (heck, "one" is "too many" -- and ther have been more than that) to want to see anything less than every ounce of justice received. But in this circus-like kangaroo court atmosphere, the introduction of a violent racist group to the mix is prejudicial to both the safety of the students at Duke and the right of the accused to a fair trial under the laws and constitutions of both the United States and the State of North Carolina.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Stop the ACLU

Shame on Spain!

To intentionally destroy archaeological treasures without giving scholars time to fully examine and study them is an act of barbarism! To do so TO BUILD A PARKING LOT is a move that shocks the conscience.

THE archeologists could barely hide their excitement. Beneath the main square of Ecija, a small town in southern Spain, they had unearthed an astounding treasure trove of Roman history.

They discovered a well-preserved Roman forum, bath house, gymnasium and temple as well as dozens of private homes and hundreds of mosaics and statues — one of them considered to be among the finest found.

But now the bulldozers have moved in. The last vestiges of the lost city known as Colonia Augusta Firma Astigi — one of the great cities of the Roman world — have been destroyed to build an underground municipal car park.

Now i'll grant you that Europe is full of Roman ruins, but this city is one o some importance.

The Roman city has proved to be one of the biggest in the ancient world. Its estimated 30,000 citizens dominated the olive oil industry. Terracotta urns from Ecija have been discovered as far away as Britain and Rome.

The region produced three Roman emperors — Trajan, Theodosius and Hadrian — and the research has shown that Ecija was almost as important in the Roman world as Cordoba and Seville.

The socialist governmetn of the town offers this appalling justification for their actions.

The socialist council says that had it not dug up the main square, Plaza de Espana, to build the car park in 1998, the remains would never have been found. But it insists the town must press ahead with the new car park.

In other words, since it was not discovered until the preparations to build began, it obviously couldn't be as important as 299 parking spaces.

“Nonsense,” says the town’s chief archeologist, Antonio Fernandez Ugalde, director of the municipal museum. “For some reason, the politicians here think it is more important to park their own cars. It simply does not make sense.”

But despite opposition from numerous other archeological groups and the Spanish Royal Academy of Art, there is now no possibility of restoring the 2,000-year-old Roman town.

The most exquisite discovery was a statue, known as the Wounded Amazon, modelled on an ancient Greek goddess of war. Only three other such statues are known to exist. The one in Ecija is in by far the best condition with some of its original decorative paint intact.

So much history -- destroyed in the name of commercial development. What the Islamists do not destroy of Western Culture, we will destroy ourselves.

Red China forcibly severed the relationship between Chinese Catholics and the Vatican in 1951. Those who have remained loyal to the Pope have suffered persecution, imprisonment, and martyrdom at the hands of the atheistic Communist regime in Beijing. In recent years, there has been movement on the part of the Chinese government (which rigidly controls the "official" Catholic Church in China) to permitting Chinese Catholics to end the government-imposed schism. Hope has been rising that there might be, at last, freedom of worship and autonomy under the aegis of Vatican approved bishops.

Unfortunately, this hope seems to have been dashed today.

China's state-sanctioned Roman Catholic Church ordained a new bishop Sunday, rejecting the Vatican's request to delay the appointment and threatening efforts to restore official ties between the sides after five decades.

China's Foreign Ministry defended the official church's right to ordain bishops without Vatican input and called the Holy See's criticism of such appointments "groundless."

The ordination could damage recent efforts to restore Sino-Vatican ties, cut in 1951 after the Communist Party took control in China. One of the stumbling blocks in improving relations has long been a dispute over who has the authority to appoint bishops.

"The recent ordination of bishops at some diocese have been unanimously well-received by church members and priests," the Foreign Ministry said in a faxed statement. "The criticism toward the Chinese side by the Vatican is groundless."

China's church - the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association - held a ceremony for the new bishop, Ma Yinglin, in the city of Kunming in southwestern Yunnan province.

Hong Kong Cable TV showed Ma wearing his new bishop's hat and carrying an ornate gold staff as he waved to the faithful.

Lett me make one thing clear -- there is no "state-sanctioned Roman Catholic Church". There is a counterfeit Catholic Church used as a propaganda piece by the Red Chinese. Roman Catholics are persecuted for their faith, for they refuse to join the state-controlled body.

Will the UN, or the nations of the world, stand up and condemn this fundamental violation of religious freedom and intereference in the internal affairs of the Catholic Church by a govenrment which officially denies the that God exists?

What else can you call Jake Gyllenhaal, the star of a homoerotic western who insults the US military as a part of the promotional work for his upcoming anti-American/anti-military flick, Jarhead.

"The US soldiers were sent to the desert for 122 days and they sat in the same tent and did nothing, except a little too much masturbating."

I'd love to say I'm astounded -- but I'm not given that stars in Hollywood are required to prove their contempt fo the nation before they can succeed.

This America-hating dolt forgets that the reason there was so little combat was the fact that the Iraqis folded like a house of cards -- they were trying to surrender to news crews, unmanned drones, and particularly attractive camels. Not to mention the fact that the US irrationally listened to the demands of the UN to leave the Iraqi dictator in power after liberating Kuwait from its invaders -- resulting in a dozen years of continued oppression of the Iraqis and the need to clean up the mess today.

My wife's cousins was one of those wounded when a SCUD hit his barracks. One of my co-workers had a nephew who was MIA after his unit met up with an Iraqi patrol -- and who thankfully turned up alive in an allied medical unit with wounds that were not life-threatening. I wonder if Jake would be willing to face either of them and make such a comment -- and if he would walk away under his own power if he did.

Americans -- time to do our duty. Let's make sure this Saddamite pretty-boy no longer has a career in film or television, and that he ends his days doing dinner theater outside Hoboken for the rest of his life.

Cops in California destroyed a newspaper box because they thought it contained a bomb.

They weren't far off.

A newspaper promotion for Tom Cruise's upcoming "Mission: Impossible III" got off to an explosive start when a county arson squad blew up a news rack, thinking it contained a bomb.

The confusion: the Los Angeles Times rack was fitted with a digital musical device designed to play the "Mission: Impossible" theme song when the door was opened. But in some cases, the red plastic boxes with protruding wires were jarred loose and dropped onto the stack of newspapers inside, alarming customers.

Sheriff's officials said they rendered the news rack in this suburb 35 miles north of downtown Los Angeles "safe" after being called to the scene Friday by a concerned individual who thought he'd seen a bomb.

Times officials said the devices were placed in 4,500 randomly selected news boxes in Los Angeles and Ventura counties in a venture with Paramount Pictures designed to turn the "everyday news rack experience" into an "extraordinary mission."

It was just that, at least for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department arson squad, which destroyed the box.

"This was the least intended outcome. We weren't expecting anything like this," said John O'Loughlin, the Times' senior vice president for planning.

The devices are to remain in the boxes until May 7, two days after the film is scheduled to open.

The Tom Cruise flick should have proved itself a bomb by that date.

With luck, it will self-destruct and save the bomb squads of major American cities the trouble of blowing it up.

Well, my Darling Democrat responded to a survey from AC Nielsen -- and for some reason, they want the three of us (me, her, and the Apolitical Pooch) to be a pat of their HomeScan program. For the foreseeable future, we'll be scanning all our our purchases and transmitting the data to the company. Could be fun -- could be a pain. I'll let you know.

But I do have one question.

Why do I feel like I have been assimilated?

Looks like the quite race to replace Tom DeLay on the ballot is getting rather interesting.

But whose interests are really bing looked out for by the major players mentioned by Chris Elam in his outstanding political blog, "Texas Safety Forum"?

What to do about empty precinct chair positions? Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace wants them filled -- and he just happens to have a list of candidates who support David Wallace for the nomination. Opposition to the move by Wallace is fierce in Harris County, strong in Brazoria County, and even exists in Fort Bend County as well.

David Wallace may have pressed too hard for the election of new precinct chairs in Harris County. Resistance to his efforts to find sympathetic, NEW chairs in that part of the world has been named as one of the main reasons that Bill Borden stepped forward and advised the party leaders to withhold new nominees to the Exec. Comm. until after the CD 22 nomination is complete. His campaign to find new precinct chairs is in full force in the counties of Brazoria and Fort Bend, and I understand from sources in Brazoria that he is being met with resistance there by leaders who are concerned about appointing single-issue precinct chairs who will not remain involved in the party past the nomination process. Also, its rumored that in Fort Bend, should a slate of new nominees to the Exec. Comm. be offered, opponents to the process of their nomination will not attend the meeting at which they are to be voted upon, thereby preventing a quorum from being reached (which according to Bill Borden, will also prevent the appointments). We'll see what happens in this strateg-ory as the weeks go by.

Sounds like a strategy that is self-serving and destructive to the long-term health of the GOP in CD22. Wallace deserves to fail in this move -- and has probably cooked his goose among the precinct chairs who are responsible for selecting the new candidate.

Chris has more at his site -- but I don't want to steal his thunder.

This is all the reason anyone needs to oppose John McCain for any public office. He does not believe in fundamental American values.

Via Tapscott and Captain's Quarters -- as heard on Don Imus.

"He [Michael Graham] also mentioned my abridgement of First Amendment rights, i.e. talking about campaign finance reform....I know that money corrupts....I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

And how, precisely, would we know that it was clean if freedom of speech and freedom of speech have already been eliminated? Sounds like a recipe for Fascist Italy or Communist Russia to me.

I'll stand with Jefferson, the genius behind the Declaration of Independence and passionate advocate for a Bill of Rights.

The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to.

Those who would suppress freedom of speech in the name of "clean government" are, in fact, those who would impose the most vilest forms of government known to human history. Such men and women are dictators-in-waiting, seeking only the proper moment to impose their foul will upon an unconsenting populace, rendering free men and women into slaves in the blink of an eye.

MORE AT Missing Link, Martin's Musings, MyDD, RedState, Slublog, Mark A. Kilmer, Joseph Barillari, Frazzled Dad, Instapundit

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency

Maybe it is because we know the alternative was worse, Helen. You know -- Saddam, continued genocide, etc.

Legendary White House correspondent Helen Thomas has sharply questioned U.S. presidents for 46 years, but when she spoke at Centre College Thursday, she had a question for the American people.

“Where is the outrage?”

The subject of that outrage, Thomas said, should be the war in Iraq and President George W. Bush.

We've always known of your preference for foreign dictators over Republican presidents.

I said the "smart money" was on Bush. The "smart money" was wrong.

Let's hope that the money put out by Bob McNair and the Houston Texans to sign Mario Williams was even smarter than the "smart money".

Mario Williams, Reggie Bush and Vince Young all went in the top five of the NFL draft Saturday as expected. Not Matt Leinart.

The 2004 Heisman Trophy winner took a slide to No. 10, finally picked by Arizona after several teams in desperate need of a signal caller passed on the Southern California quarterback.

* * *

Williams went No. 1 overall to Houston, one day after the North Carolina State standout defensive end signed a six-year, $54 million contract. Bush, who teamed with Leinart at USC and was projected to be the top pick overall, next went to New Orleans.

The Titans went for a younger, faster version of the aging Steve McNair, taking Young of national champion Texas at No. 3. And the Jets, who have Chad Pennington recovering from his second rotator cuff injury, pleased their large, loud contingency by choosing Virginia left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson fourth.

Let's be honest -- the Texans were awful last year, and their defense ranked 31 our of 32. Williams isn't a bad pick, when considered in that light. Heck, nobody would have been a bad pick, given how bad the Texans were last year.

And I still think they should have taken D'Brickashaw Ferguson.

Keith Richards.

No other comemnt necessary.

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards was hospitalized for a mild concussion he suffered while vacationing in Fiji, reportedly after falling out of a palm tree.

I guess a Rolling Stone gathers no moss -- but might try to harvest a few coconuts.

An old commenter, Ridor, dropped me a note about my failure to comment on this story. To be honest, I initially didn't know enough to comment, and have wached as info came out in dribs and drabs about it. Besides -- the Madison High School sex-tape/dance-video has gotten more play in the local media. And there has been a personal issue the last few days that has limited my blogging time.

But now I do have a few minutes -- and can only say that this case horrifies and disgusts me.

The brutalized teen was a popular student and high school football player in Spring once featured in a fashion layout in the school's yearbook.

Two older teens accused of attacking him were described by other youths as troublemakers and "skinheads."

In a case that's garnering national attention, the 17-year-old victim clings to life at Memorial Hermann Hospital while the other two are in the Harris County Jail — charged with aggravated sexual assault after prosecutors accused them of sodomizing him with a pipe because they think he tried to kiss a 12-year-old girl.

"How do you muster up that much hatred?" asked Carolyn Cook, the mother of one of the victim's friends.

The brutal night began about 11:30 p.m. Saturday when the teen went to a party at a home in the 21300 block of Glenbranch. Investigators don't know how many people were there but said the group included David Henry Tuck, 18, of the 3400 block of Nutwood, and Keith Robert Turner, 17, of the 21000 block of Star Grass.

Incensed at the teen because of the girl, Tuck and Turner dragged him in the back yard and began beating him, detectives said.

"They stomped his head with their boots," said Harris County Sheriff's Lt. John Denholm. "They stripped him naked and sodomized him with the PVC pipe used to hold up a patio umbrella."

Tuck then kicked the pipe, causing even further damage, prosecutors said at a Thursday morning hearing.

"I don't mean just a little bit," Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent told District Judge Michael McSpadden. "He kicked it in and shoved it so far in that he has caused major internal injuries and organ damage." Tuck wore steel-toed boots when he attacked the teen and kicked him in the head, Trent said.

The attackers slashed his chest with a knife and hurled ethnic slurs at the teen, who is Hispanic. Then they apparently tried to cover up the crime, authorities said. "They poured bleach on his body to destroy any evidence," Denholm said.

The victim was left for dead in the yard for 10 hours before help was called.

I don't have words to express my level of outrage. Those who would do this are sick, and need a long period of jail time for their inhumanity to their fellow man.

But from what the media is reporting, this isn't necessarily about race -- at least not if the decision not to file hate crime charges is an indication. It isn't about sexual orientation. It seems like it is simply about folks who are twisted and violent -- and who took the opportunity to do serious damage to another human being based upon a trumped-up motive.

Unfortunately, deatils keep changing from day to day -- now it appears there was an adult in the house the whole time, the assult may have happened later than originally suggested, and other changes in the story.

But it doens't change one thing -- there are at least two young men who deserve to spend a lot of time in jail.

UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle has a typically inane editorial about the case.

At least the illegal immigrants they are supporting only demand a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. These California Democrats are taking Monday off -- but engaging in a scam to get three day's pay despite doing so.

[T]he Democrat leaders of the California State Assembly have decided to call their own boycott for May 1, canceling legislative session that day in deference to the protests. But, showing that their commitment only goes so far, they declared Monday a “check-in” day so as not to forfeit their $459 tax-free per diem for the weekend and Monday. A true legislative walkout would have led to lawmakers losing per diem pay for Saturday and Sunday, as well as Monday since spending more than three consecutive days away from the Capitol triggers a halt in the highly-prized extra pay.

The audacity of the move is simply stunning -- I'm absolutely speechless.

But I do love the response of one California Republican legislator.

The legislative protest by the Democrats caught Republican Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy’s attention. Mountjoy remarked at the close of Thursday’s session that he had spoken to former members of the legislature who where willing to come to work on Monday for half price. The only issue was that they were, “undocumented by the Secretary of State.” Does that mean that “undocumented” lawmakers are willing to do the work that American lawmakers aren’t willing to do?

I wonder -- any chance of actually using the "undocmumented legislators" to pass some good legislation for a change? After all, we keep being told that "no person is illegal." Shouldn't that logic apply here, too?

Or will teh Democrats suddenly become supporters of law and order?

It looks like members of Mexico’s Congress have no scruples against interfering with the internal affairs of the United States of America. They are sending a delegation to “El Norte” to support and participate in Monday’s “Day Without Immigrants”.

Mexican lawmakers issued a declaration of support for immigrant protests planned in the United States on Monday and said they will send a delegation to Los Angeles to show their solidarity.

The declaration, issued late Thursday by all the political parties in the lower house of Congress, contrasts with the position of Mexico's Foreign Department, which has said it will discipline any consular officials who take part in the protests.

The delegation of lawmakers will meet with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, it said in a news release from Congress.

"The only thing we are looking for is to end this dehumanizing situation and get the recognition of the migrant labor force," Federal Deputy Maria Garcia said. "People who go looking for work should not be treated like criminals with the risk of being tried in federal courts."

Activists are urging immigrants across the United States to skip work, avoid spending money and march in the streets to demonstrate their importance to the U.S. economy.

The protest, dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants," comes as the U.S. Congress debates immigration bills proposing everything from toughened border security to the legalization of all 11 million undocumented migrants in America.

Interestingly enough, such participation would be illegal if it were reversed – say, a group of American politicians traveling to Mexico to participate in a rally against the corruption endemic in the Mexican political system or the official collusion with drug trafficking. You see, this little provision is a part of the Mexican Constitution.

"Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

So you see, these individuals are coming here to participate in a rally that US government officials would be forbidden to participate in if it were held in Mexico. Heck, if the situation were reversed, many of those protesting would be forbidden to participate in the protest, and would be subject to summary deportation without due process!

Once again, we see Mexico's leaders demanding the US act in a manner that Mexico itself would not -- and could not -- act under its own Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh entered a plea agreement with prosecutors in the doctor shopping case. Interestingly enough, no guilty plea is required, and charges will be dismissed in 18 months with no conviction recorded.

Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, with his attorney saying he has reached a deal with prosecutors that will eventually see the charges dismissed if he continues treatment for drug addiction.

Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the State Attorney's Office, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney's Office.

The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and left an hour later after posting $3,000 bail, Barbera said. The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions, Barbera said.

Black said his client and prosecutors reached a settlement on a charge of doctor shopping filed Friday by the State Attorney, which Black said will be dismissed in 18 months if Limbaugh complies with court guidelines.

As a primary condition of the dismissal, Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past 2 1/2 years, Black said.

Limbaugh entered a plea of not guilty in court Friday on the charge and Black maintained his client's innocence.

"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position," Black said in an e-mailed statement.

I'm not in a position to speak to the exact details of the case, but I read that the concern was about 2000 pain pills over a 6 month period. That number may seem shocking to most of you -- but then again you do not live with an individual that suffers from a chronic condition that causes high level of pain. I do -- and calculating how many pills my dear wife takes for pain in the same period, I'm shocked by the small number of pills he was on for what everyone acknowledges was a seriously painful condition.

Personally, I think this agreement was about making the case just go away -- and I cannot blame him for doing so. I also note that it is similar to most drug-related diversion programs that I've read about. That means, for all that the liberals will claim otherwise, that Rush Limbaugh was treated just like everyone else.

Well, Saturday is the big day -- my beloved (if pathetic) Houston Texans have the first pick in the 2006 NFL draft. They've told local boy Vince Young not to wait on a call from them. They have dissed my preferred choice, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, by not even talking to his people -- despite the desperate need for help on the offensive line. That leaves twon names that they have mentioned -- DE Mario Williams and RB Reggie Bush. Smart money is on Bush.

But I wonder if this story changes things.

Reggie Bush's parents failed to pay $54,000 in rent for the year they lived in a house owned by an investor in a sports marketing agency that sought to represent Bush, the owner of the house said late last night in an interview at The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Yeah, that's right -- Reggie the Golden Boy is now the subject of an NCAA investigation, hours before the name of the top pick is going to be called out. Does this concern the Texans, especially given that owner Bob McNair has gone out of his way to cultivate a squeaky clean image for his team? Will McNair, Kubiak, Casserly and Reeves not merely break the hearts of Texans fans by drafting someone other than the Young man who grew up here, but do so with a player who appears to be dirty and whose team was out-classed by Vince and the Longhorns in the Rose Bowl? Does the appearance of impropriety change the equation?

We'll wait and see.

* * *

And while we are at it, let's take this opportunity to begin our all-weekend Linkfest and Open Trackback celebration.

Link back here with your posts that you believe should go high hin the draft -- your blogs "franchise players" if you will. I won't limit the number of posts you link back with, but do ask you to exercise prudent judgement.

But remember the Rhymes With Right Rules.

No Porn. No Ads. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKERS -- Voteswagon, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Adam's Blog, Third World Country, Liberal Wrong Wing, Blue Star Chronicles, Conservative Cat, Tor's Rants, Uncooperative Blogger, 123Beta, Church and State, Cigar Intelligence Agency

Looks like here may be a little justice in the vandalism of a pro-life display at Northern Kentucky University. Not enough, but some.

A professor and six students at Northern Kentucky University have been charged with vandalizing an anti-abortion display on campus, a prosecutor said.

Professor Sally Jacobsen and six students face misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and theft by unlawful taking, Campbell County Attorney Justin Verst said. Jacobsen, who teaches in the literature and language department, also faces a charge of criminal solicitation because she allegedly encouraged students to participate in the destruction, Verst said.

Four hundred crosses representing aborted fetuses were pulled from the ground and thrown in trash cans around campus on April 12. A sign explaining the temporary display, which had been approved by university officials as an expression of free speech, was also removed.

Jacobsen told The Kentucky Enquirer that she had "invited" students in her graduate-level British literature course to exercise free-speech by destroying the display. She said she was offended by the simulated cemetery, which she considered intimidating to women who might be considering abortions.

* * *

Jacobsen would plead not guilty, Grubbs said, adding that the dismantling of the display didn't amount to a criminal act.

"The intent was just an expression of freedom of speech," Grubbs said. "She saw harm coming from it, and she was just expressing her attitude toward the harm."

The six students charged were Michelle Cruey, Katie Nelson, Heather Nelson, Stephanie Horton, Sara Keebler and Laura Caster. A court date was set for May 11.

That Jacobsen is still unrepentant is a sign that her only sorrow is related to being caught and punished. She is not at all sorry for violating the civil rights of the student group which had requested and received permission to erect the display, as is permitted in a number of public areas on the campus
Students do have a right to free speech on a college campus. That includes setting up displays on controversial political matters and not having them destroyed by individuals with fascist mindsets.

The real shame here is not that Jacobsen and her brainwashed acolytes will face criminal charges -- it is that there is not a felony charge included, and that Jacobsen will be allowed to retire and receive a pension after violating the Constitutional rights of students at the university. Moreover, it is my hope that the students involved receive severe disciplinary action from the University for the same reason --preferably expulsion, but a suspension of at least one year should be sufficient.

And before you ask, I would feel just as strongly if the display were one on behalf of a cause or issue I reject. The First Amendment knows no ideological limits. I wish that the Left would learn that lesson.

MORE AT The Moderate Voice and The American Moderate

Oops, never mind – she’s a Republican, so she loses all human rights protection on campus.

The threats began after the College Republicans sued the school over discriminatory distribution of student funds and violations of the First Amendment by the University. I’m not familiar with the merits of the suit, and will not address them here. What is undeniable is the campaign of racial and sexual harassment that began against the head of the campus chapter of the College Republican. Mike Adams sums the situation up well, in his usual colorful style.

Currently, the Pride Alliance at Tech receives funding from the SGA. The College Republicans do not. Now that Tech has been sued by a Republican over the funding issue the tension is palpable. Gays and their allies are calling the suit “intolerant” because, among other things, it seeks to allow the Republican group to be funded on an equal footing with Tech’s homosexual group.

But the gays and their allies don’t want that. They want two things: 1) For the school to keep funding the Pride Alliance and 2) For the school to keep denying the Republicans equal funding.

The fact that the gays and their allies a) see themselves as open-minded for supporting a one-sided presentation of gay issues and b) see the Republicans as narrow-minded for supporting a more diverse presentation of viewpoints speaks volumes about both their intellectual prowess and emotional stability.

But pointing out the lack of intelligence and emotional grounding of the Georgia Tech Gay Gestapo isn’t enough to make them angry. The way to really make them mad is to point out their intolerance. Lately, that’s been easy to do.

Gay Yellow Jackets and their allies have started a campus group condemning a plaintiff in the lawsuit. They have sent emails to that plaintiff (from Georgia Tech addresses) saying things like “bitch I want to choke you.” Some have expressed a desire to throw acid in her face. They have posted pictures of her adorned with swastikas on the internet. They have also passed out posters in dorms calling her a “Twinkie bitch” – this to suggest that she is Asian on the outside and Caucasian on the inside.

In other words, these people are more than just dumb and emotionally unstable. They are also intolerant, not to mention violent

Now let me make a couple of observations here. I have serious qualms about using student fees about student fees funding ANY political groups – but if political groups are to get funds, they must receive them on an equitable basis. I have serious issues with “status” groups receiving funds – whether we are talking gay groups, ethnic groups or gender groups, though I believe that they should also receive funding on an equitable basis. Heck, I’ve never believed in the notion of student fees being used to fund student groups, feeling that they should be self-funded and self-sustaining.

But whatever issues I might take on the question of funding, I can see no legitimate basis for threats of violence, gender-based insults, or the distribution of racist materials. I realize that such basic moral principles are not generally shared by the Left (see the treatment of Michael Steele by Maryland Democrats or the racist insults directed against Condi Rice).

Unless, of course, “tolerance” policies are simply an “Endangered Species Act” to protect liberal interest groups – and intended to turn convert conservatives into road-kill.

I find this repulsive, because it does clearly advocate violence. As such, I condemn it.

A controversial video game attached to an e-mail making the rounds of in-boxes around the country is highlighting just how some people feel about the immigration issue.

Many local residents have been forwarded an e-mail with the words "Border Patrol Game." However many are saying it is less a game and more an invitation to violence. In the game, players try to shoot and kill Mexican border crossers.

Inside the game there are three targets: a Mexican nationalist, a drug smuggler, and a pregnant woman running with two children which the game labels a "breeder."

Border Patrol spokesman Doug Nosier tells ABC-7, "They only perpetuate hate, not to mention show Border Patrol in a false light....it's horrendous and really unfortunate that these kind of games exist."

The perpetrator of this sick “game” is Tom Metzger, the Klansman.

Figures that this would come out of a sick mother f*cker like him.

What else can you their report entitled “Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence”? It goes on about Nazi and Klan violence and racist rhetoric – and having set the bait, pull a big switch and tar non-racist, non-violent opponents of illegal immigration as “extremists” and “vigilantes”.

The vigilante border patrol groups have operated for several years but have expanded greatly in the past twelve months, spurred on by the media attention given to the so-called "Minuteman Project." In April 2005, Chris Simcox, who founded the Arizona-based Civil Homeland Defense, a border vigilante group, and Jim Gilchrist, based in California, joined forces to create the Minuteman Project, whose purpose was to gather thousands of volunteers for a month-long watch for illegal border crossers in Arizona. The project, which was highly publicized among right-wing extremists and white supremacists, attracted far fewer volunteers, many of them armed, during its first week. However, the publicity generated by the event resulted in numerous Minuteman chapters and spin-offs forming across America, even in states such as New York, Virginia, Vermont, and Illinois. These groups use the same radical rhetoric: that the United States is being "invaded" by Mexicans who must be stopped.

That message was clear at a three-day summit, "Unite to Fight Against Illegal Immigration," held in Las Vegas, Nevada, in May 2005. More than 400 anti-immigration activists gathered at the event to hear speakers describe illegal immigrants as "the enemy within" and "illegal barbarians," while suggesting that America was "at war" with illegal immigrants and urging people to "take America back."

Many of these anti-immigrant extremists have switched their focus from the border to day laborer centers, where they photograph Hispanics whom they assume are illegal aliens. This racial profiling has also occurred at fast food restaurants and other businesses where Hispanics are employed across the United States. White supremacist and anti-government groups continue to express interest and take part in these activities, and their rhetoric has become more and more confrontational.

Such tactics are repulsive and despicable.

And I don’t mean those of the patriots who seek to secure our borders against the stream of border-jumpers breaking our nation’s laws – efforts that are brutally misrepresented in the report.

I mean those of the ADL, which attempts to paint any opposition to its open-borders agenda as racist. In fact, it is anti-American hate-mongering, and unworthy of an organization that at one time merited a reputation as a fair-minded and responsible advocate of human rights.

Interestingly enough, we are unlikely to hear any words of condemnation from Neil Young or others who accuse President Bush of being a dictator, a Nazi, or of suppressing dissent in this country.

But then again, why should we be surprised. They like real dictators like the tyrant in Havana. And so they don’t mind the use of tactics like beating up old women.

A leading Cuban dissident has said she was badly beaten up by government supporters as she headed for a meeting organised by United States officials.

Martha Beatriz Roque said about a dozen people pushed her to the ground in front of her Havana home and one of them punched her in the face.

The 60-year-old economist was jailed in 2003 with 74 other dissidents but was freed a year later on health grounds.

Fidel Castro's government says its opponents are paid agents of the US.
Ms Roque said that a group of people gathered outside her home on Tuesday.

As she left to go to a meeting at the residence of the head of the US interests section, Michael Parmly, they pushed and shoved her to the ground.

A man then entered the building and hit her in the face after she shouted "Down with Fidel".

"They have been bothering Martha for months, but this is the first time she has been treated so brutally," Elizardo Sanchez, head of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights, told Reuters.

What a pity that JFK lacked the manhood to support the heroes of the Bay of Pigs – nearly half a century of brutal oppression by this molester of grandmothers would have been prevented.

Death to Castro!

Will someone inform the former First Satyr that he is just a private citizen – and will someone inform the Secret Service that the ex-Horndog-in-Chief’s presence is not sufficient basis to stop people from engaging in legal activities.

Or to bust in on a five-year-old’s birthday party and stop the entertainment.

Clinton was preparing to hit his second shot on the fifth hole at Las Vegas Country Club on Saturday when Secret Service agents halted a birthday party fireworks event.

It's a birthday that Savanna Muirhead, the 5-year-old daughter of 28-year-old porn star Sophia Rossi, won't forget.

Savanna was preparing to launch a remote control 18-inch rocket when Clinton's bodyguards "came out of nowhere" and had the launch scrubbed.

Bobby McKelvey, who had just set up the rocket on the edge of the fairway in the backyard of Rossi's home on Bel Air Drive, recalls hearing the stern words, "Sir, do not fire that rocket."

He looked up and saw two badge-flashing Secret Service agents running toward him, while three more agents came out from behind trees.

"We cannot have you shooting rockets at President Clinton," said one of the agents as he approached the party of 80, said McKelvey.

Clinton, in a party of more than a dozen, was about 50-75 yards away, said McKelvey, 41, who described himself as Rossi's manager.

The rocket, fired later, includes a parachute that explodes when the missile reaches a height of 300-350 feet, McKelvey said.

I’d have fired the damn thing anyway, and dared them to take me in. After all, the fireworks were legal, their use was legal, and there was clearly no threat to Billzebubba. I would have also not-so-politely suggested that they get the hell off my property until they had obtained a warrant

On the on the hand, I might have been amenable to a request that I let Clinton play through – a matter of golf etiquette. But such an overreaction by the Secret Service merits no respect.

Neil Young, at some time in his drug-hazed life, came to believe that American’s give a damn about his political beliefs. And while I will concede a passing interest in some of his earlier works, I can guarantee that I won’t be adding his current rant to my music collection – regardless of the fawning reviews from some critics.

Just reading the lyrics makes me realize that this CD is gonna suck.

Let’s impeach the president for lying And leading our country into war Abusing all the power that we gave him And shipping all our money out the door

He’s the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let’s impeach the president for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government’s protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Let’s impeach the president
For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected

Thank god he’s racking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There’s lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean

Thank God

False, inaccurate, and just plain ignorant. And it doesn’t have a beat you can dance to.

I still think the best response to the political ravings of Neil Young was made over three decades ago -- and I'll just update it slightly.

Well I heard mister Young sing about him Well, I heard ole Neil put him down Well, I hope Neil Young will remember A Red State man don't need him around anyhow.

Sweet home America
Where we're red, white and blue
And the president's true
Sweet Home America
Lord, we still are true to you.

* WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS! *

I've once again been struck by the ignorance that abounds in the media regarding the Constitution and what it means when it uses certain terms. It is as if there is an intentional rejection of the history of certain words and phrases, in the interest of getting a story.

Take this comment from none other than Bob Novak, who should know better (after all, he covered the Constitutional Convention along with Helen Thomas)

The U.S. Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office, but that is precisely what is being posed now. Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for president solely because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Romney is nominated and their abstention results in the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, that's just too bad. The evangelicals are adamant, saying there is no way Romney can win them over.

Romney is well aware that an unconstitutional religious test is being applied to him, but he may be seriously minimizing the problem's scope as limited to relatively few fanatics. He feels the vast majority of conservative voters worried about his faith will flinch at the prospect of another Clinton in the White House. But such a rational approach is not likely to head off a highly emotional collision of religious faith and religious bias with American politics.

No, Bob, there is no "unconstitutional religious test" being applied to Romney, based upon what you have written in this column.

As used in the COnstitution, the term "religious test" refers to oaths or actions that are required of a citizen BY GOVERNMENT before they might hold office or receive some government benefit. Such tests existed to one degree or another in most of the colonies prior to the Revolution, and were common in England into the 1800s. Many of them were directed at Catholics, and required that the officeholder take an oath that they rejected the authority of the pope and certain "false and pernicious doctrines" which were part of the Catholic faith. Quakers and Baptists were also often targetted by such oaths. The prohibition, therefore, is one on GOVERNMENT ACTION, not private action.

Unless I missed something in the Novak piece, no such religious test is being required by government.

What is happening, for better or for worse, is that questions are being raised in some minds about voting for a Mormon, given that faith's divergence from certain historical doctrines of the Christian faith. Now I've never heard such questions raised in the Republican or religious circles in which I run, but the media keeps telling me that they are. But assuming that they are, that does not constitute a violation of the prohibition on religious tests -- for the Constitution cannot and does not dictate what factors may be considered by individual citizens when they enter the voting booth, as the individual vote of a citizen is most decidedly NOT a government action.

Which is not to say that I approve of those who would let Romney's religion enter into their calculations. If it goes on, I find it offensive -- just as I did when Ted Kennedy raised the religious issue against Romney when he was the GOP nominee for Senate.

Once our new coach committed to David Carr, I had no illusions abotu Vince Young becoming a Houston Texan. Others still nursed that hope. Those hopes were dashed yesterday by GM Charley Casserly came out and said that the UT quarterback, a product of HISD's Madison High School, was not even a consideration in the Texans draft plans.

And one of those who was stung was the local hero himself.

Former University of Texas quarterback Vince Young had been aware of media reports that the Houston Texans had no intention of selecting him with Saturday's first pick in the NFL draft, but he was still surprised when general manager Charley Casserly admitted it publicly on Wednesday.

On the day the Texans made their first breakthrough in contract negotiations with Southern California running back Reggie Bush, Casserly explained at the team's annual pre-draft news conference why the team believes it's necessary to draft a player at another position, either Bush or North Carolina State defensive end Mario Williams.

"Yeah, I was still surprised when I heard about it," said Young, who came to New York this week to participate in events leading up to this weekend's draft. "I know what the media's been saying about them not taking me, but I wanted to play for my hometown team.

"If they don't want me, well, I know it's a business. I'm kind of disappointed, but I have to get ready for the draft and be prepared to play for the team that wants me."

I'm disappointed by the announcement, but only because it confirms that D'Brickashaw Ferguson will go elsewhere, even though he best fits the team's needs.

As for Young, the local boy will likely match up against the Texans twice a year -- division rival Tenessee will likely take him.

On the other hand, Mexicans get free medical care in the US, courtesy of citizen-taxpayers who receive no such free care.

Take this case of a Canadian man who still, after a week, has received no medical care from Mexican doctors despite serious, possibly life-threatening, injuries.

A Cape Breton woman whose son survived a fall from a sixth-floor balcony in Mexico says doctors there won’t set his broken bones without cash up front.

Carol Campbell says her son, Jason Campbell, broke both legs and his pelvis in the fall last Wednesday at a Mexican tourist resort in Puerto Vallarta, where he remains in hospital.

His mother says since then, the 25-year-old has been given only pain medication and antibiotics.

"My son is still laying there with broken legs, broken pelvis, bones coming out of his legs," the woman told Global News on Monday in Sydney.

"His legs are swelling worse than balloons, his eye, I don’t know what state his eye is in, his teeth, he’s bruised everywhere."

Jason Campbell was in Mexico with friends. His family admits he had been drinking before he fell.

His father, Wallace Campbell, says "all I know is, from the doctors down there, is he is going to be paralyzed for the rest of his life and as far as internal bleeding, they won’t let me know anything."

The family says doctors are demanding up to $40,000 to treat Campbell’s broken bones.

His mother says he didn’t have a health plan in Alberta, where he now works in the oil industry.

Now the family is trying to raise money to get him home.

"We have some fundraising going on in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Alberta," says Theresa Petrie, the young man’s sister-in-law.

Carol Campbell says she has turned everwhere to get help for her son — the Canadian Consulate in Mexico, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa, friends, family and politicians.

Gordie Gosse, an NDP member of the Nova Scotia legislature, says it’s a sad situation.

"We have a Canadian citizen that’s stuck in a foreign country in very severely, bad shape at this time and needs medical attention right away — and has been injured now for almost a week, and has no medical attention."

As i have asked in the past -- can't we treat those who have broken our nation's laws with as much disdain as Mexico shows foreigners in their country -- legal or otherwise? That would solve the illegal immigration problem in short order.

I'm not the author of those words describing the anti-First Amendment decision handed down by a pair of Ninth Circuit judges in Harper v. Poway Unified School District.

No, they are the assesment of the decision by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times -- a group which is generallly knee-jerk in its support of gay rights and not too friendly towards conservatives Christians.

But in this case, I think ithe paper has put together an editorial that says what i've been trying to say, only better.

Free-speech fashion

IF STUDENTS AT A PUBLIC SCHOOL have a 1st Amendment right to wear black armbands as an antiwar protest — and they do, according to the U.S. Supreme Court — does a Christian student have a similar right to wear a T-shirt proclaiming "Homosexuality Is Shameful"? He should, despite a recent federal appeals court ruling so sweeping and loosely reasoned that it virtually begs the Supreme Court to overrule it.

Offended by the fact that Poway High School near San Diego had declared a "Day of Silence" designed to teach tolerance of gay and lesbian students, sophomore Tyler Harper wore a T-shirt with the "Homosexuality Is Shameful" message on the back and this message on the front: "Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned." A teacher told him that the shirt violated the school dress code and was inflammatory. When he refused to remove it, he was kept in a school office for the rest of the day.

Harper and his parents asked a U.S. District Court to issue an injunction preventing the school from interfering with his constitutional rights. The court declined, and its ruling was affirmed last week by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, in explaining why the school was within its rights, Judge Stephen Reinhardt misapplied the Supreme Court's 1969 armband decision and created a "right" that doesn't exist: the right not to be offended.

The armband case gave schools the constitutional authority to suppress student speech only when it poses a "substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities." A federal district judge had cited that exception in ruling for the school district in the current T-shirt case.

But Reinhardt, joined by another circuit judge, tacked on a spongier rationale: that the T-shirt was "injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn." He maintained students should be protected not only from face-to-face harassment but also from "derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students' minority status such as race, religion and sexual orientation."

There are several problems with this broad formulation. Harper's T-shirt did not feature lewd or "fighting" words. It did not attack individual gay students. Reinhardt's expansive definition could cover all sorts of utterances that gay students might find offensive — like a classmate's praise for the pope's opposition to gay priests or a civics class comment that states shouldn't legalize same-sex marriage.

Students certainly have a right to learn, free of bullying and harassment. But they also have the right to express opinions that their classmates might find offensive — as long as doing so doesn't pose a substantial threat of disruption.

Thirty-seven years after the armband decision, some may wish the high court had never let the genie of student free speech out of the constitutional bottle. It is also true that gay students have been victims of bullying that no one believes is protected by the 1st Amendment. But Reinhardt's opinion does gay students no service by endowing them with a "right" to be shielded from the offensive opinions of others.

Precisely right -- and if I may extend the principle beyond the scope of this editorial, I'd like to say that no student, regardless of race, sex, orientation, ethnicity, or religious faith is well-served by giving them the right to be shielded from views which offend them if it involves permitting them to invoke the censorship of their fellow students.

Oh those poor law-breaking border jumpers!

Stepped-up immigration enforcement in South Texas has made a long-standing predicament even worse: Increasing numbers of undocumented residents find themselves trapped, unable to get past beefed-up highway checkpoints.

Many are teenagers who rarely stray from their towns and neighborhoods for fear of getting deported.

''These kids go to school here, they've grown up here, and are as American as anyone, except they have no documents," said Kyle Brown, a McAllen immigration lawyer. "They can't go back to Mexico and can't go out of the Valley. It's a problem we see over and over."

Such immigrants are thought to number in the tens of thousands, Brown and other immigration lawyers say, and their ranks are growing as the illegal immigrant population swells.

Typical is the Carrizales family. Irma Alvarado de Carrizales is a legal U.S. resident. But two of her four children have no documents.

Travel is risky, said Carrizales, who lives in the McAllen area. And family getaways — jaunts to Sea World, the Alamo or Six Flags Over Texas — are out of the question.

"South Padre Island is the only place we can go," she said. ''We are prisoners of the Valley."

No, you are foreign invaders who refuse to return to your proper side of the border. You are lawbreakers who think your crimes should be without consequences. The fact that you have to hide out from the authorities is no more a violation of your rights or dignity than the need of an escaped convict to avoid attracting the attention of the police while on the lam.

One of my favorite columnists is Mike Adams, a professor from University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

In today’s columns, he recaps some of his “most offensive” (to liberals) lines from his columns. I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting a few.

“When I talk to liberals, I don’t expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own.”

* * *

“When I am hunting and I know I see a deer in the brush, I pull the trigger. When I know it is a human, I hold my fire. When I don’t know, I also hold my fire. The feminist who doesn’t know whether it a fetus is a person, has the abortion anyway. In other words, she just pulls the trigger. Nonetheless, feminists still feel they are morally superior to hunters.”

* * *

“Over the last couple of years, I’ve been tying to see things from a liberal perspective. Unfortunately, I can’t get my head that far up my ass. I guess it takes a lot of flexibility to be a liberal. It also takes a considerable lack of backbone.”

* * *

“Men are fully capable of masturbating without taking a seminar. For men, it’s a natural talent. For campus feminists, it’s another excuse to seek funding from the university administration.”

* * *

“Bringing American professors to laughter is nearly as tough as bringing American feminists to orgasm. It’s a theoretical possibility that is seldom achieved without a workshop.”

* * *

“I do not believe that surgically applying a breast to a man’s chest can make him a woman any more than surgically applying a horn to a man’s forehead can make him a unicorn.”

* * *

“If you are easily offended by free speech on campus, I have just the solution: Get the hell out of college.”

Well done, Dr. Adams! Academia is in need of many more men and women with your clarity of vision.

A number of mainline Protestant churches are calling for reparations to African-Americans for slavery, an institution eliminated in this country 140 years ago.

The Episcopal Church, at its upcoming General Convention in June, will consider whether to endorse reparations for 250 years of American slavery. The two-million member Episcopal Church is the embodiment of the declining and aging Protestant denominations whose elites prioritize left-wing politics. And, like the other "mainline" denominations, it is largely white and upper-middle class. To compensate for their failure to attract racial minorities, Religious Left prelates often adopt radical race-related causes. It is the perfect issue for anti-American religious elites. Obsess over a social sin of past centuries that will portray the United States and Western Civilization in the most sinister light. Meanwhile, ignore or minimize the personal sins and spiritual needs of leftists. Mainline prelates feel "prophetic" and "relevant" when they adopt causes such as reparations for slavery. Proposed Episcopal Church Resolution A124 would admit to the “the complicity of the Episcopal Church” in slavery and the church’s “economic benefits” from it. It asks for a study as to how, “as a matter of justice,” the church can “share those benefits with African American Episcopalians.”

* * *

A policy statement of the 8 million member United Methodist Church specifically endorses U.S. House of Representatives bill 40 from Congressman by Michigan Democratic Congressman John Conyers, which advocates slavery reparations.

* * *

The 3 million member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), in a more organized fashion, maintains a website dedicated to supporting slavery reparations. Officially, the denomination supports the Conyers’ bill and cites the need for recompense for other victims groups, including Native Americans, Alaskan Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans and Puerto Ricans. But the website admits that a 2003 poll of Presbyterians revealed that 85 percent of church members and 68 percent of pastors oppose federal government reparations for the descendants of slaves. Seven percent supported reparations for descendants of African slaves, while 4 percent supported reparations for the other victim groups.

Reparations for slavery is an absurd notion, rooted in the idea that those who were never slaves should be compensated by those who never owned slaves. It is a notion that I uncategorically reject.

However, if those churches believe in reparations, there is nothing stopping them from acting on the matter. If they believe that their institutions are tainted by the slavery, then they must act.

Liquidate your assets. Give them to those you feel are deserving of them.

And leave the rest of us alone.

After all, wouldn’t forcing the rest of us to pay for crimes we did not commit involve imposing the religious values of the Religious Left on Americans with common sense?

The Centralia Orphans (I’m not making up the team name) went 1-8 last year during the high school football season. But earlier this week, several members of the team proved themselves to be winners of a different sort.

Eleven members of the Centralia High School varsity football team are being credited with saving a mechanic's life by lifting a pickup that had crushed him after it slid off a hydraulic lift.

The injured mechanic, Ed Marsh, 33, was in serious condition Tuesday at St. Louis University Hospital, where doctors had placed him in a coma to treat his injuries.

* * *

Marsh, a married father of three, had been working Saturday morning at ExpertTire in Centralia when the Ford F-150 pickup slipped off the lift.

At the time, 11 Centralia football players were collecting used tires on ExpertTire's rear parking lot as part of a community cleanup.

Travis Patten, 16, one of the players, said: "We were throwing tires into the back of a semi when some guy came running over from the Sonic (restaurant) next door. He said, 'We need all you guys to help us. There's a guy trapped underneath a truck.'"

Without hesitation, the boys sprinted around to the front of the garage. In one of the bays, they saw several tire company employees straining to keep as much of the truck's weight as possible off of Marsh. The back half of the truck was still resting on the hydraulic lift.

All that could be seen of Marsh were his legs.

"I grabbed under the driver's tire," said Patten, who stands 5 feet 9 and weighs 135 pounds. "The rest of the players grabbed all around the front.

"We got it up, and they were able to scoot him out."

The other team members involved in the rescue were Jarren Baker, Tyler McAbee, Kyle Pender, Darren Whitelow, Travis Arnold, Lucas Waters, Marquise Shackleford, Nathan Berry, Marcus Currie and T.J. Erlinger.

Well done, men – this is the sort of victory that transcends any you might win on the playing field.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is against mandatory photo identification of voters.

That is to be expected – anything that might prevent the voter fraud that empowers Democrats in the St. Louis area would be anathema to the paper’s editors. The basis for their objection to the Missouri Voter Protection Act now before the state legislature is therefore understandable – and they make it quite clear when they rename it the Republican Incumbent Protection Act. Their further claim that it is intended to rig elections is laughable, given the record of certain areas of Missouri in conducting dirty elections to elect Democrats.

But there was a shocking quote that appeared in the editorial – one that is laughable in its falsehood.

Most voter fraud in Missouri is linked to inactive voters, those on lists who haven't voted for years and suddenly show up at the polls. The new statewide voter database was designed to address that problem.

"There's no evidence that terrorists or dead people are voting in Missouri," Ms. Carnahan said.

Well, Robin, it is certainly well-documented that the dead turned out in St. Louis in 2000. One even filed suit to make sure he could vote for a fellow necro-American after the statutory poll closing time. And if you will check, the dead candidate’s name was Carnahan. Any relation?

Back when I was still teaching English, I would sometimes teach Chaim Herzog's wonderful book, The Chosen. For those of you not familiar with the book, it deals with the friendship between two young Talmud scholars in New York City -- one the son of a liberal professor, the other the annointed heir of the head of a Hasidic community. It is a short, easy read, but also a fantastic teaching tool on many levels. I'd encourage folks to read it.

I cannot help but flash back to that novel as I read about the death of Satmar Grand Rebbe Moses Teitelbaum,, who led the largest Hasidic sect for many years. The body was not yet cold when a serious power struggle erupted between two of the rebbe's ons over the control of the group -- which has assets of over a billion dollars.

A Hasidic king was buried Monday night, even as two of his sons fought in secular and religious courts to claim his throne.

Satmar Grand Rebbe Moses Teitelbaum, the 91-year-old leader of the world's largest and most powerful ultra-orthodox Hasidic sect, had been dead only three hours when thousands of Hasidim -- bearded and wearing black felt hats -- jammed into the main synagogue in Brooklyn for his funeral.

The scene was from another age -- 17th-century Eastern Europe, to be precise. Teitelbaum's sons loosened high-pitched wails and bowed again and again in prayer toward his wooden coffin. Male mourners, pressed so tightly together that breathing was difficult, surged across the floor, pushing, shoving, elbowing to get closer to the casket.

Upstairs, Satmar women watched, unseen, from behind wooden screens.

Outside the synagogue, loudspeakers pumped out the sons' eulogies and prayers into the night air, their cries echoing off the tenement walls of the Williamsburg neighborhood. More than 20,000 Satmar followers packed the streets, sat shoulder-to-shoulder on brownstone stoops, climbed trees or watched from rooftops and balconies.

* * *

But no one has devised a clear process for picking a new grand rebbe -- succession wars and angry splits are common among Hasidic sects. In theory, the grand rebbe anoints a successor, a rabbinical court agrees, and the choice meets with approval.

In the case of the Satmar, Teitelbaum's eldest son, Aaron -- who is chief rabbi in Kiryas Joel -- expected to succeed his father. But in his later years, Moses Teitelbaum came to see Aaron as headstrong and, perhaps, not capable of leading the entire sect.

So the father appointed a younger son, Zalmen, to run the Williamsburg congregation, splitting his empire.

Aaron never fully accepted the decision. Save for a few brief words of commiseration Monday evening, the middle-aged brothers have not spoken to each other in more than seven years, say advisers to the two men. Most Satmar Hasidim have lined up behind one brother or the other -- the sides are known as the "Zalis" and "Aaronis" -- and the past decade has been punctuated by fistfights, broken legs and arms, torched cars and homes.

May God grant these men the grace and wisdom to settle their differences amicably, for the sake of their followers and their father's memory.

And may I suggest to them that they consider which woman Solomon decreed to be the rightful mother of the babe -- the one who indicated her willingness to give up her on child, not the one willing to see it cut asunder.

It looks like today could be the day that Fox News Anchor and radio host Tony Snow will be announced as the new White House press secretary.

Fox News commentator Tony Snow agreed last night to become White House press secretary after top officials assured him that he would be not just a spokesman but an active participant in administration policy debates, people familiar with the discussions said.

A former director of speechwriting for President Bush's father, Snow views himself as well positioned to ease the tensions between this White House and the press corps because he understands both politics and journalism, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the appointment had not been officially confirmed, although an announcement is expected today.

Snow will become the first Washington pundit -- and an outspoken ideological voice at that -- to take over the pressroom lectern at a time when tensions between journalists and the administration have been running high, over issues ranging from the Iraq war to investigations involving leaks of classified information.

This could be really fun. Given his experience in the press and the Executive branch, I wonder if Snow will have much toleance for the divas, prima donnas, and buffoons of the White House press corps who think that they are the story -- folks like David Gregory and Helen Thomas. My money is on Tony.

* * *

In honor of the good news, I hereby declare this my Wednesday LinkFest and Open Trackback post.

Post a link to your noteworthy writings and most interesting rants -- not to mention your well-reasoned and intellectually challenging essays -- for all of us to see.

As usual, I will not limit the number of items you can link, provided you stay reasonable.

And also as usual, remember the rule.

No Porn. No Spam. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS AT: Adam's Blog. Conservative Cat, Third World Country, TMH Bacon Bits

Certain commenters have, in the past, argued that I shouldn't talk about Canadian policies that infringe upon the religious liberties of Christians in their business practices and public speech. I've been told that since such abuses are not occurring here in the United States, that such abuses are irrelevant -- especially when they have to do with the freedom of Americans to speak out against homosexual marriage or special rights for homosexuals, or to conduct their business in a manner which does not give aid and comfort to what they view as the homosexual political agenda.

One such case in Canada had to do with a Christian printer who refused to print material for a homosexual rights group. Canadian governmetn authorities forced the printer to do the printing job, and also imposed monetary damages upon the business owner. But of course, I'm told, such an abuse of human rights by govenrment officials could never happen here.

Until it did, in Arlington Virginia -- literally a stone's throw from our nation's capital, and the charters of freedom that ennunciate the principles of liberty upon which this nation is founded. Unfortunately, they have been rendered null and void in Arlington. That is the message of the so-called Arlington Human Rights Commission to Tim Bono of Bono Film and Video.

In a case similar to a Canadian Christian printer’s punishment for declining a job for a homosexual activist group, an Arlington, Virginia, video duplicator has been ordered by the Arlington County Human Rights Commission to do a job for a lesbian activist.

The April 18 order follows a March 9 hearing in which Tim Bono of Bono Film and Video cited constitutional freedom of religion protection in refusing to duplicate two pro-homosexual films for lesbian activist Lillian Vincenz, according to the Family Policy Network (FPN), which is seeking clients for a class-action suit against the county.

Bono, a Christian, said he did not want to violate his Biblical values by assisting the promotion of homosexual behavior. Bono Film & Video informs potential customers that the firm does not duplicate material that the firm deems obscene, could embarrass employees, hurt the company’s reputation, or that runs counter to the company's Christian and ethical values, Bono told FPN.

After Bono rebuffed her request, Vincenz asked Arlington County officials to force Bono to duplicate her videos. The Arlington Human Rights Commission began an investigation and held a public hearing on March 9 to discuss the alleged discrimination.

As of April 25, neither Bono nor Vincenz had responded to the commission’s order, Raul Torres, executive director of the Human Rights Commission, told Concerned Women for America’s Culture & Family Institute (CFI).

If Bono refuses to do the job, “after a reasonable amount of time, the commission can reassemble and discuss why the remedy was not done,” Raul said. The commission could then forward the case to the full county Board of Commissioners and ask them for permission to file a discrimination complaint in Arlington Circuit Court, he said.

In other words, what has happened here is that a Christian business owner has been directed to produce material that runs directly contrary to his religious beliefs. A right guaranteed by the US Constitution has been overthrown in the name of promoting "tolerance" for homosexuality. But where is the tolerance for Christianity?

And by the way -- whatever happened to what we were all once told was a guiding principle of the homosexual rights movement, that all that was being asked was for homosexuals to be left alone. It was supposed to be a matter of "live and let live." But instead of tolerance, what is now demanded is acceptance by all and subservience by those who disagree.

Whatever happened to the First Amendment and freedom of religion? What about Tim Bono's right to be left alone? What of his freedom to practice his religion in his professional life?

And whatever happened to "it can't happen here"?

Looks like Crazy Cindy McKinney is being given the legal equivalent of a rectal exam, with aides from multiple Congressional officies being subpoenaed to testify before the Grand jury investigating her attack on a Capitol Hill Police Officer.

Staffers from four congressional offices, in statements read on the House floor Tuesday, announced they would comply with subpoenas issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

The offices of Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Barbara Lee, D-Calif., confirmed that the subpoenas were related to the March 29 incident where McKinney, a Georgia Democrat, entered a Capitol building unrecognized by the officer on duty and then hit him when he tried to stop her.

Those receiving the subpoenas are thought to have been witnesses to the altercation.

The other two subpoenas went to aides to Reps. Lois Capps, D-Calif., and Donald Payne, D-N.J. Capps' office would not comment on the purpose of the subpoena and there was no immediate response from Payne's office.

Subpoenas were previously issued for aides to Reps. Sam Farr, D- Calif., and Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. Troy Phillips, senior legislative assistant to Farr, witnessed the incident and testified about it before the grand jury on April 18, Farr's press secretary, Jessica Schafer, said Tuesday.

The officer involved in the incident, Paul McKenna, testified before the grand jury within the past week, the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call said Tuesday. McKenna has said he asked McKinney three times to stop. After she refused, the officer reportedly placed a hand on her and she hit him.

I look forward to the perp walk when she is charged -- and the scene of her turning herself in at a federal prison immediately after her resignation takes effect.

I’ll gladly denounce the perpetrator of these threats.

The lieutenant governor and the mayor of Los Angeles, both Hispanic Democrats, have received threats amid a national debate over immigration policy, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Monday.

Schwarzenegger told reporters about the threats against Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante during a news conference in his office Monday.

Other elected officials of Mexican heritage have also received threats, Schwarzenegger said, but he did not name them.

Bustamante spokesman Steve Green said the lieutenant governor appeared at some immigration rallies with Villaraigosa in March and received "nasty e-mails" afterward. The death threat _ "The only good Mexican is a dead Mexican" _ came about three weeks ago on a postcard, he said.

Americans of Mexican descent and legal aliens are welcome in my book, even when I disagree with them. Even my opposition to illegal aliens does not extend to cold-blooded murder.

I’m glad the Supreme Court stayed out of this one. The conviction here is appropriate, and highlights a bright line that exists in free speech cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused yesterday to hear an appeal from a Utah man convicted of violating the civil rights of an interracial couple by burning a cross in their yard.

Michael Brad Magleby, 33, is serving a dozen years at a federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

The justices, without comment, turned away Magleby's arguments that his conduct was protected by the First Amendment and wasn't threatening.

In September 1998, Magleby and a juvenile companion made a wooden cross, doused it with gasoline and then set it afire on the lawn of a Salt Lake City couple.

An all-white jury found Magleby guilty in 1999 of conspiring to violate the civil rights of Ronald Henry, who is black, and then-wife Robyn Henry, who is white. Magleby was also convicted of interfering with the right to occupy a dwelling free of intimidation because of race; witness tampering; and creating a fake alibi.

It is really very simple – burn your cross on your property and you are fine. Burn one on someone else’s property without their permission, and you rightly go to jail.

One would do well not to publicly badmouth clients or their families during working hours.

A spinning instructor at Washington, DC's Sports Club/LA mocked President Bush without realizing (believe it or not) that a first daughter was in his class!

ROLL CALL reports: The instructor, Glenn Makl, is said to be horrified to learn after class that the president's daughter Jenna was there to hear his making fun of President Bush and handing out of a video clip compilation of some of the president's more memorable gaffes and malapropisms.

Jenna Bush was working out at the club with her boyfriend, who later complained about the politcal ranting of the trainer, a source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.

Glenn, you putz, your job is to run a workout class, not to hold forth on your political opinions during class time. Stick to business, and save the politicking and joking until you are off the clock and using your own time, not that of your employers and clients.

Oh, and by the way – were you horrified to learn that Jenna was there because you realized you were out of line for making the comments? Or just because you were caught?

Those silly Islamists! Not only do they want to kill folks for daring to show cartoons of their false prophet, but now they want to punish anyone who dares criticize them or their religion on the basis of the terrorism regularly carried out in its name.

An Islamic student group at Michigan State University demanded Monday that university officials publicly reprimand a professor whose Feb. 28 e-mail called on Muslims who don't "like the values of the West" to leave the United States.

But MSU officials said there's little that can be done to punish Indrek Wichman, 55, a tenured professor of mechanical engineering, because his comments essentially constitute free speech. Wichman sent the message to the Muslim Students' Association of Michigan State University while it handed out free cocoa during a public awareness event about controversial cartoons that depicted Islam's founder as a terrorist.

The cartoons, one of which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, sparked violent protests and riots around the world in February.

Now let’s be clear on the context here – these comments were written at a time when Muslims were rioting in the streets over the fact that non-Muslims dared exercise freedom of speech. It was at a time when hostages were being beheaded in the name of Islam. It was at a time when homicide bombers were committing many murders in the name of Islam.

What did Wichman write?

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intened to protest your protest.

I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian chirches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavain girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West -- see the 1st Ammendment -- you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially, I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Strong words? Yes, they are. Reasonable words? I would say yes, but that is subject to debate? Offensive words? Probably, but then again the First Amendment does not require that we refrain from uttering words that offend others, even in an educational setting (contrary to the belief of some commenters around here). The University was actually rather timid in its refusal to discipline Wichman – his message was not “essentially” free speech – it was essential free speech, plain and simple. My only real objection here is to the fact that he didn't use the spell-check.

Notice, please what sort of things Wichman objects to – murder, violence, rape, violations of human rights. How can anyone be offended by someone objecting to such things? He indicated that these issues were more important than mere drawings that are an affront to religious belief. Only someone who supports them – or who is so weak intellectually, morally, spiritually and physically that they cannot handle having their own beliefs and actions challenged.

Well, it appears that the president of the Muslim Students Association is such an individual.

To Farhan Abdul Azeez, an MSU senior studying human biology and the president of the student association, the e-mail was startling.

"Naturally, I was very upset. I was disgusted. All of those emotions went through my body," said Azeez, 20, of Canton.

In other words, son, you are a pathetic weakling. Rather than respond with ideas, you responded with a call for censure and censorship – with a healthy dose of thought control thrown in.

Unfortunately, the University is buying into some of your demands – both silencing the professor and “discussing” (read “capitulating on” ) the demand for a reeducation and thought control

Terry Denbow, spokesman for MSU, said Wichman's views in no way represent the university's views. But, he said, they do not violate the university's antidiscrimination policy.

"He was cautioned that any additional commentary ... could constitute the creation of a hostile environment, and that could ... form the basis of a complaint" under the policy, Denbow said.

* * *

Denbow said discussions with students about sensitivity training are ongoing.
"We're not only willing to, but eager to listen to the students. Their commentary to date has been thoughtful," Denbow said.

So you see – Michigan State really doesn’t believe that Wichman’s words are covered by the First Amendment. After all, if they did support the First Amendment, there would have been no need to caution him or dialogue implementing the demanded brainwashing program.

Which leads me to echo Wichman’s comments about those who are troubled by First Amendmen freedoms – any member of the MSA who is so offended by the exercise of free speech here in America is welcome to leave.

If you are Diane Sawyer and ABC News, the answer is clear – getting the story.

How else can you explain the failure to report this stuff to the police?

The shocking beating of a teenage girl by her father that aired during a Diane Sawyer report about dysfunctional stepfamilies has set off a firestorm.

State police officials in upstate Lake Placid say they are going over the tape of last Friday's "Primetime" news magazine to determine if charges can be brought against the natural father, a Iraq War military reservist, and the teen's stepmother.

The investigation -- which includes the local Franklin County DAs office, police said -- was only part of the fallout from the broadcast.

Outraged viewers have filled up the ABC News Web site's message board with more that 1,400 messages in the first 36 hours after the broadcast -- many calling for Sawyer and the program's producers to be fired for not going to the authorities immediately.

The beating was caught on videotape recorders that the family -- identified as Lynn and Joe Nelson -- had allowed ABC News to install in their home for a program on the difficulties stepfamilies have getting along.

The family had control of the cameras and could turn them off at any time.
ABC News officials said in a statement that by the time they had reviewed the tapes, the father "had been sent to the National Guard training camp and then onto Iraq. Kyle [the daughter] had moved in with her grandparents -- where she remains to date."

In other words, reporting a crime takes backseat to the news judgment of the network.

Oh, never mind – the congressman with a serious conflict of interest is a Democrat. Nothing to see here – move along. Look over there -- Bigfoot!

An Englewood community center founded by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), a key player on telecommunications legislation, received a $1 million grant from the charitable arm of SBC/AT&T, one of the nation's largest phone companies.

The chief of a congressional watchdog group says Rush's ongoing association with the Rebirth of Englewood Community Development Corporation and his role in shaping telecommunications law as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is a conflict of interest. Using charitable giving as a backdoor way to curry favor with lawmakers is coming under increasing scrutiny, figuring in controversies associated with former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who was forced to temporarily step aside as the ranking Democrat on the Ethics panel.

On Wednesday, the energy and commerce panel on which Rush sits is set to vote on a controversial rewrite of telecommunications law co-sponsored by Rush and backed by major phone companies eager to compete with cable television companies.

Anyone wanna place odds on his going against the interests of SBC/AT&T?

Rush, of course, sees matters very differently.

Rush, asked to explain whether he had a conflict in sponsoring telecommunications legislation in the wake of the grant, replied in a statement that the "real conflict" stems from inequities in the telecommunications marketplace that hurt the poor.

"It is a systemic institutional disinvestment in [the] poor by corporate America in communities such as Englewood," Rush said. "We deserve an even playing field."

In other words, he won’t seriously address the appearance of impropriety – not even to deny it. He won’t consider whether a large donation to a charity for which he and his wife serve as board members and where his son is employed stinks to high heaven.

I’ll stand with Common Cause on this one – I am not in a position to comment on the relative merits of the bill in question, but the receipt of the grant by the center at this time is “troubling.”

Let’s see – he was incompetent in his response to the oncoming hurricane, made racially-divisive comments, and is generally seen as a buffoon. Why wouldn’t voters who turned out to support Ray Nagin four years ago turn their backs on him this time?

Mr Nagin, who won office in 2002 largely thanks to a wave of support from white voters, failed to repeat his success on Saturday. He won barely 10 per cent of the vote in districts of the city that are predominantly white and African-Americans failed to support him in sufficiently large numbers. With 38 per cent of the vote, Mr Nagin fell short of the majority needed to avoid a run-off, to be held on 20 May, against Mitch Landrieu, Louisiana's lieutenant-governor. Although Mr Landrieu garnered only 29 per cent, he is well placed to secure the votes cast for others now eliminated from the race.

Nagin never had the support of the African-American community – his support base came primarily from among the middle and upper-class white community who found the prospect of electing a businessman without strong ties to the corruption that plagued the city for decades to be an attractive option.

But then came Katrina, and his failure to properly order evacuations and assistance to those in need. It was followed by rants at those who questioned his leadership, racist comments about making New Orleans a “chocolate city”, and a campaign that was marked by calls for blacks to vote for him because other candidates “don’t look like us.” Could you give me a single reason why a white voter (or any voter) would want to vote for this man? The fact that 38% of voters selected him makes me question the preparedness of the voters of New Orleans for self-government!

In short, the results of the race for mayor of new Orleans will show less about the relative power of different ethnic blocs than it will about the willingness of the city to give failed leadership one more chance.

Well, I find myself posting another set of Watcher's Council results with a combination of pride and humility.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Arrogant District Refuses To Protect White Students by Rhymes With Right, and Do We Need Religion? Part 1 by Wolfgang Bruno. 

I have included links to both winning entries and to the full results of the vote.

And may I express my most humble thanks to my fellow members of the Council for again giving me this great honor.

After all, the Texans have had no offensive line during the first four seasons -- that is clearly the team's most important need. D'Brickshaw Ferguson should be my team's first draft choice.

He was named for a priest in "The Thorn Birds" and is a youth minister with a degree in religious studies, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that D'Brickashaw Ferguson is considered more of refined, polished pass-blocker than a bulldozing, menacing run-blocker among the offensive line prospects in the NFL draft.

But because of his extraordinary seven-foot wingspan and exceptionally quick feet, the University of Virginia all-American is projected to be among the first five selections in Saturday's NFL draft, possibly as high as No. 2 by the New Orleans Saints.

* * *

Ferguson, 6 feet 6 inches and 308 pounds, added about 10 pounds after playing in his last college game, a 34-31 victory over Minnesota in the Music City Bowl in Nashville. He then further cemented his place among the top 10 NFL prospects with outstanding workouts at the Senior Bowl in Mobile and the NFL combine in Indianapolis. Those performances also alleviated any concerns NFL teams might have had about a knee injury that caused him to miss two games last season, the first time in his college career he was sidelined.

Looks like we will get Reggie bush instead -- hope there are some good linemen in the later rounds, otherwise he will spend much of next season on his ass behind the line of scrimmage.

What produces children who commit such crimes?

The 12-year-old Prince George's County boy charged yesterday with killing his mother and brother over the weekend would often wear masks to hide his face, get into fistfights and tell people, "I'm crazy. Don't mess with me," neighbors said.

He would walk around his Forestville neighborhood with his face cloaked by a bandanna and a book cover on his head to look as if he had horns, according to neighbors.

In Prince George's juvenile court yesterday, he was charged as a juvenile with two counts of first-degree murder in the bludgeoning deaths of his mother, Katrina Denise Powe, 31, and brother, Mystery Toma Hillian, 9.

Detectives found a metal bar that they said is the weapon used in the slayings. They were trying yesterday to determine a motive for the crime. "I haven't heard any word as to why this kid did this," said Cpl. Clinton Copeland, a police spokesman.

The case is puzzling to detectives, especially because the suspect did not have an arrest record or documented history of abuse, according to law enforcement sources who did not want to be identified because the case is open and because juvenile records are sealed.

The county's Department of Social Services has no record of alleged abuse in the home, according to one of the sources. The source said that police found bruises on the 12-year-old but that it was "unclear whether they were from the struggle or prior abuse."

Law enforcement sources originally said that the crime was carried out with a knife. Yesterday, they said the weapon was a metal bar, the type usually used to secure a car's steering wheel to prevent theft.

The boy's name is being withheld because he is a juvenile. He was represented at the hearing by a public defender.

Horrifying -- utterly horrifying.

Osama has come out and issued a death sentence against some of us.

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called for people who ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad to be killed, weighing into the furor that erupted after a Danish newspaper ran cartoons lampooning Islam's holy messenger.

"Heretics and atheists, who denigrate religion and transgress against God and His Prophet, will not stop their enmity toward Islam except by being killed," the Saudi-born militant said.

Bin Laden's remarks were part of an audio tape which Al Jazeera television aired excerpts from on Sunday. The television station later published a full transcript on its Web site.

Well, I’ve done it before and I do it again now, out of a sense of obligation to exercise the precious right of free expression when it is under siege by those who would impose their backwards faith upon the rest of the world.

Come and get me, jihadi swine.

Crazy Cindy McKinney is back at it again. Now she thinks her commands supersede the First Amendment.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney still does not know whether she will face criminal charges for allegedly punching a U.S. Capitol Police officer who stopped her at a security checkpoint. But the Georgia Democrat is pulling no punches with the media, ordering an Atlanta television station not to broadcast derogatory comments she made about a member of her staff on Saturday.

McKinney was meeting with constituents and agreed to an exclusive interview with WGCL-TV, CBS 46, of Atlanta. During that interview, CBS 46 reporter Renee Starzyk asked McKinney what she is telling her constituents about the altercation.

"Actually you, media people are the only ones who are asking about that," McKinney claimed.

But a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., also is asking about the incident, trying to determine whether or not to refer criminal charges against the congresswoman. The panel has not yet made its decision, and Starzyk asked if that is a distraction from McKinney's work.

"Well, you're a distraction because that seems to be all you want to talk about," McKinney responded. "But people here understand that my representation is much larger than any discrete incident."

Well let’s see – a member of Congress assaults a cop at the Capitol and the press is interested. I wonder why? Could it be that an ordinary citizen would already be in jail?

Of course, Cindy continued her tantrum.

McKinney then walked out on the interview. But she did not tell Starzyk that their conversation was over, nor did McKinney allow an audio technician to remove the wireless microphone attached to her for the interview.

While she was off camera, McKinney criticized a member of her staff, Coz Carson.

"Oh, crap! Now, you know what?" McKinney asked an unidentified aide. "They lied to Coz and Coz is a fool!"

Realizing that her microphone was still on, McKinney returned to the room where the interview was being conducted and, knowing that she was on camera, told Starzyk: "Anything that is captured by your audio, that is captured while I'm not seated in this chair, is off the record and is not permissible to be used. Is that understood?" McKinney said.

Sorry, Cindy, but Congressional perks do not include controlling the content of the media – especially when you are the subject. Fortunately, Ms. Starzyk refused to be dictated to.

In her report about the interview, Starzyk reiterated the station's policy never to make deals with newsmakers limiting the station's ability to cover their comments or actions.

In fact, Starzyk reported, she specifically told McKinney's staff that she would ask about the March 29 incident. McKinney maintains her claim that the reporter lied to her staff.

So, who do you believe – Her Majesty the Congresswoman or the reporter?

They had no compassion for their victims – what’s wrong with a modicum of suffering for them as they pay their final debt to society?

Execution by lethal injection may cause excruciating pain, contradicting its reputation as a humane and thus publicly acceptable way to impose the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said.

Executioners fail to take the steps needed to ensure a painless death and use a drug that veterinarians have deemed too cruel for putting down dogs and cats, the group said in a report released on Monday.

However, a leading death penalty proponent dismissed the report as "blind speculation," saying there was no evidence of someone being conscious and in agony during lethal injection.

Human Rights Watch, which opposes the death penalty in all cases, issued the report amid increased scrutiny of lethal injections across America.

In other words, these are folks who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the death penalty abolished, and they are willing to make claims that are unsubstantiated to get their desired result. They also ignore the bigger question – is suffering as a part of punishment inappropriate?

UPDATE: The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on a lethal injection challenge on Wednesday, April 26. Let's hope that the justices find this argument as absurd as I do.

"The point of this is not to prevent the death penalty," said Paul Enzinna, a lawyer who represents James Roane, one of three federal prisoners who were to be executed in May until Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted them stays of execution March 2. "I have a client who is going to be put to death and the federal government owes him, under the Constitution, an execution without pain."

No, the government does not owe this shyster's client a painless death. Constitutionally, it owes him a humane death -- and I question whether he is morally owed even that much. After all, as noted above, most of these monsters showed no such consideration for their victims.

If lethal injection is ended, I urge states to bring back the firing squad and hanging as civilized methods that have stood the test of time.

Oh, and by the way, I love this inane argument from the New York Times.

Over the years, several justices have concluded that the death penalty is in all cases unconstitutional, including Justice Harry Blackmun, who famously declared, "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death." We agree with Justice Blackmun and hope that the tinkering will someday stop and that the law of the land will recognize that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment completely. But even justices who think the Constitution permits capital punishment should find that lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them are unconstitutional.

Only one problem with that Eighth Amendment argument, other than the fact that it has been repeatedly rejected by virtually every court that has considered the issue. It is that the Fift Amendment, adopted at the same time as teh Eighth, makes specific reference to capital crimes and individuals being put in jeopardy of their lives for their crimes. Obviously the Eighth Amendment, read in context, cannot be seen as banning the death penalty. The Fourteenth Amendment includes similar language which again upholds the notion that the death penalty is constitutionally acceptable.

In other words, the clear language of the Constitution must be ignored to argue that there is a Constitutional prohibition on the death penalty -- so the proper place to seek its elimination is the legislatures of the fifty states and the US Congress.

And here we have been told that there is nothing untoward about the explicit “out” culture of much of the gay community, and that it certainly was not harmful for children. However, it looks like the more “flaming” aspects of that culture in San Francisco are bringing objections from gay parents, who find it inappropriate for their children.

America's most famous homosexual community is grappling with a new dilemma - how to become family-friendly yet retain its legendary spirit of sexual freedom.

The Castro district of San Francisco has been a magnet for homosexuals since the 1967 "Summer of Love", drawing people from across the world with its gay pride parades and celebration of overt sexuality.

But the complexion of the community is changing thanks, in part, to the so-called "gayby boom", the increasing number of same-sex couples becoming parents.
In California nearly 60,000 children are being raised by same-sex couples. In addition, heterosexual families with children are choosing to live in the area.

The shift has resulted in tension between parents who want the more explicit window displays and posters toned down and those determined to guard free sexual expression from any censorship.

Clashes between parents and shopkeepers include complaints from a lesbian mother-of-two about a shop with a sado-masochistic window display. Others have also complained about explicit shop displays and posters that feature naked, sexually aroused men.

"I am happy that people can enjoy a lifestyle that is denied to them back home in Kansas but there are appropriate standards of behaviour, regardless of your sexual orientation," Jeremy Paul, a father of two boys, told the Los Angeles Times.

Gee – when straight Christians object to explicit displays of the gay lifestyle at places like Disney World, we are called homophobes. What can you say when it is homosexuals themselves object to such displays as inappropriate for children and corrosive of family values?

Of course there is a double standard, one established by the law and hte COnstitution.

On the one hand, the President and certain other executive branch officials have the authority to classify and declassify certain information based upon its sensitivity. Information may, from time to time, be declassified and let out to the press in a variety of ways to give the American people a fuller picture of what is going on -- and to counter falsehoods put forth by those who would misrepresent the actions and policies of the government.

Then there are unauthorized, illegal leaks. Those almost invariably harm national security -- especially when done in a manner designed to harm the ability of the president to conduct legal policy initiatives or to undermine his legitimate authority.

So I found this piece in today's Washington Post, which published the seditious stories of Dana Priest based upon the illegal leaks of Mary McCarthy, to be particularly interesting.

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes.

"I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information," said Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, referring to the firing of Mary McCarthy.

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) echoed Harman, saying, "A CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak." But he added: "If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person."

Well, Rep. Harman, let's spell this one out. The President authorized the release of truthful information in order to counter false claims made by those political opponents. In the case of Joe Wilson, for example, the release of information proved him to be a liar many times over -- a position confirmed by multiple investigations. is it your contention that the President should allow false claims made for partisan political purposes to remain unchallenged and that he should thereby allow the American people to remain misinformed? If so, does this not do harm to the very fabric of the American system?

And Sen. Kerry, thank you for once again proving your unfitness for the office you sought in 2004 and plan to seek in 2008. You would clearly allow unauthorized leaking to run rampant if unelected governemnt employees differ with the policies of the elected leaders of the United States. In short, America would not be secure under a Kerry presidency.

And all this ignores the fact that recent investigations have shown Dana Priest's story on "secret prisons" to be false -- so there cannot even be a claim made that this was a case of "leaking to tell the truth."

I guess, when it comes down to it, we have a different double standard at work on the Democrat side of the aisle, one that really ignores questions of truth and legality -- anti-Bush leaks good, pro-Bush leaks bad.

I usually respond to comments in the comment section. Sometimes, though, a comment is of such length or its content is so notable that an entire separate post is warranted.

I got one of those last night, in response to my (widely read, thanks to the Houston Chronicle) post entitled "First Amendment (Revised Edition)". The commenter, Jan L Perkins, rather vehemently disagrees with me, and clearly put a lot of time and thought into her words. In doing so, she fell into what I see as some common errors -- errors that I want to correct publicly. I don't do this to ridicule her (in fact, I praise her efforts), but to attempt to lay to rest certain incorrect notions regarding the First Amendment and schools.

So let us begin with the fisking of Jan's comment.

WOW – a court makes a ruling that a school has the right to enforce rules, which are designed to prevent disturbance between different factions within the school, and the court is now violating the US Constitution – how about that – and I thought it was just attempting to head off the conflict before it became nasty – but, of course, perhaps the objection is because the T-shirt read “homosexuality is shameful” rather than “homosexuality was created by God, too”

Several points here.

First, as a government entity, public schools must conform their rules with the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Second, schools cannot, as a rule, permit speech on one side of a controversial issue and not ont he other. The school had been more than willing to permit and sponsor a so-called "Day of Silence" (complete with literature distributions and students disrupting the academic mission of the school by opting out of verbal participation in class as a form of political/religious/social expression). It could not then turn around and argue that a single student expressing the opposite perspective in a passive manner (via a t-shirt) constituted a material disruption or a threat to good order and discipline. In fact, the situation that existed appears very close to that set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines, which is the major precedent dealing with the First Amendment rights of students.

The problem posed by the present case does not relate to regulation of the length of skirts or the type of clothing, [508] to hair style, or deportment. Cf. Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697 (1968); Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S. W. 538 (1923). It does not concern aggressive, disruptive action or even group demonstrations. Our problem involves direct, primary First Amendment rights akin to "pure speech."

The school officials banned and sought to punish petitioners for a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.

Only a few of the 18,000 students in the school system wore the black armbands. Only five students were suspended for wearing them. There is no indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted. Outside the classrooms, a few students made hostile remarks to the children wearing armbands, but there were no threats or acts of violence on school premises.

* * *

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

* * *

It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol--black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement [511] in Vietnam--was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

How very like the events which happened that day at Poway High School! Tyler Chase Harper was passive, did not disrupt or confront, and while he was subject to a few hostile remarks, there was no substantive disruption. For his trouble he was removed from class, questioned by law enforcement, and told by assistant principal Ed Giles that he must "leave his faith in the car" if it was deemed offensive by school officials. This is in blatant contradiction of the major holding of Tinker.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

It seems that Mr. Giles, along with the rest of the administration of this school and district, slept through that portion of their school law classes while working towards tehir administrator certification.

Similarly, they ignored an even older precedent, that of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

Such Boards are numerous and their territorial jurisdiction often small. But small and local authority may feel less sense of responsibility to the Constitution, and agencies of publicity may be less vigilent in calling it to account. . . . [N]one who acts under color of law is beyond reach of the Constitution.

Oh, and Jan, nice attempt on your part to tar me with the taint of homophobia. You ignore that I did note some anti-homosexuality messages might be legitimately banned as disruptive. You also are unaware of my past writings on incidents of school censorship and punishment of student speech -- posts in which I stand up for students taking decidedly liberal views as well as conservative ones.

As a teacher you know that children do not have all of the constitutional protections afforded to adults.

You are right -- but I never said they did. There are limits placed in the school setting, but as i noted above, they are tightly drawn.

For example, their lockers may be searched without their permission, even over their objections,

True -- but then again, the school owns the locker and makes those search provisions a part of the student code of conduct. A kid does not have to use thelocker, either.

and they may be compelled to submit to drug tests even when there is no probable cause, indeed no cause whatsoever, to believe they have used drugs,

Half true -- the courts have upheld those policies only with regard to participation in extra-curricular activities, not school attendance.

and the case law is replete with decisions upholding limitations on student speech.

And replete with decisions the other way, which make it clear that the ability of schools to limit student speech is, dare I say it, limited to narrow circumstances.

Those are just three of the ways in which they do not have the same rights as you may have as an adult.

They are three ways in which you misrepresented the holdings of the courts regarding the rights of students under the Constitution.

Even as an adult it is well established in courts all over the country that one may not yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Nice try -- the only problem is that hte quote you are reaching for refers to FALSELY crying "fire" in a crowded theater, because it needlessly and recklessly puts individuals in danger. One could, for example, shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there were a fire. But the expression of a political, social, or religious oipinion could never fall under that rubric, for the expression of a dissenting opinion is not the sort of thing likely to cause a crowd to stampede and trample the vulnerable under foot.

This school may well have had good reason to believe that the T-shirt in question was crying “fire” in a theatre.

The school could never have legitimately taken such a view.

I should not need to have to point out that a “Day of Silence” is not the same as a T-shirt with a message.

Actually, it is functionally the same, and is even less disruptive than the Day of Silence, for reasons I pointed to above. And given the "leave your faith in the car" policy dictated by one school official, the competing event (the Day of Truth) would have been prevented under the same standard -- and the opinion of the judges in this case would mandate the school prohibitting the event.

In fact, if those opposed to homosexuality had sought to have their own day to express their viewpoint silently and peacefully, then you would be closer to having a valid position, assuming they had been denied that right.

Jan, dear, free speech is free speech is free speech.

The problem with Justice Alex Kozinski’s position as reported by you (I have not read the decision) is that he viewed the school as having taken a position on a controversial topic, when, based solely on your version of the facts, it appears to me that the majority concluded the school correctly saw the difference between a Day of Silence and a T-shirt as the difference between the proverbial apples and oranges, and had the power to act to prevent potential violence.

How was the shirt creating a potential act of violence? Would not the Day of Truth be considered equally impermissible, due to the fact that instead of one student expressing the offending opinion we would have many doing so?

By the way, who is Theriot?

Don't be lazy -- click the link and find out for yourself.

I would note that the phrase “under God” was not in the Pledge of Allegiance until I was nearly out of high school. I was raised in a country Methodist church in the Midwest. My mother ensured that I went to church every Sunday, for which I avow I am eternally grateful, although I was not always so grateful at the time I was being required to get out of bed and go. I do not recall anyone in my community at that time, who spoke either for or against the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge, yet they were all good god fearing country folk. I have no strong personal opinion about the phrase, but I have to wonder why one might believe the sky would fall if it were removed?

I'm not going to engage on that issue -- if you notice, the quote you are referring to is bringing out the fact that the Ninth Circuit -- and one of the judges in this case in particular -- has a perceived hostility towards religious speech that offends minorities, to the point that he has repeatedly sought to ban such speech even when it is clearly protected by the Constitution. It is part of why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been the most overturned circuit for the last several years -- it is out of step with the Supreme Court precedents and the US Constitution.

If the cops used the procedure described in this article there will be a major shit-storm, because the identification of the alleged perpetrators is hopelessly tainted. I don't see how a judge could let the results of this photo lineup in at trial.

A 15-page document shown to Darla Miles of WTVD, an ABC-owned station in Durham, N.C., described how the alleged rape victim, a 27-year-old exotic dancer and mother of two, identified three lacrosse players as those who she said attacked her the night of March 13.

According to the police report, the alleged victim was shown a police lineup of 46 photos individually depicting all the Duke lacrosse team members except for freshman goalie Devon Sherwood, the only black member of the team. He was excluded because the alleged victim told police her attackers were white.

After being shown the pictures in a sequence of PowerPoint slides, the document adds, the woman said she could identify the two players indicted April 17 with 100 percent certainty. She picked out Reade Seligmann as the attacker who forced her to perform oral sex and Collin Finnerty as the second man to rape and sodomize her.

She said she also could identify with 90 percent certainty the first man who raped and sodomized her. This attacker has not been arrested as of today, though District Attorney Mike Nifong said at the beginning of the week that he was looking to make a third arrest.

Think about it -- this is the equivalent of giving someone a bucket full of red golf balls and then claiming vindication when three red golf balls in a row are drawn. What else could have happened? In this case, the woman was given only members of the team to identify, and so she identified members of the team. It was a set-up!

However, an eyewitness identification expert believes the police lineup procedure was flawed because no non-lacrosse players were included.

Gary Wells, president of the American Psychology-Law Society, described it as "a multiple-choice test without any wrong answers."

By including "fillers," or non-suspects, in a police lineup, an accuser has to pick past the filler to choose people who actually might have committed the crime.

"Without fillers as a control, the process has no internal credibility check," Wells said.

David Rudolf, a North Carolina defense lawyer who has been an adjunct professor at Duke and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, believes the procedures may be problematic to the point of being inadmissible in court.

"I have significant doubt that this will be admitted in court," he said, "and no doubt defense will challenge it vigorously."

The issue, Rudolf explains, is that due process prohibits evidence from lineups that are unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to mistaken identity.

"When you take the only suspect group and put it in front of the victim," Rudolf says, "by definition you're suggesting it was one of the 46 people in that group."

Some have suggested that there should have been 46 different photo lineups. Others suggest that the sequential lineup was fine, but that additional individuals should have been included as a control on the process, to give the victim a chance to identify someone not at the party. You know -- sed a few white golf balls in amongst the red ones. That would have made the selections much more convincing.

If the identification is thrown out, there then arises the question of the validity of the alleged victim as a witness. And if she is excluded from testifying -- or at least from making an identification in front of the jury -- then the entire case will disintegrate due to the previously disclosed lack of DNA evidence.

This doesn't look good for anyone.

No, not what you are thinking.

This is a proposal to register and tag farm animals as a way of tracking and controlling disease outbreaks.

I've long had mixed emotions about punishing students for online speech.

As a rule, I don't believe schools have any business regulating out-of-school activity.

On the other hand, I do believe that schools need to monitor -- and perhaps punish -- certain behaviors that bear a direct nexus to school and cause a major disruption.

And that raises some questions.

When high school teacher Lee Waters logged onto a popular Web site and read the demeaning sexual comments a student had posted alongside her picture, the Sarasota woman felt completely degraded.

The school district suspended the North Port High School student, but attorney Geoffrey Morris said Waters doesn't think the boy understands the humiliation she feels.

The teacher filed a lawsuit against the student in March, but she isn't looking for money. She just wants other students to understand how harmful Internet pranks can be, Morris said.

"This teacher was maligned by this kid," Morris said. "She was so upset about it and she filed this lawsuit because she says teaching is a profession and that the administration turned their back on her complaint."

The Sarasota County School District said it did what it could to help Waters, by suspending the student and taking other disciplinary action, but it's not alone as it struggles to deal with cyber-bullying. Similar lawsuits and complaints are popping up in Florida and elsewhere nationwide as bullies move from punching someone on the playground to writing nasty and sometime libelous postings about classmates, teachers and school officials on the Internet, where everyone can read them.

There is a serious question here. The First Amendment is high on my list of non-religious sacred things, but i recognize that there are limits to the First Amendment, especially for kids, when it disrupts school. At the same time, schools regularly exceed authority, and sometimes even attempt to suppress legitimate speech that teachers/administrators find inconvenient.

Ultimately, I guess it comes down to a question of whether the speech/behavior would be within the reach of school officials if it happened someplace other than MySpace or other internet venues.

Threats of violence and assualt at school would clearly be covered.

So, too, might incidents of racial/sexual/other harassment by students against students, if it can be tied to the school setting -- i.e. was part of a pattern of behavior which exists both at the school and away from it.

And at the risk of sounding quite self-serving, retaliatory attacks on teachers and other staff members might qualify, provided the goal is not an attempt to suppress true statements about matters of legitimate public concern.

And remember, sometimes a bit of school discipline might be preferable to the alternative.

Which is preferable -- a three deay suspensio from school for cyber-bullying or criminal charges 9even juvenile charges) for harassment or communicating a threat? A ten day assignment to an alternative school setting or a lawsuit for defamation? And in Texas, there is specific language in state law which protects teachers from acts of harassment (or violence) by students if it is related to the teacher's performance of his or her job, and it even applies to events that occur off school ground and outside school hours -- and the offense can rise to the level of a felony.

And then ther eis the other issue -- can the contents of websites be used for disciplinary purposes by schools.

And it's not only cyber-bullying that's a problem — it's the photos students post. Young girls in barely there clothing, cigarettes dangling from their lips. The basketball team chugging beer at a party. Blogs that threaten a Columbine repeat. All have public and private school officials debating possible disciplinary actions.

What happens when some kid posts a picture on their website of the star quarterback holding a can of beer? Can the school use that picture to punish the student under a no-drinking policy that the athlete and his parents signed as a condition of his participation in extra-curricular activities? Can the coach use it to bench the kid without involving the school?

The internet raises all sorts of questions and issues for educators. What is the solution? I don't know the answer.

I've been asked about that more than once, given that I rarely have blogged about events at school, and never in a manner that identifies students or explcitly identifies where I teach (a couple of posts have made it possible to identify the school, but you would have to click a link or do some research). And I have steadfastly refused to explcitly state my last name on the blog, precisely so I never have to deal with outraged students, parents, and peers -- though a little bit of ingenuity would allow an interested reader to ferret out my identity.

Why do I approach blogging this way? Well, it might have something to do with avoiding a situation like this one in Chicago.

Typing rambling screeds in an anonymous blog he called "Fast Times at Regnef High," a Fenger High School teacher unleashed his frustration over the chaos he saw around him.

He labeled his students "criminals," saying they stole from teachers, dealt drugs in the hallways, had sex in the stairwells, flaunted their pregnant bellies and tossed books out windows. He dismissed their parents as unemployed "project" dwellers who subsist on food stamps, refuse to support their "baby mommas" and bad-mouth teachers because their no-show teens are flunking.

He took swipes at his colleagues, too--"union-minimum" teachers, literacy specialists who "decorate their office door with pro-black propaganda," and security officers whose "loyalty is to the hood, not the school."

In his blog, the teacher did not identify himself or his students, the exact name of his school or the city where he taught. But like most bloggers, he wanted an audience, so he wrote in his blog that he had leaked news of his site to a few co-workers. Soon enough, the 30-year-old teacher's name was the talk of the school.

This week, after returning from spring break, the students read how they were depicted and flamed the blog with profane threats and righteous indignation toward the teacher.

By Thursday, the reaction grew so vitriolic that the blogger took down his site from Blogger.com. Also that day, a Fenger High teacher e-mailed his principal that he wasn't coming to school because he "feared for his safety." The teacher was the same one widely believed to have authored the blog because he told two colleagues that it was his, Fenger Principal William Johnson said.

Johnson said he doesn't know whether the teacher has resigned. The teacher hasn't returned Johnson's phone calls or replied to an e-mail asking to meet with him. The teacher did not acknowledge to the principal that it was his blog, but Johnson said he has no doubt, based on the writing style and his disappearance after the students named him in their postings. When he started the blog in February, he wrote as if he were the "brick and mortar" building named "Regnef,"--Fenger spelled backward--but then switched his voice and revealed he was a teacher.

In his final posting Thursday, the teacher said he intentionally leaked his blog site to people he knew would "tell the world" because he wanted it to be read, but he didn't explain how he expected to remain anonymous.

Now let's be honest -- this course of action was stupid. Once he started publicizing the blog at school, he was screwed. I have a couple of peers that know this is my blog, but they are folks who know to keep the matter extremely confidential because I've told them flat out that I don't want it to be known as my blog.

After posting stuff like he has, how can this guy possibly go back to Fenger High School.

Heck, how can he possibly remain in Chicago Public Schools?

He has enraged kids, parents, and colleagues -- he is toast.

I don't want to be him -- and so I keep my blogging separate from my place of employment.

And thank God I cannot access my site from school, so the temptation to post during school hours is not even there.

More accurately, did Thutmose III have better relations with his step-mother, Queen Hatshepsut, than has been traditionally believed by students of Egyptian history?

This find certainly raises the possibility that everything we have been taught about the issue of their relationship has been incorrect.

A team of French and Egyptian archeologists have discovered two sets of nine solid gold cartouches bearing the name of Thotmusis III (who ruled from 1479-1425 BC) near the pharaoh's stepmother Queen Hatshepsut's temple in Luxor, 700 kilometres south of Cairo.

"These cartouches... which have the names of Hatshepsut and Thotmusis III have been found near Hatshepsut's obelisk which proves that the obelisk was erected by both rulers," said Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.

Thotmusis III, who was Hatshepsut's stepson and co-ruler after the death of his father Thotmusis II in 1479 BC, was widely regarded as having had strained relations with the queen. Thotmusis III was a child when his father died and the rule of the kindgom was initially put in the hands of Hatsheput.

Until the latest discovery, Egyptologists believed that Thotmusis III destroyed Hatshepsut's statues out of jealousy upon her death in 1458 BC, particularly the ones in Hatshepsut's temple in el Deir el Bahary in the southern city of Luxor.

"This goes against earlier views that Thotmusis III tried to hide Hatshepsut's obelisk when he took over as ruler and that he worked to erase any traces left by the queen," Hawass said.

The new discoveries will be taken to the Luxor Museum to be put on display.

That is one of the things about a field like Egyptology -- beneath the next grain of sand might be the piece of evidence that overthrows all that we thought we knew!

Via Jawa Report.

America's Sons Come Home After 62 Years

From a Department of Defense press release:

The Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO)
announced today that the remains of eleven U.S. airmen, missing in action from World War II, have been identified and are being returned to their families for burial with full military honors.

They are Capt. Thomas C. Paschal, El Monte, Calif.; 1st Lt. Frank P. Giugliano, New York, N.Y.; 1st Lt. James P. Gullion, Paris, Texas; 2nd Lt. Leland A. Rehmet, San Antonio, Texas; 2nd Lt. John A. Widsteen, Palo Alto, Calif., Staff Sgt. Richard F. King, Moultrie, Ga.; Staff Sgt. William Lowery, Republic, Pa..; Staff Sgt. Elgin J. Luckenbach, Luckenbach, Texas.; Staff Sgt. Marion B. May, Amarillo, Texas.; Sgt. Marshall P. Borofsky, Chicago, Ill.; Sgt. Walter G. Harm, Philadelphia, Penn.; all U.S. Army Air Forces.

On April 16, 1944, Paschal and Widsteen were piloting a B-24J Liberator with the other nine men aboard. The aircraft was returning to Nadzab, New Guinea after bombing enemy targets near Hollandia. The plane was last seen off the coast of the island flying into poor weather.

Most of the men will be buried today in Arlington National Cemetery. The families of three of the men have decided to bury them in their hometowns.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Stop the ACLU, and Vince Aut Morire.

May God bless these heroes and their families for the sacrifices they made for the sake of human freedom.

A new Star Trek feature film is coming – and it is a prequel!

More than three years after the last "Star Trek" movie crashed at the box office, the venerable sci-fi franchise is being revived by the director of the upcoming "Mission: Impossible" sequel, Daily Variety reported in its Friday edition.

The as-yet-untitled "Star Trek" feature, the 11th since 1979, is aiming for a fall 2008 release through Paramount Pictures, the Viacom Inc. unit looking to restore its box-office luster under new management, the trade paper said.

The project will be directed by J.J. Abrams, whose Tom Cruise vehicle "Mission: Impossible III" will be released by Paramount on May 5. Abrams, famed for producing the TV shows "Alias" and "Lost," will also help write and produce.

Daily Variety said the action would center on the early days of "Star Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer-space mission.

The projected release date is 2008 – and I’ll consider breaking my own Viacom boycott to get my USS Enterprise fix.

This does mean, though, that there will be no Chekov or Sulu – and maybe no Uhura.

Shall we start speculating on possible actors to fill the roles of Kirk, Spock, and other beloved characters?

Lincoln Chafee is no Republican – that is why his wife is seeking to get Democrats to come over to the GOP to secure a Senate nomination he cannot get if only Republicans vote.

(H/T Steve Muscatello's C-Log)

From the Steve Laffey for U.S. Senate campaign:

Dear All,

Please read the following--it is truly outrageous. Below you will find a letter Stephanie Chafee (Lincoln Chafee's wife) emailed to registered Democrats URGING them to disaffiliate and register as Independents or Republicans so that they can vote for Senator Chafee in the Republican primary on September 12th. Included are the attachments Mrs. Chafee sent along with her email instructing voters HOW and WHERE to disaffiliate. This is a blatant attempt by the Chafee campaign to HIJACK the Republican primary, and further proof that Senator Chafee does not represent even moderate Republicans in Rhode Island. It is clear Lincoln Chafee cannot win the Republican primary in Rhode Island without the help of liberal Democrats. It is also clear that the Chafee campaign is beginning to panic in light of Mayor Laffey's continued success. Please spread the news to all who might be interested. We cannot let Senator Chafee get away with this. This letter can also be seen here.

Just in case Rhode Island voters were too stupid to figure out to disaffiliate on their own, Ms. Chafee provided them with a nice how-to-guide.

Five Easy Steps To Disaffiliate (Become a Unaffiliated Voter)

1.) Fill out the Rhode Island Voter Registration form (page 3 and 4 of your packet). Be sure to check unafilliated in section 8 of your registration form for your political party, which will enable you to vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary.

2.) Mail the completed form to your local board of canvassers. For a complete list of addresses see the bottom of your Rhode Island Voter Registration form.

3.) You will receive a confirmation letter detailing your new party affiliation from the Secretary of State’s office shortly after you mail in your completed Voter Registration form.

4.) On Primary Day, September 12th, at your local polling station you will be given a choice of which primary you would like to enter.

5.) Immediately after voting, you can get a disaffiliation form from the clerk at the polling station and change your registration back to your initial party affiliation.

Somebody tell the RNC to wake up and start funding Laffey's campaign. Chafee makes Arlen Specter look like Barry Goldwater. He's a fraud and should be run out of the party. Period.

Keep the GOP Primary Republican – MAKE A LITTLE LAFFEY LOVE!

Somebody had to say it, given the Reuters headline.

At 74, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy still roars

When will he be bold enough to tell us all about Mary Jo?

Just say no to Muslim demands for unreasonable accommodations.

About 200 Muslim women who have memberships to the Fitness USA chain of athletic clubs have signed a petition asking the gyms to honor what they say was a promise to provide separate exercise times for women and men.

Arrwa Mogalli, 28, of Dearborn, said she bought a $1,465 lifetime membership after being promised that a Lincoln Park facility would be open only to women on certain days.

The gym in this Detroit suburb opened a new part of the center this month to both sexes every day.

"I felt like all the money I just spent ... has gone to waste," Mogalli said.
The women are asking the chain to restore single-sex exercise days for the entire gym or to put up a divider so men and women cannot see each other while exercising.

"In Islam, there are codes of modesty for both genders," said Ammerah Saidi, 23, of Dearborn. "When you're working out, you're not dressed modestly, and you're bending in provocative ways, so you can't be working out with the opposite gender."

The company is reviewing the women's concerns, said Jodi Berry, administrative director for Fitness USA. But the company said that the women's written contracts say nothing about gender.

What next – a day that exclude non-Muslims because the Koran forbids friendship between Muslims and infidels?

Seriously – is the reach of the First Amendment guarantee of press freedom really so narrow?

"Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, (the Macintosh news sites) are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information," Kleinberg wrote at the time.

This is a position which is completely alien to American notions of liberty to speak and write.

Using this argument, gossip columns, tabloids, and human interest stories are not covered under the First Amendment, given that they are merely “feeding the public’s insatiable desire for information.” The same would be true of magazines like “Popular Mechanics”, “Field and Stream”, and “Sports Illustrated”. Heck, we’d have to divide newspapers into two sections – those sections which have First Amendment coverage and those that do not.

That is not to say that there are not legitimate questions of trade secrets and industrial espionage. But what Apple is attempting to do is nothing short of building a fence around the guarantees of the Bill of Rights and posting a giant “KEEP OUT” sign directed at citizen-journalists using the very technologies Apple’s products are designed to use.

The judges need to slap the computer giant down – with extreme prejudice.

You must be kidding!

Facilities in a prison are being built so Muslim inmates do not have to face Mecca while sitting on the toilet.

The Home Office said two new toilet blocks are being installed as part of a refurbishment at Brixton jail in south London.

Faith leaders had told prison bosses it was unacceptable for Muslim inmates to face Mecca while using the toilet.

"The refurbishment has been carried out with due consideration for all faiths", a Home Office spokeswoman said.

"Following consultation with faith leaders within the prison, various small adjustments were made to ensure the faith issues of all prisoners are taken into account."

She added: "The money spent did not affect the overall cost of the refurbishment programme."

What next – building codes that contain the same “sensitivity” towards Islam?

I have a business proposition for any interested parties. I want to start manufacturing institutional toilets. The name of the company will be….

What else can you call this?

Islamic religious leaders in this city have signed a petition calling on the new Hamas cabinet to shut down the local YMCA under the pretext that it is involved in "missionary activities." The Hamas-controlled municipality has expressed its support for the call.

The campaign against the YMCA began earlier this week when arsonists set fire to some of its offices.

The right to proselytize is a human right. So is the right to convert. It seems clear that the terrorcratic regime that rules the Palestinian Authority does not recognize such basic principles spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the governing documents of every civilized nation. It is time for the farce that is the “peace process” to end, and for Israel to step in as guarantor of the rights of Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank.

What else can be said about this statistic?

Chicago public high school freshmen are battling daunting odds: Only 6.5 percent of their predecessors have been earning four-year college degrees by their mid-20s.

For black and Latino male ninth-graders, the numbers are even more alarming. Only about 3 percent wind up graduating from four-year colleges within six years.

So says new research from the University of Chicago's Consortium on Chicago School Research, which looked at the high school graduating classes of 1998, 1999, 2002 and 2003.

One of the study’s authors calls the statistics “appalling.” I agree – and also call it evidence of educational malpractice. It is time for CPS to be taken out of the hands of the corrupt Democrats of the Chicago and their union cronies. Vouchers, anyone?

Some contract employees at the University of Miami are hunger striking. It isn’t over wages and benefits – it is over the right of workers to vote by secret ballot on the question of union representation.

And guess what – it is the company, not the union, that wants to preserve the right of workers to express their opinion in a confidential manner.

At the University of Miami, maintenance workers for a private company just received a 25 percent pay raise and new health benefits, yet they continue an over-the-top hunger strike to pressure university President Donna Shalala to help them unionize.

Shalala did her part for workers' benefits by modifying the service contract with their employer, but the Service Employees International Union wants even more. It wants Shalala to force the company to yield on what type of union election the employees can hold.

While workers could vote to unionize by secret ballot, the union wants an easier route, called a "card check," that allows union recognition as soon as a majority of employees sign cards saying they favor a union.

The union argues that the company has intimidated workers leading up to an election. If that were true, it would seem workers would prefer a secret ballot rather than signing cards for all to see.

Card checks are a vehicle for union thuggery. Workers who refuse to publicly declare their willingness to submit to union tyranny are subject to unwelcome home visits and workplace intimidation by those who insist upon the right to represent their interests – for a hefty fee. Those who refuse to join are often threatened or worse, as the history of unions in this country has repeatedly shown.

Shalala should refuse to intervene in this dispute – and as for the hunger strike, when we should not take it seriously see senior SEIU officials placed on life-support in a Miami area ICU unit due to the effects of starvation and dehydration.

Today is the Social Studies TAKS -- we finally get to my subject area.

And TAKS will be over for another year.

Let's celebrate with my regular weekend Linkfest!

* * *

Post a link to your noteworthy writings and most interesting rants -- not to mention your well-reasoned and intellectually challenging essays -- for all of us to see.

As usual, I will not limit the number of items you can link, provided you stay reasonable.

And also as usual, remember the rule.

No Porn. No Spam. No Problem.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Stop The ACLU, Uncooperative Blogger, Third World Country, Cigar Intelligence Agency, Camelot Destra Ideale, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck on Stupid, TMH Bacon Bits, Voteswagon, Liberal Wrong Wing, Publius Rendezvous

I spent a chunnk of yesterday afternoon reviewing the Constitution and Bill of Rights with some students yesterday in preparation for today's TAKS Social Studies test.

Unfortunately, my material was out of date.

My copy of the Bill of Rights included a First Amendment that read "Congress shall make no law respecting