I got into a discussion tonight with some folks on a mailing list. It began about drops in traffic over Memorial Day -- which most of us had.

The one paarticipant posted the following somewhat discouraged comment.

OK, if next week isn't 100 views per day, I'm quitting.

(Please go visit Indian Cowboy -- he's a libertarian blogger who comments on politics, society, and science, based upon what I've seen.)

I then decided to post some blogging tips -- for what they are worth, since I am hardly one of the folks who reaches stratospheric numbers, though I have built up a small following over the last two years (the blogiversary is rapidly approaching!)

Here's what came up with, after being prodded to take my initial list of six and expand it to seven. One blogger even inspired me to make my little email into a post, which she has linked. (She also has her own, as does her friend Maureen.)

Seven Tips For Building Blog Traffic

1) Blog daily, and at a consistent time. That gets folks into the habit of looking at your site every day.

2) Become an expert. Make yourself a "go-to-guy" on certain issues. I did on the Abdul Rahman case earlier this year, and have written a lot on William Jefferson. School censorship cases are also a topic that I often write on.

3) Find out what is hot and blog on it. I try to blog on at least one article from RealClearPolitics' Buzztracker section each day. I also like the Washington Post as a source for articles, because they have a link to Technorati with their articles.

4) Be interesting; be yourself. Duh!

5) Don't be afraid or ashamed to be provocative.

6) Trackback to other bloggers writing on the same article. Trackback to bloggers you admire. Trackback to open trackback posts/linkfests.

7) Join blogging alliances/groups that you find compatible.

I've discovered that they can all use a little elaboration, so here are my notes on my seven tips.

1) I tend to post at two times during the day. The first is in the early morning, before I go to school.start my day. The second is within an hour or two of my returning home. My traffic spikes when folks get to work (be honest -- how many of you check blogs while at work) and when they come home -- or at least after dinner.

2) Go with what you know, or what interests you. I didn't choose the Rahman story, it sort of chose me. I wrote because it mattered to me, and people responded -- including one newspaper in India, where a columnist spent half his space on blogs about the Rahman story writing about my blog and my take on the story.

3) Is it being a bit of a traffic whore? Maybe -- but then again, I don't blog on a story unless it appeals to me. If the same wire service story appears on 100 different newspaper websites, why shouldn't I link to washingtonpost.com instead of the Podunk Farm News? And those Buzztracker stories are the major ones that I would be inclined to write about anyway -- it is just a question of where my link goes to, the New York Times or the Pine Gulch Gazette? Use what you can to attract those hits -- your content is what will ultimately keep them.

4) Keep it real -- let yourself, your insignts, and your beliefs come through. And even be willing to admit your mistakes. By the way, remember that these folks you debate with can become your online friends, even if you disagree with them.

5) Go out on a limb. State a far out opinion. Make an outlandish statement or two. Such things make people think, or shout, or laugh -- and can make them come back.

6) But always make sure that you reference them somehow -- whether via a quote, a hat tip, or an acknowledgement that they are writing too. It is the polite thing to do, and may get them new readers from your site at the same time you get new readers from theirs.

7) Hey -- you need friends and allies out there in the cold, hard blogospheric world. Find a blogroll or three to join that shares your interests or outlook.

Well, I hope that helps.

Also -- for more on this topic, visit these two posts at Pro Blogger -- he has just written on the topic and has beau-coup links to different folks writing about building blogs.

Happy Blogging!

It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Howard Dean has intimated that Christians and Jews who believe actually believe what Scripture says about homosexuality are bigots.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.

Mr. Dean was responding to news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."

"At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue," said Mr. Dean, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

"It is not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," Mr. Dean said.

Excuse me, sir, but who is the bigot here -- those who sincerely hold to moral and religious beliefs that date back thousands of years, or those seek to cow those believers into silence? Who is the hatemonger -- a majority that believes that marriage is and should be limited to one man and one woman and seeks to enact those beliefs democratically, or members of the minority who seek to impose alternate beliefs through the courts?

The answer should be obvious.

Even as the Terrorstinians demand money from the United States to fund their Hamas government, their media insults our nation and our most important symbols.

This American has a response -- a firm rejection of the Terrorstinian assault upon my nation's symbol and the insult to our people. I've worked up a little response for you, camel-boy -- and it does not involve censoring you, rioting, or threatening your life.

Let the fatwas fly, my friend, for I fear you not -- nor do I respect you and your malignant beliefs.

We will not give into terrorist demands for submission. We will not give into jihadi demands for dhimmitude. America will pursue them until the last jihadi terrorist lies dead in a pool of his own blood and awakes in the bowels of Hell.

(H/T Tel-Chai Nation)

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

More on the raid on William Jefferson's Congressional office.

First, it appears that Jefferson was not merely refusing to cooperate, but was actively covering up evidence of criminal conduct.

The Justice Department yesterday vigorously defended the recent weekend raid of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office as part of a bribery investigation, asserting that the Democratic lawmaker attempted to hide documents from FBI agents while they were searching his New Orleans home last August.

The government questioned in a 34-page motion filed in U.S. District Court here whether it could have obtained all the materials it had sought in a subpoena if it had not launched the surprise raid on Jefferson's congressional office May 20. According to the government filing, an FBI agent caught Jefferson slipping documents into a blue bag in the living room of his New Orleans home during a search.

"It is my belief that when Congressman Jefferson placed documents into the blue bag, he was attempting to conceal documents that were relevant to the investigation," FBI agent Stacey E. Kent of New Orleans stated in an affidavit that was part of the government's court submission. The document was filed in response to Jefferson's lawsuit demanding that the government return to him documents seized during the raid on his Capitol Hill office 11 days ago.

* * *

Last Aug. 3, FBI agents searched Jefferson's New Orleans home while the congressman and family members were present. Kent said she was assigned to watch Jefferson and his family during the search, according to her affidavit accompanying the government motion yesterday.

She said she observed him looking at several pieces of paper on a table. At one point, she said, he asked to see a copy of the subpoena.

"After a copy had been brought to him and he reviewed it, I observed Congressman Jefferson then take the subpoena and the documents he had been reading earlier and place them together under his elbow on the kitchen table."

At one point, she said, he moved to the living room, which had just been searched, and sat on a recliner. While sitting, he slipped the subpoena and the documents into a blue bag that he knew had already been searched, Kent's affidavit said.

"After several minutes, I approached Congressman Jefferson and told him that I needed to look at the documents that he had placed into the bag," the agent stated. "Congressman Jefferson told me the documents were subpoenas."

He finally pulled out the documents that were from a B.K. Son. The search warrant had asked for all communications between Jefferson and Son, the affidavit said. Son is the chief technology officer of iGate.

is it any wonder that Jefferson was not notified, and that those who might help with his obstruction of the investigation were not allowed in the office during the search?

And another group has weighed in on the legality of the search. And once again, the smart money is with the Justice Department in holding that the Speech and Debate Clause is not an absolute shield for criminal congresscritters.

A legal watchdog group insists that the FBI's recent raid of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson's office was perfectly legal, despite the subsequent complaints about the raid by both Republican and Democratic leaders of the House.

"Nowhere in the Constitution is there immunity from investigation for members of Congress. It just isn't there," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. "There is nothing there that says that they can't be subject to the same type of investigatory processes as every other American. They're American citizens."

* * *

... Boehm accused Hastert and Pelosi of "making an argument that they know does not exist."

"They can't point to a single court case. They can't point to any section or clause of the Constitution. And so when I say they're making the argument in bad faith, it's in bad faith because it's not there," Boehm told Cybercast News Service.

* * *

... Boehm argued that members of Congress deserve to be treated in the same manner as anyone else who might have broken the law.

"I think the American public is entitled to know that members of Congress who break the law are going to be investigated and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," he said. "And when Republican and Democratic leaders try to stop that they're sending a message and the message is: we're above the law. And that's the wrong message."

Well said!

You may remember my story of evacuating during Hurricane Rita last fall. It looks like the state has made arrangements to deal with a major issue during that stressful time -- the lack of fuel along the highway.

Some gas stations will let motorists pump for free if their fuel tanks run low during a hurricane evacuation, state officials said Tuesday.

The free fueling plan comes after thousands of cars were left abandoned on the side of highways during Hurricane Rita last year, when more than 3 million people evacuated the Houston area and jammed roads for hours.

Most stations along evacuation routes ran out of gas, making fuel availability a priority in the state's revamped evacuation plan.

Motorists won't be allowed to fill their tanks completely and only vehicles with little fuel remaining will be given access to the free pumps, said Jenniffier Hawes, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Drivers looking to top off will be sent to pay at other stations, she said.

"It's going to be expeditious," Hawes said. "We don't want a lack of financial resources to leave someone stranded."

The free gas will be available at stations located at 50-mile intervals on evacuation routes, she said. Valero, Shell, Exxon Mobil and Marathon are the stations providing the free fuel.

Now, will they have provisions to get the needed fuel to the stations along the route?

And will they contra-flow the traffic early enough to get everyone out of Houston if the big one heads our way again?

I'm the last one to think that a kicking a teacher is appropriate behavior -- but this strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction.

A 6-year-old special education student who kicked a Naples teacher's aide and spent several hous in juvenile jail is facing felony battery charges.

Her mother, however, wants to know why the case has gone so far.

Takovia Allen suffers from behavioral problems and attends a special class at Lely Elementary in Naples.

According to an arrest report, on May 2, a teacher was trying to line up students to go to music class. Takovia refused to go and kicked the teacher's aide in the ankle.

After a discussion among school officials and two law enforcement officials called to the school, the girl was arrested.

Takovia was taken to juvenile jail and held there for several hours before being released to her mother.

She is being charged with battery on a public education employee.

It's possible she will enter a program that includes counseling. If she completes the program successfully the charges could be dropped.

Is a six-year-old really able to formulate the level of intent necessary to commit a FELONY?????

I know the goal is to get the kid counseling (which may or may not really be necessary), but i think the method used here is heavey-handed.

I guess the loons had it all wrong!

Conspiracy theorists, beware: That aluminum foil beanie—headwear believed, since at least the 1950s, to stop brain-control rays—may make it easier for The Man to read your mind, according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology grad students. Inspired by fringe beliefs that invasive radio signals can probe citizens’ thoughts and that wearing foil on your head may fend them off, an experiment by four Ph.D. candidates found that certain key frequencies—owned by the Feds, naturally—are actually enhanced by such “protection.�

(H/T Dr. Sanity)

And now time for our Wednesday linkfest and open trackback carnival!

You know the rules -- link back to this post with your best/favorite current posts. I won't limit your number of posts, but instead ask you to exercise prudent judgement about how many you send.

Some folks have told me they have problems trackbacking to this site. If this is the case, please use the Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger to establish the link.

And, of course, don't forget the big three rules.

No Spam. No Porn. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Does this finally settle matter for the Euro-trash who have maligned one of the greatest athletes of our era?

Dutch investigators cleared Lance Armstrong of doping in the 1999 Tour de France on Wednesday, and blamed anti-doping authorities for misconduct in dealing with the American cyclist.

A 132-page report recommended convening a tribunal to discuss possible legal and ethical violations by the World Anti-Doping Agency and to consider ''appropriate sanctions to remedy the violations.''

The French sports daily L'Equipe reported in August that six of Armstrong's urine samples from 1999, when he won the first of his record seven-straight Tour titles, came back positive for the endurance-boosting hormone EPO when they were retested in 2004.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied using banned substances.

The International Cycling Union appointed Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman last October to investigate the handling of urine tests from the 1999 Tour by the French national anti-doping laboratory, known by its French acronym LNDD.

Vrijman said Wednesday his report ''exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France.''

Now we know that Armstrong accomplished his feats without artificial enhancement.

We also know that a bunch of flaccid Frenchies have again shown their national character -- No Courage, No Class.

And we confirm this simple truth -- we grow 'em bigger and better in Texas.

Well here we are, a weak-and-a-half after the search of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office -- and the Houston Chronicle has finally deigned to weigh in on the issue. Most major media outlets have long since spoken on the matter, as have most of us political bloggers -- but the Chronicle acted with all deliberate speed and waited to say a word until now.

But to their credit, they do get it right.

The law, in its majestic equality,"Anatole France wrote, "forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." Under the same principle, however, when an influential member of Congress is suspected of taking bribes, the law grants no immunity from court-approved investigation and, if warranted, prosecution.

The Constitution does grant members of Congress protection from arbitrary arrest while they are at or on their way to and from the Capitol. In the same passage, however, it withdraws such protection in cases of treason or other felonies.

The FBI's recent raid on the congressional office of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was the first of its kind, but the blame for its necessity rests solely with Jefferson. The congressman from New Orleans refused to comply with a lawful subpoena for certain of his papers, saying he should not be forced to incriminate himself. Agreed, but he has no grounds to object if law enforcement officers, equipped with a court-approved warrant, do the job for him.

Haven't I been saying the same thing since the search?

I wonder what took them so long -- other than figuring out how to gratuitously slam Bush on an unrelated issue in the editorial even as they praise the work of his administration.

Ever wonder how many bricks were delivered to Congress (the Senate in particular) during the recent debate over immigration? Or about what happened to them once they arrived?

Well, here are your answers.

If the impact was notable, so were the logistical difficulties, particularly given the mail screening and other protective measures put into effect at the Capitol after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Initially, organizers of the Send-a-Brick Project encouraged people to send bricks on their own, and Ms. Heffron said things had gone relatively smoothly.

But many people, she said, preferred that the organization itself send the bricks and an accompanying letter to selected lawmakers.

The project will do it for an $11.95 fee. So when 2,000 individually boxed bricks showed up at once, Senate officials balked, threatening to force the group to pay postage to have each delivered to its intended recipient. The dispute left the bricks stacked up until an agreement to distribute them was worked out.

"We received them and we delivered them to all the addressees," said a spokeswoman for the office of the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

As the bricks landed in Congressional mailrooms and cramped offices, the effort was applauded in some offices but drew a bemused response elsewhere.

"Given the approval ratings of Congress these days, I guess we should all be grateful the bricks are coming through the mail, not the window," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.

The senders of the bricks were encouraged to add a letter telling lawmakers that the brick represented a start on building a border wall.

Many could not resist putting their own message on the bricks. "No Amnesty," said a typical one, referring to a contested Senate plan to allow some illegal immigrants to qualify eventually for citizenship. "Stop the Invasion, Build a Wall," said another brick painted like a flag and shown on the group's Web site at www.send-a-brick.com.

Besides the border fence, the group supports technology improvements for border security, added money and personnel for the Border Patrol and an enhanced security presence in general on the southern border.

The brick effort was scheduled to wind down this week, though the organization encouraged people to continue if they desired.

On Tuesday, representatives of the architect of the Capitol collected bricks from lawmakers' offices and stacked them on loading docks with plans to donate them to a nonprofit group.

This is actually a pretty fun article -- though it shows just how out of contact some of our legislators really are.

And about time!

Roger Clemens and the Astros have officially reached an agreement, according to a person in the negotiations who told the Chronicle. A press conference will be announced shortly.

Clemens, whose 341 career victories are more than any person alive, went 18-4 with a 2.98 ERA in 2004 while winning the National League Cy Young Award, extending his record Cy Young collection to seven.

After helping the Astros to the National League Championship Series in 2004, he was 13-8 with a major-league best 1.87 ERA last season while helping the Astros reach the franchise’s first World Series. Although Clemens flirted with Boston and the Rangers, his former Astros teammates laughed and cautioned that he’d return to Houston.

Clemens’ signing should bolster the club.

“It will add a boost to the team,� ace Roy Oswalt said. “Any time you get a guy like that in the rotation, it would be great.

"We have to have a spark, and hopefully he will give it to us.�

Catcher Brad Ausmus was pleased.

“I think it’s a huge boost to our pitching staff,� Ausmus said. “Why? That’s a stupid question. He’s a horse. He’s probably the best pitcher in the history of the game. He’s the type of guy that for a full season you can count on for 200 innings.

Astros owner Drayton McLane negotiated deep into Tuesday night with Roger Clemens’ agents, and he headed to Houston early Wednesday morning.

“We worked on it last night, so that’s why I’m going to Houston right now,� McLane said as he boarded his private airplane in Temple. “We’ve worked to try to get this thing done.�

McLane has been optimistic for weeks, and he has made definite progress with Clemens’ agents, Randy and Alan Hendricks.

And while we are bringing back the old guys -- what shape is Nolan Ryan's arm in?

After all, the Astros are already 6.5 games behind the St. Louis Cardinals.

UPDATE: If you do the math, Clemens will get $14 million for four months in the majors.

Roger Clemens and the Astros have officially reached an agreement, according to a person in the negotiations who told the Chronicle. A press conference is set for 11 a.m. to announce the signing.

The deal is a pro-rated $22 million agreement, a major league record for a pitcher. Clemens will start at Class A Lexington, then go to Class AA Corpus Christi, followed by a trip to Class AAA Round Round before landing in Houston on June 22, Clemens' agent Randy Hendricks said today.

UPDATE 2: My earlier source on the prorated contract seems to have been wrong. These are the correct figures.

When he is added to the major league roster, he gets a one-year contract worth $22,000,022 -- his uniform number is 22. Because he won't be playing the full season, he gets only a prorated percentage of that, which would come to about $12.25 million if he rejoins Houston in late June. The tentative goal is to have him start against the Minnesota Twins on June 22 -- if he's put on the big league roster on that day, he would earn $12,632,307.

In oh-so-liberal San Francisco, the right to choose to have an abortion is sacred.

So is the right to choose to commit sodomy with a person of your same sex.

But taking a JROTC class in high school -- such a choice must NOT be allowed!

Or at least that is the direction things are headed.

Let's hope that the School Board listens to the wise opinion of the Argus.

THE San Francisco Board of Education is going too far in its latest plan to consider giving the boot to Junior ROTC at city high schools.

The board of education says it's taking the action in response to the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay service members to conceal their sexuality.

This is just the latest in a long history of actions that have given the city an anti-military reputation, and we think it's time for city officials to cool it on the rhetoric. It's getting old and the sons and daughters of California and San Francisco who serve their nation in times of need deserve better.

Sentiment against the Iraq war is high and it can be tempting to make headlines by taking out frustrations on the military. City officials need to keep in mind — both with regard to the ROTC program and to other issues — that the war is a policy issue; it's not the fault of the ROTC program, military recruiters or the brave men and women who serve.

But there's a more important issue than whether the board is being unfair to the military. It's the some 1,600 students enrolled in the program who could end up being hurt the most.

They now earn physical education credits and learn discipline through the JROTC and each of them is in the program because they want to be. When board members vote in June, they should keep those students in mind.

My guess, though, is that this opinion will be ignored.

After all, this is San Francisco we are talking about, where something as trivial as the good of students can never be allowed to trump a far-left political statement.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

WELCOME HOUSTON CHRONICLE READERS -- I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T LINK THIS POST INSTEAD

Back in 2000, we were told that Repulicans had "rioted" when they banged on doors in a successful attempt to make sure that all valid presidential ballots were accurately and publicly counted, as required by Florida law. Liberals said this was a bad thing.

Now we have liberals attempting to interfere with the transport of military equipment to a combat zone during time of war. I find this situation and the response quite disturbing.

Police fired pepper spray as about 150 anti-war protesters tried to enter the Port of Olympia as part of ongoing demonstrations against the shipment of Army equipment to Iraq.

Protesters chanted "Out of Olympia, Out of Iraq" as they rocked a chain-link gate to the port late Monday, and at least three tried to use wooden boards to pry the gate open, The Olympian newspaper reported. A 50-ton piece of equipment was moved to reinforce the gate on the other side.

Police and sheriff's deputies clad in riot gear fired at least four rounds of pepper spray in an hour after asking the demonstrators several times to stop, authorities said. No one was arrested, but paramedics were dispatched to treat some activists.

By the definition promulgated by liberals, this was not a non-violent demonstration -- it was a riot. Furthermore, it was an act of sedition, if not outright treason.

But I would like to express my disappointment with the use of pepper spray against these "activists". It was an inappropriate choice.

The better choice would have been M-16s -- as befits any enemy of America.

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

My Darling Democrat paused while flipping channels during a commercial.

How sad!

Am I the only one who thinks she looks like Brando in drag?

And no, we are not talking about folks with a GED -- we are talking about folks who have not met any sort of graduation requirement at all.

It is a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland idea. If you do not finish high school, head straight for college.

But many colleges — public and private, two-year and four-year — will accept students who have not graduated from high school or earned equivalency degrees.

And in an era of stubbornly elevated high school dropout rates, the chance to enter college through the back door is attracting growing interest among students without high school diplomas.

That growth is fueling a debate over whether the students should be in college at all and whether state financial aid should pay their way. In New York, the issue flared in a budget battle this spring.

They are students like April Pointer, 23, of New City, N.Y., a part-time telemarketer who majors in psychology at Rockland Community College, whose main campus is in Suffern, N.Y. Ms. Pointer failed science her senior year of high school and did not finish summer school.

But to her father's amazement, last year she was accepted at Rockland, part of the State University of New York.

"He asked, 'Don't you have to have a high school diploma to go to college?' " she said. "I was like, 'No, not anymore.' "

As a high school teacher, this worries me. No, not because of job security issues, but because it seems to devalue even further the worth of a high school diploma I realize that there is no stopping private schools from doing what they want to do regarding admission to college, but it seems to me that there should at least be a minimum standard for admission to public colleges and universities. I'm sure that many of these students are part of the group that need significant amounts of remediation when they arrive on campus.

And then there is the question of giving these students financial aid. Should we be offering financial assistance to those who di not even make full use of the "free" (not really, given the taxpayer burden, but free to them) educational opportunities thaty had on the high school level?

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Let Us Make Them All Welcome by Gates of Vienna, and The Essential President Bush by The Anchoress. 

Here is where you can find the full results of the vote.

Look at their Memorial Day Tribute. Make sure you have a barfbag ready.

Shame!

Now I have made my views clear on what should happen to those responsible for the incident at Haditha, if media reports are accurate. But I agree very much with the approach advocated by General Peter Pace, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the need for the investigation so be completed and truials to be conducted.

The chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of a Pentagon investigation into the killing of as many as a dozen Iraqi civilians by Marines.

But at the same time, Marine Gen. Peter Pace said he believes its critically important to make the point that if certain service members are responsible for an atrocity there, they "have not performed their duty the way that 99.9 percent of their fellow Marines have."

Interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" as the nation observed Memorial Day honoring men and women lost in war, Pace pledged that "we'll get to the bottom of the investigation and take the appropriate action."

On the other hand, John Murtha is crying crocodile tears about the incident undermining the war effort.

Murtha, a former Marine and a prominent critic of Bush administration policies in Iraq, repeated his view that the war in Iraq cannot be won militarily and needs political solutions, which he said were damaged by such incidents involving the U.S.

"This is the kind of war you have to win the hearts and minds of the people," he said. "And we're set back every time something like this happens. This is worse than Abu Ghraib."

Good grief! He sounds like an old whore decrying the loose sexual morality of today's women. He has been undermining the war effort for months, and did so again yesterday -- but he expresses concern that the incident could hurt our nation's work in Iraq!

And, of course, he indicts the very folks who are investigating the incident for covering it up -- I guess he wanted summary court martials without investigations or the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. In other words, he favors less due process for our troops than he does for those who fight against them. Just standard political talking-points for the anti-American Left.

Let the process work, Congressman -- we can have any necessary firing squads after a thorough investigation and full and fair trials for those accused. In the mean time, shut up -- because right now you are doing as much to undermine our troops and their mission this Memorial Day as anything that happened in Haditha.

UPDATE: How about if we let a Marine who has served on the front lines in Iraq and faced false charges speak to this issue.

A year ago I was charged with two counts of premeditated murder and with other war crimes related to my service in Iraq. My wife and mother sat in a Camp Lejeune courtroom for five days while prosecutors painted me as a monster; then autopsy evidence blew their case out of the water, and the Marine Corps dropped all charges against me ["Marine Officer Cleared in Killing of Two Iraqis," news story, May 27, 2005].

So I know something about rushing to judgment, which is why I am so disturbed by the remarks of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) regarding the Haditha incident ["Death Toll Rises in Haditha Attack, GOP Leader Says," news story, May 20]. Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

In the United States, we have a civil and military court system that relies on an investigatory and judicial process to make determinations based on evidence. The system is not served by such grand pronouncements of horror and guilt without the accuser even having read the investigative report.

Mr. Murtha's position is particularly suspect when he is quoted by news services as saying that the strain of deployment "has caused them [the Marines] to crack in situations like this." Not only is he certain of the Marines' guilt but he claims to know the cause, which he conveniently attributes to a policy he opposes.

Members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq need more than Mr. Murtha's pseudo-sympathy. They need leaders to stand with them even in the hardest of times. Let the courts decide if these Marines are guilty. They haven't even been charged with a crime yet, so it is premature to presume their guilt -- unless that presumption is tied to a political motive.

ILARIO PANTANO

Jacksonville, N.C.

The writer served as a Marine enlisted man in the Persian Gulf War and most recently as a platoon commander in Iraq.

But then again, when has the Left ever let little matters like guilt, innocence, or trials get in the way of their propaganda points?

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has been considering a boycott of Israeli academics who refuse to denounce Israel and support the Terrorstinian entity controlled by Hamas, Hizbollah, and Fatah.

Sadly, decency failed, and the resolution passed.

The 69,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted to boycott Israeli academic professionals and institutions of higher learning unless they “dissociate themselves� from Israel’s “apartheid policy� in Judea and Samaria.

The reactions to the decision were swift.

The British government at once released a statement condemning the move In an effort to contain the damage. A statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman, the UK expressed its regrets and called the decision “counterproductive and retrograde�. Triesman was careful, however, to add, “We also recognize the independence of the NATFHE�.

Triesman served as deputy general secretary of the union in 1984. He also served as general secretary for the Association of University Teachers (AUT) trade union from 1993 to 2001.

Israel Education Minister Yuli Tamir slammed the NATFHE on the vote. She had already spoken last week with the British minister for higher education and asked him to step in to prevent the boycott. “The decision to boycott academic institutions is a move worthy of condemnation and revulsion,� she said. “Those who are implementing this boycott are harming academia’s freedom and turning it into a tool for political forces.�

In an appeal to the international community, NRP Knesset member Zevulun Orlev wrote to parliament members in Britain, France and Germany to demand they join with Israel in condemning the action. Orlev, chairman of the Knesset Science Committee, told his European counterparts, “This is a test of the free world. We expect you to condemn this anti-Semitic and racist decision and to help institutions of higher education in your countries tighten their cooperation with science, technology and higher education institutes in Israel.�

Professor Yehezkiel Teler, Vice Chairman of the Higher Education Council called the decision an echo of the Nazi boycott prior to World War II. “Now Britain is politicizing academia, in opposition to every academic value accepted in the world,� he said. “This will come back on them like a boomerang,� he predicted.

Haifa University, represented by its president, Aharon Ben Ze’ev also slammed the decision as a political move unbefitting an academic organization. “Any attempt to create ties between politics and academic research is simply McCarthyism,� he said.

Professor Yosef Yeshurun, the rector at Bar Ilan University, called the decision “negative�. He added that it “destroys bridges instead of building them�.

* * *

There were actually two motions which were voted on, both making reference to political issues involving relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The first called upon the NATFHE membership to help aid, protect and support PA institutions and universities, and to maintain ties with the PA. The first vote also accused Britain of “scandalous incitement� against Hamas, according to the Ynet news service report.

The second motion called for the boycott against “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy�. The new security fence was cited as part of the “apartheid policy�. In addition, the union leveled accusations of discriminatory practices in the education system.

Both motions were approved in a vote of 106 to 71 with 21 abstentions. In addition to boycotting Israeli institutions and academic professionals, union members will also no longer submit articles to Israeli research journals.

The group confirmed its anti-Semitism by failing to offer even a single word of condemnation directed at the campaign of murder conducted by Terrorstinian groups against innocent Israeli citizens. Perhaps at the next convention they will adopt a national student dress code requiring that members wear brown shirts and greet each other with a click of the heels and a straight-arm salute. It would be consistent with their resolution this year.

This boycott is reeks to high heaven.

I therefore renew my earlier statement about the proper response to this action by the NATFHE.

In the event this resolution passes, the United States needs to implement a policy of denying visas to all members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education "who do not publicly dissociate themselves from" the group's anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist policies.

This is material support of terrorism, and it must not be permitted to stand.

MORE AT: Arkopolo, PaleoJudaica, Dutchblog Israel, Western Resistance, Solomonia, Adloyada, Freunde der offenen Gesellschaft, Step-by-Step, Engage, EclectEcon, Zionism on the Web, Gates of Vienna

Could scenes like this one make the difference in this fall's Maryland senatorial race?

Richmond Myrick, the principal of Largo High School, is a registered Democrat in overwhelmingly Democratic Prince George's County next to Washington, D.C. He has not been active politically and is not recorded as having made any contributions to candidates for federal office. Yet recently, he stood in the parking lot of Prince George's Community College adjoining his school to introduce Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, whom he has endorsed for the U.S. Senate.

Myrick is African American, as are most students at Largo High. So is Steele. If enough non-political blacks follow Myrick's course, Steele will become the first black Republican elected to the Senate in 32 years. That is the Democrats' worst nightmare. Democratic dominance in Maryland has been based on maintaining a hammerlock over the state's substantial African- American vote. Steele threatens that domination.

* * *

I asked Myrick why he had endorsed Steele. ''He came to school, not just for a brief visit, but spent the whole day,'' the principal told me. ''He showed he cared about the students and teachers.'' What about Cardin? ''He hasn't been here,'' said Myrick. When I asked if he even knew who the veteran congressman was, he said he did not.

And like many Republicans, Steele is more than willing to cricize President Bush on policy issues, and to disagree with his handling of situations. The Republican Party thereby shows itself to be a big tent that does not demand nearly the ideological conformity of the Democrat Party, which has been driven for years by liberal special interst groups and is now being hounded to become even more ideologically liberal by groups like MoveOn. That makes Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, and Lynn Swann potential bright spots for Republicans this fall, if African-American voters turn out for a new generation of leaders who have an (r) after their names.

Whatever will the folks from MoveOn and other hard-Left groups have to say about this development?

DON'T LOOK now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback — and not among the Republicans who have made it famous but in the Democratic Party.

A host of pundits and young national security experts associated with the party are calling for a return to the Cold War precepts of President Truman to wage a war against terror that New Republic Editor Peter Beinart, in the title of his provocative new book, calls "The Good Fight."

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration. They support a U.S. government that would seek multilateral consensus before acting abroad, but one that is not scared to use force when necessary.

Perhaps such developments explain the left-wing attacks on folks like Joe Lieberman -- if they can remove leading Democrats with a sane view of foreign policy in favor of those supported by KOSsacks and DUmmies, this movement can be stopped.

But if the neo-con movement in the Democrat party succeeds, it could be the beginning of the next great party reallignement in American politics.

You've got to love it when Democrats excuse behavior in themselves that they wouldn't accept in their political opponents.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while that state agency was trying to influence him on federal regulation of boxing.

Reid, D-Nev., took the free seats for Las Vegas fights between 2003 and 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

He defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry. "Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.

"I love the fights anyways, so it wasn't like being punished," added the senator, a former boxer and boxing judge.

So tell me, Senator, how these tickets differ from the golf trips that the Democrats have called part of a "culture of corruption" when Republicans accepted them.

And we cannot, of course, overlook the different courses of action taken by teh two Republicans who accepted tickets.

Two senators who joined Reid for fights with the complimentary tickets took markedly differently steps.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., accepted free tickets to another fight with Reid but already had recused himself from Reid's federal boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that hosts fights.

In other words, you took the tickets, McCain paid for them, and Ensign had already taken himself out of the debate becasue of family connections. Whose behavior was most ethical, Senator ?

And whose clients were you meeting with and doing favors for?

In an interview Thursday in his Capitol office, Reid broadly defended his decisions to accept the tickets and to take several actions benefiting disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's clients and partners as they donated to him.

"I'm not Goodie two shoes. I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong," Reid said.

Reid had separate meetings in June 2003 in his Senate offices with two Abramoff tribal clients and Edward Ayoob, a former staffer who went to work lobbying with Abramoff.

The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Ayoob also threw a fundraiser for Reid at the firm where Ayoob and Abramoff worked that netted numerous donations from Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.

Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fundraiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Reid at the fundraiser and the next morning met briefly with Reid and Ayoob at Reid's office to discuss federal programs. Reid and the tribal chairman posed for a picture.

Five days earlier, Reid met with Ayoob and the Sac & Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Reid's office said the senator never acted on those requests.

And strikingly enough, what did they get in return?

A few months after the fundraiser, Reid did sponsor a spending bill that targeted $100,000 to another Abramoff tribe, the Chitimacha of Louisiana, to pay for a soil erosion study Ayoob was lobbying for. Reid said he sponsored the provision because Louisiana lawmakers sent him a letter requesting it.

Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, has pleaded guilty in a widespread corruption probe of Capitol Hill. Reid used that conviction earlier this year to accuse Republicans of fostering a culture of corruption inside Congress.

AP recently reported that Reid also wrote at least four letters favorable to Abramoff's tribal clients around the time Reid collected donations from those clients and Abramoff's partners. Reid has declined to return the donations, unlike other lawmakers, saying his letters were consistent with his beliefs.

Certainly looks like a quid pro quo to me -- and what do Senate rules say about appearances?

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meetings or actions they took were in any way connected with political donations.

In other words, under Senate rules you are DIRTY! After all, it sure looks like there was a connection between your official actions and the fundraising event and donations. What would you be saying -- indeed, what have you said -- about Republicans in precisely that situation? I think we all know the answer.

I never realized what a sleazy character William Jefferson is -- I've been so busy focussing on the current dust-up over bribe-taking that I never looked into his background. Interestingly enough, no less than the New York Times has trotted out a litany of dirt stretching back a couple of decades. And the sad thing is that Jefferson, had he stuck to an ethical path, would be a superb role model to hold up to my students coming out of a poor background.

Representative William J. Jefferson has always liked to talk about growing up in an impoverished farm community, picking cotton for $3 a day and hitting the books hard enough to win his ticket out — a scholarship to Harvard Law School.

* * *

Mr. Jefferson was raised, along with eight brothers and sisters, on a small farm in northeast Louisiana, where, he said earlier this year, "our whole life revolved around that cotton field." His father left school after second grade, and his mother attended only through eighth grade.

As a child, Mr. Jefferson was such a good shot, his father once said, that when it came time to bag dinner, "if I wanted one rabbit, I'd give him one shell; and if I needed two rabbits, I'd give him two."

After he graduated from Southern University in Baton Rouge in 1969, Mr. Jefferson has said, he won his mother's blessing to go to Harvard Law School — she had never heard of it — only by explaining that it had been John F. Kennedy's college.

I've got kids who come from families like that -- kids whose families do migrant farm work during the summer, kids who work after school to make sure there is food on the table for the rest of the family. William Jefferson ought to be an example to them of how to succeed -- except he fell into stuff like this.

His rental business — which leased television sets and other appliances to people who could not afford to buy them — appeared on the delinquent list in a city sales-tax scandal in the 1980's. And a day after he was elected to Congress in 1990, the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was trying to clean up the mess from the collapse of savings institutions, sued him for $160,000 over an apartment-building loan on which he had quit making payments. He later settled the suit, with friends saying his investments had been hurt by a faltering economy.

Tax-cheat, gouger of the poor, slum-lord, deadbeat -- I suppose even some of that could be forgiven, overlooked, or explained. He was trying to serve his community, and he got in over his head. Not that anyone would buy such an argument if he were a Republican -- look at how the Democrats have gone after Michael Steele over personal financial issues not nearly so severe.

And then we get this, after he became the go-to guy for doing business in Africa during the Clinton administration. From that point forward, his dealings with companies seeking business opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa became more convoluted -- and much more shady.

Mr. Jefferson also became known as a strong advocate of freer trade and made at least nine trips to Africa to promote it, including one with President Clinton. He championed a 2000 law that extended trade benefits to sub-Saharan Africa. "Africa is a reservoir of opportunities for American businesses," he said then.

Over the years, Mr. Jefferson has received campaign contributions and free travel from individuals and companies seeking business in Africa, including iGate.

Campaign finance records show he received a $1,000 contribution as early as 2001 from Vernon L. Jackson, the chief executive of iGate, which makes technology to transmit high-speed Internet service across the wires used in some African nations. Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty this month to bribing Mr. Jefferson with more than $400,000 in cash and millions of shares of iGate stock.

Government documents show that Mr. Jackson told the F.B.I. that when he met Mr. Jefferson in late 2000, the congressman voluntarily helped promote iGate's products — a normal and legitimate action for a government official involved in trade issues. But according to the F.B.I. documents, in early 2001, the congressman's actions became improper when he said he would continue to use his influence on iGate's behalf only if Mr. Jackson made payments to a company, the ANJ Group, run by the Jefferson family. The iGate payments were disguised as consulting fees, the F.B.I. said.

Mr. Jefferson says these were private business dealings that had nothing to do with his work on the House committee.

But as part of a 2003 deal to distribute iGate's products, a Nigerian company, Netlink Digital Television, agreed to pay the congressman $5 per subscriber, the F.B.I. affidavit said, "in return for Jefferson's official assistance if the deal was successful."

House records show that in February 2004, Mr. Jefferson led a business delegation to Nigeria and Cameroon as a co-chairman of the Congressional Nigeria Caucus and the Africa Trade and Investment Caucus. The trip, which cost $16,313, according to the records, was paid for in part by iGate.

In 2005, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson wrote to the vice presidents of Nigeria and Ghana, and traveled to Ghana, seeking approval for iGate projects. Within a week after returning, the F.B.I. said, Mr. Jefferson used his influence to help a Virginia woman, Lori Modi, who had invested $3.5 million in the Nigeria project. He introduced her to officials at the Export-Import Bank of the United States and urged them to provide financing for the project.

But by then, Ms. Modi had asked the F.B.I. to investigate the deal.

Investigators said that in negotiating the deals, Mr. Jefferson had often cited his desire to provide for his five daughters, three of whom also have degrees from Harvard Law School.

From December 2004 through June 2005, the F.B.I. said in its affidavit, Mr. Jefferson increased his demands for equity in one Nigerian company, to 30 percent, to be split among his daughters. He also told an investor that one of his daughters had to be retained to do legal work, according to documents in the case.

Then, on July 30, 2005, when Mr. Jefferson met Ms. Modi at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, the F.B.I. said it supplied her with a briefcase with $100,000 in marked bills. Mr. Jefferson had told her the money would be needed to bribe Nigerian officials, the affidavit said.

As the F.B.I.'s video cameras zoomed in on him, the bureau said, Mr. Jefferson drove off with the briefcase on the seat of his Lincoln Town Car. And when agents raided his home four days later, $90,000 of the money turned up again, in the kitchen freezer.

Which leads us, of course, to the current crisis, sparked by Jefferson's refusal to cooperate with investigators or to turn over subpoenaed documents. From a position of great promise, Jefferson has fallen prey to his own baser instincts. I cannot help but see similarities to Duke Cunningham in Jefferson's fall.

Ed Lasky of American Thinker sees this article very differently.

* * *

I would also like to point to the interesting work of two bloggers -- A.J. Strata and Mac Ranger. Both have looked at this case and found another interesting angle -- the Clinton Administration connection to Jefferson. Who seems to be the prominent individual who may have played a major role in the development of Jefferson's African connections and portfolio? Joe Wilson -- Bush-basher and proven liar. Maybe his dishonesty goes even further.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Conservative Cat, Sed Vitae, Mark My Words, Stop the ACLU, Stuck on Stupid, Basil's Blog, Committe of Correspondence, NIF, Right Wing Nation

As most folks who read here know, I studied for the priesthood when I was younger. While problems with certain aspects of Catholic theology have led me to leave the Church, I still hold a great love and respect for Catholicism and find great spiritual inspiration and comfort in the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is why I find pastoral failures like this one to be so shocking and saddening.

The situation also calls to mind the observation of one of my seminary professors made the observation (pre-9/11 by nearly a decade) that the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with the terrorist.

At a small Catholic church in Huntington Beach, the pressing moral question comes to this: Does kneeling at the wrong time during worship make you a sinner?

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.

Though told by the pastor and the archdiocese to stand during certain parts of the liturgy, a third of the congregation still gets on its knees every Sunday.

"Kneeling is an act of adoration," said Judith M. Clark, 68, one of at least 55 parishioners who have received letters from church leaders urging them to get off their knees or quit St. Mary's and the Diocese of Orange. "You almost automatically kneel because you're so used to it. Now the priest says we should stand, but we all just ignore him."

The debate is being played out in at least a dozen parishes nationwide.

Since at least the 7th century, Catholics have been kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the point during Mass when the priest holds up the chalice and consecrated bread and says, "Behold the lamb of God." But four years ago, the Vatican revised its instructions, allowing bishops to decide at some points in the Mass whether their flocks should get on their knees. "The faithful kneel … unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise," says Rome's book of instructions. Since then, some churches have been built without kneelers.

In other words, either kneeling or standing is an appropriate posture during worship according to no less than the Vatican. Unfortunately, liberal liturgists insist otherwise, and have been tinkering away with this and other parts of the liturgy. Looks like they got to Bishop Tod D. Brown. And unfortunately, there is no negoiation.

Angered by the anti-kneeling edict, a group calling itself Save Saint Mary's began distributing leaflets calling for its return outside church each Sunday.

Tran responded in the church bulletin with a series of strident weekly statements condemning what he called "despising the authority of the local bishop" by refusing his orders to stand, and calling the disobedience a mortal sin, considered the worst kind of offense, usually reserved for acts such as murder.

Tran sent letters to 55 kneeling parishioners "inviting" them to leave the parish and the diocese for, among other things, "creating misleading confusion, division and chaos in the parish by intentional disobedience and opposition to the current liturgical norms."

Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."

Now when I was in the seminary, I was often told that there was a need to be "pastoral". That meant letting the local politician who was adamantly pro-abortion receive communion despite his support for exterminating unborn life, because we couldn't really judge what was in his heart. It meant accepting the active homosexuals at the altar and permitting them to receive communion, because we could not judge their relationship with God. In short, it meant accepting all manner of buffet-line Christianity. It even meant reassigning Fr. Bob to a new parish after he got caught buggering the altar boys, and not supervising him or telling his new parishioners about his proclivities.

But somehow, following 14 centuries of liturgical tradition has been decreed "mortal sin" by a pastor and is supported by a bishop. Those who wish to follow that tradition are just one step shy of excommunication, and have already been told they are bound for hell for daring to cross the pastor and bishop. Where, exactly, is the "pastoral" practice in that?

I have to tell you -- there is nothing pastoral about it. And I must state that Father Tran and Bishop Brown are nothing short of little Phariseess (Luke 11:39-54) and anti-Christs (though neither is THE Anti-Christ -- note the capitalization) driving the faithful away from the Church with petty legalisms (note the word "petty") that have nothing to do with the essentials of the Christian faith.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Let them be anathema.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

I do not believe the position taken by this editorial on the attempts to expel a high school student for his off-campus blogging.

In effect, it argues against freedom of speech and press for students -- and does not consider the implications of its position.

Here is the scary part of the editorial.

On the other hand, should the school — which cannot comment on individual disciplinary cases — sit idle while one of its students humiliates it online? Certainly in the post-Columbine era, school officials have to be quick to react to any perceived threat. But does criticism, whether warranted or not, necessarily convey a threat?

We think the school was right in suspending the student over the posts. Disciplinary action should be considered for anyone crossing the line with inappropriate language verbally or in print, at school or in the workplace. Standards have to be maintained.

Hold on -- is it the position of the Herald News that government entities may act to punish speakers or writers that "humiliate" it? Does this mean that a critical editorial in the Herald News or an article that casts government in an unflattering light could be grounds for official action against the newspaper -- perhaps an arrest and criminal charges? Do such words, which "humiliate" government, render them outside the protection of the First Amendment?

And then there is the other issue -- one that shows that the editorialist does not understand the situation at all. This is not a case of inappropiate language being used in the workplace or school. The blog was written and posted outside of school from a private computer in the student's home. There is no "at school" nexus -- except for the fact that the kid was writing about school. Is it the position of the Herald News that speech about governement entities has no First Amendment protection, regardless of wher it occurs? Sounds to me like the sort of stuff that saw John Peter Zenger tried by colonial authorities in the 1730s -- he libeled the government and its officials by printing unflattering information about them, and the fact that the information was true constituted an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. Such attrocities were part of the reason for the adoption of the First Amendment.

Now I'm curious about something -- would the editorialist be taking the same position on the punishment of this student if the basis were a letter to the editor or guest column that appeared in its own pages? How about if it were comments quoted by one of its reporters in an article? How about an appearance on tlevision or radio? In short, does the Herald news feel that the medium of communication is what confers protection, not the words?

It is according to Paul Richard, who opines that modern artistic style has failed to in its effort to adequately memorialize American heroes -- and that with it, we have lost some sense of truly memorializing those we claim to honor.

Remember, tomorrow's Memorial Day. That's what it's for, remembering.

The holiday's gone blurry. Now it's mostly fun (ballgames, setting up the barbecue, another day off work), but it used to be for focused recollections of the dead.

Not the dead in general, the dead in sharp particular. Half a million soldiers had died in the Civil War. When the rites were first observed in 1866, there were plenty to recall.

Each spring at the end of May, their graves were strewn with flowers, their faces brought to mind. This was deeply serious business. The fallen mustn't be forgotten. We used words like "the fallen" then. That seriousness bred art. That art would shape the country's look, and Washington's especially. Vast amounts of money, artistry and effort would be expended on its making. The beauty of the art would illumine its high purpose -- to immortalize remembrance. Strewn flowers weren't enough. The fallen would be given stone-and-metal monuments impervious to time.

Washington is filled with them. If you want to get Memorial Day, look around at the memorials. They're victors' monuments. They put generals on pedestals, and dead presidents above them. Washington's memorials share a certain style. Their statues aren't just portraits, though they're often that, as well; they're personified ideals. Their bronze laurel wreaths and eagles, and Greco-Roman lions, say: The past approves of us. They're insistently high-minded, august.

They represent an art movement, now dead. For a long time their architects and artists, their stone-carvers and bronze-founders got better and better. For a long time their elevated style got nobler and nobler. Then, suddenly, it died.

It died a poignant death -- at the peak of its accomplishment, just when it got great. We know the date exactly. Memorial sculpture's greatness left Washington forever on the 30th of May, Memorial Day, 1922.

I would tend to agree. While the stark black walls of the meorial to those who died in Vietnam are moving, the statuary additions are not. Other, more recent monuments and memorials are somehow lacking. And with that loss of purpose and definition, has come a loss of memory.

Jefferson standing, purposeless -- he should be seated, writing the mrvelous words that surround him in the Jefferson Memorial. Roosevelt -- ill-defined. Will we fail with the national commemoration of Dr. King?

Or put differently, can we, as a people, recover our capacity for historical memory?

George McGovern has always appeared to be one of the dying breed of socialist dinosaurs. But even he understands enough about politics to get what the problem is with the current attacks on Wal-Mart.

It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker takes home about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new world.

I understand the attraction of asking business — the perceived "deep pockets" — to shoulder more of the responsibility for social welfare. But there are plenty of businesses that don't have deep pockets. Many large corporations operate with razor-thin profit margins as competitors, both foreign and domestic, attract consumers by offering lower prices.

The current frenzy over Wal-Mart is instructive. Its size is unprecedented. Yet for all its billions in profit, it still amounts to less than four cents on the dollar. Raise the cost of employing people, and the company will eliminate jobs. Its business model only works on low prices, which require low labor costs. Whether that is fair or not is a debate for another time. It is instructive, however, that consumers continue to enjoy these low prices and that thousands of applicants continue to apply for those jobs.

Now notice that statistic -- Wal-Mart has only a 4% profit margin. Raise costs, and either prices will go up or jobs will go down -- or both.

Now McGovern uses that to support socialized medicine, an increasingly progressive tax rate, and more transfer payments. He is, of course, wrong on those issues, not recognizing that such policies ultimately fail wherever tehy are tried. But the essentially capitalistic notion he supports regarding Wal-Mart is correct, and i praise him for that.

At last -- a GOP leader willing to come out and state the obvious (updated) about the search of William Jefferson's office!

In a break with his counterparts in the House, the Senate's leader said today the FBI was within its right to search the office of a congressman under investigation in a bribery case.

"No House member, no senator, nobody in government should be above the law of the land, period," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

* * *

"I don't think it abused separation of powers," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday.

"I think there's allegations of criminal activity, and the American people need to have the law enforced."

Even Dick Durbin came close to stating a similar conclusion.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said there needs to be "hard look" at whether the FBI violated the Constitution. But he said the FBI has raided judge's chambers before, so there is precedent for crossing branches of government for searches.

He also said he wasn't sure the "speech and debate" protections in Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution were violated, as some of have argued.

That section states that members of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

"I'm not sure that you can stretch it to apply to this situation," Durbin said. "In the next several weeks, we ought to take a hard look at it. I'm not going to rule it in or out at this moment."

Yeah, he wants to keep it around as a possible election year issue if the focus groups indicate that it might make a difference in November -- but since he notes that law enforcement has historically used search warrants to search the offices of judges, he can't really make the case for a violation of separation of powers. -- and his words effectively concede that.

So it is time for the leadership of the House of Representatives to quit demagoguing this issue -- and for the Presidnet to rescind his sequestration of the evidence against Jefferson and end the obstruction of the investigation of this crooked congressman.

UPDATE: Looks like Wyoming Congresswoman Barbara Cubin has broken with House leadership on this matter.

“Nobody in this country is above the law, especially those elected to create our laws,� she said. “They should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. They should not expect their congressional offices to be treated as a safe haven to store incriminating documents or illegal products such as drugs or stolen goods."

"With all due respect to my colleagues, criticizing the executive and judicial branches of our government for fully investigating a member of Congress suspected of criminal wrongdoing sends the wrong message and reflects poorly upon all of Congress,� she added. “Alleged corruption and crimes in both the private and public sector must be fully investigated, and those found guilty must face a fitting punishment. Members of Congress are no exception.�

In an interview, Cubin also disagreed with the calls for the government to immediately return all documents.

"As long as the constituents’ privacy is protected, I think that they ought to be able to look at whatever evidence there is in his office that he may have broken the law,� she said.

She explained that the leadership’s protests could further erode the public’s already skeptical view of Congress.

“What isn’t acceptable is that there’s a perception out in the country that members of Congress think that they are above the law, because they’re not above the law,� she said. “I think for the most part they don’t believe they are either. But just the perception that that is so, is not acceptable.�

She added that lawmakers do need to protect constituents’ private communications with their offices.

“They ought to be assured their private information will be kept private, but to think that the authorities shouldn’t be able to go into our offices in the pursuit of an investigation of criminal wrongdoing, I think it just sets us apart, and we ought not to be set apart,� she added.

Cubin acknowledged the significance of the fact that such a raid has never happened in U.S. history.

“I think we have to guard overzealous prosecution,� she said. “But members of Congress have to know that they have to abide by the laws of this land just like anyone else.�

And furthermore, the Wyoming Republican notes that the particular facts of this case make it clear that the warrant and search were appropriate.

Also, I came across this article by Robert F. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.

But as the Supreme Court observed in the 1972 case of U.S. v. Brewster, the clause was never intended to immunize corrupt legislators who violate felony bribery statutes--laws that have expressly applied to members of Congress for more than 150 years. In Brewster, the court noted the clause was not written "to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility," adding: "Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator."

Such behavior is therefore not protected by the Constitution. The purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to protect the integrity of the legislative process, and the court noted that bribery, "perhaps even more than Executive power," would "gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation."

A dozen years ago, I testified before the House Committee on Administration on this same basic issue. Newt Gingrich and other reformers were trying to bring Congress under the same ethics laws it had imposed upon the rest of the country, and some indignant legislators seemed confident that the laws were not supposed to apply to them. The hearing was held in a small room in a part of the Capitol Building off-limits to the public, with exactly enough chairs for members, staff and the three witnesses.

Two members of the public who managed to make their way to the room were turned away on the grounds that there was "no room" for public observers.

Critics of the Gingrich proposal did not hear what they wanted. Some seemed genuinely shocked when I informed them that, in Federalist No. 57, James Madison noted one of the constraints in the Constitution to prevent legislators from enacting "oppressive measures" was that "they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Indeed. Let's get away from the notion of Congressional Aristocracy.

That is what I'm getting from this post over at Euphoric Reality. Here are some of the elements the new "immigration bill" includes, according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector.

*The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ''United States worker'' includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of ''prevailing wage'' to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ''terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.'' In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

Now what that means is that foreign workers admitted under the guest-worker provisions won't just get "jobs that Americans won't do" -- they potentially can get jobs that Americans want to do, if the employer prefers to hire foreign workers. It guarantees them the "prevailing wage" -- usually the union scale, while not guaranteein American workers that wage. Furthermore, it eliminates the "at will" employment provisions of most state laws in relation to these foreign workers -- meaning that they have a level of job security denied American citizens. So let's see here -- equal rights to American jobs, higher wages guaranteed, and more job security than American workers have. Remind me whose county this is again, and who the members of the US Senate represent?

Kate O'Beirne and Mickey Kaus have more.

If this is accurate, I believe that firing squads are in order.

A four-man team of United States Marines led the killing rampage in the Iraqi town of Haditha which resulted in the deaths of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians, military investigators believe.

The troops went from house to house shooting their occupants after a roadside bomb killed one of their comrades, an internal US military report, which may be completed as early as this week, is expected to conclude. Some of the victims were killed, execution style, by shots to the head.

Shock at the full extent of the killing, reported by The Sunday Telegraph last weekend, has been compounded by photographs taken by a marine intelligence team which show bullet wounds to the upper bodies of the victims, who included several women and six children, some shot in the head and some in the back.

One US government official said the pictures showed that marines from Camp Pendleton "suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results", according to yesterday's Los Angeles Times.

As horrific as these charges are, let one thing be clear -- even if true, such misconduct in no way reflects upon the justification of the war or the propriety of continuing to fight the Jihadi terrorists wherever they may be found.

MORE AT: Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Captain's Quarters, Little Green Footballs, Confederate Yankee, Big Lizards, Michelle Malkin, Flopping Aces, Small Town Veteran, Strategic Outlook Institute, Iowa Voice, Sister Toldjah, Red Hot Cuppa Politics, Threading Water, Right Wing Nut House, Carry On America

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

It looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, along with a number of their senior aides, made the president back down from a criminally stupid decision this week -- even though he still made the wrong one.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member's office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The potential showdown was averted Thursday when President Bush ordered the evidence to be sealed for 45 days to give Congress and the Justice Department a chance to work out a deal.

Unfortunately, even the decision to seal the evidence pending "negotiations" was the wrong one, and indicates the fundamental weakness of George W. Bush at this time.Bush surrendered the authority of two branches of government at the invocation of a non-existant privilege of the third. And unfiortunately, this has only emboldened Congressional leaders in both houses to be more defiant.

On Friday, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi and chairman of the Rules Committee, said he had been meeting with Senate counsel to explore potential procedures and had given Mr. Frist a memorandum on a possible approach.

"The Justice Department is going to have to look at what we put in place and agree to it," Mr. Lott said. "I hope we can work it out."

But he said, "I am perfectly willing to get it on with the administration and take it right to the Supreme Court if they want to argue over it."

So much for cooling down the situation so that sides did not become entrenched. Lott is implicitly denying the clear constitutional mandates of the the Executive Brabch to see that the laws are faithfully executed and the Judicial Branch to issue warrants for searches under the Fourth Amendment. In effect, the Congressional position is that, unlike the rest of America and contrary to the clear language of the Constitution, it will decide when and if valid subpoenas and warrants may be executed. Seems to me that these clowns are looking at them selves as the Imperial Legislative Branch.

It seems, though, that the obscene obstruction of justice ordered by the President was motivated by politics.

"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

However, Lott's position makes it clear that the corrosive situation still exists. And having rewarded Hastert, who now concedes that the warrant was lawfully issued and that the FBI therefore had the authority to conduct the search of Jefferson's office.

House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.

* * *

In an editorial in USA Today on Friday, Hastert said he and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have directed House lawyers "to develop reasonable protocols and procedures that will make it possible for the FBI to go into congressional offices to constitutionally execute a search warrant."

So even though there is consensus on the fact that the Jefferson search was legal, the FBI and Justice Department are to be shackled for totally speciousreasons -- just to save the working relationship between Congress and the White House.

Something like this happened at my university about 20 years ago.

A student advertising campaign that "just went bad" left an indelible -- and apparently unintended -- mark on downtown Portland and the Pearl District.

Three Art Institute of Portland students said they thought they were using spray chalk when they laid down a couple dozen markings on sidewalks aimed at drawing attention to a fundraising concert for the Oregon Food Bank.

Turns out the spray cans contained indelible paint, not chalk.

"We thought it would wash away," said Jody Desimone, one of the students. The students had completed much of their project Wednesday night before they learned that the spray cans contained paint.

Desimone, Jessie Grav and Carina Close also learned that the unauthorized markings on public property amounted to graffiti, which can be prosecuted as criminal mischief.

The paint was applied on sidewalks in the South Park Blocks, Waterfront Park, Old Town and the Pearl. The markings included stencils of Oregon landmarks, such as Mount Hood, and a large phone number and Web address.

"We didn't think putting it on sidewalks was illegal," Grav said.

OOPS!

The College Democrats, left-wing losers that they were (they couldn't muster a dozen members, while the College Republicns had well over 100 active members) did something like this at Illinois State when I was there.

They decided to do the "Shadows of Nuclear War" deal, painting outlines of human bodies on sidewalks and buildings around campus to simulate the shadows left at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They even set up a booth in the Student Center with a flier explaining their deeds.

Imagine their shock when they discovered that a water-based exterior house paint doesn't wash off with a garden hose. They never considered the possibility that a good old acrylic latex paint might be sort of permanent.

I understand that it cost them every cent in their treasury, their recognition as a student organization, and some serious disciplinary action against the individuals involved.

Part of me hopes that these students are shown a little more mercy.

Michelle Malkin has details on this shocking provision of the Senate immigration bill, as well as the granting of amnesty to everyone who can walk, run, crawl, jump, fly or swim into the USA.

Does the Senate immigration bill essentially give Mexico veto power over our border fences? Hearing this from several readers and sources. Reader Greg writes:

Senator Cornyn gave Lou Dobbs a statement saying the last-minute Amendment SA 41[8]8 says Mexico must be consulted before any fence is constructed.

From F/R thread:

I heard this on Sean Hannity's Fox Radio broadcast a short while ago and just now on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN:

Arlen Specter, according to Congressman John Kyl of Arizona, slipped a provision into the Immigration Bill the Senate passed today requiring the U.S. to consult with Mexico BEFORE building a wall in any area along the border.

I'm checking into it. If anyone has more specific info, please send along. Update: It's Dem Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment included in Specter's manager's package that passed.

The Senate by Cboldt blog reports:

UPDATE @ 17:16 - Senator Specter notes that the managers package is ready for a vote, he says that it (the package) makes making sausage look good. Senator Kyl asks to speak for one minute on the managers amendment. He says it has been in busy negotiations, right up until now. Federal, state and local entities in the US would be required to consult with Mexican government before building a wall. I predict this amendment, S.Amdt.4188, will pass. Off to find the language that Senator Kyl referred to.

UPDATE @ 17:23 - Found it. Senator Dodd talked against a fence on May 18, and his S.Amdt.4089 contains the following language:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

UPDATE @ 17:40 - Bonus prediction (the managers' amendment), now four for four. Senator Frist voted against the managers' amendment, for what it's worth.

S.Amdt.4188 - Specter: Managers' amendment, a collection of amendments, including Dodd's S.Amdt.4089 that requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction, was PASSED on a 56 - 41 vote.

Republicans who voted for the Mexican consultation requirement:

Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Feingold, Collins, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Warner, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich

Dems who voted against:

Lincoln

Let's hope the House of Representatives stands tough -- but based upon recent actions related to the Jefferson case, I'm not hopeful.

Or at least for 10 days, until I start teaching Summer School.

* * *

And now time for our linkfest and open trackback carnival!

You know the rules -- link back to this post with your best/favorite current posts. I won't limit your number of posts, but instead ask you to exercise prudent judgement about how many you send.

Some folks have tols me they have problems trackbacking to this site. If this is the case, please use the Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger to establish the link.

And, of course, don't forget the big three rules.

No Spam. No Porn. No Problem.

OTHER OPEN TRACKBACKS: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog

Simply saying what much of the Left thinks -- about not only Tony Blair, but George W. Bush as well.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: "Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber - if there were no other casualties - be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

Mr Galloway replied: "Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it - but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq - as Blair did."

I'll agree with the characterization of Galloway by one of his fellow MPs.

The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a persistent critic of Mr Galloway during previous controversies, told The Sun that the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in east London was "disgraceful and truly twisted".

He said: "These comments take my breath away. Every time you think he can't sink any lower he goes and stuns you again. It's reprehensible to say it would be justified for a suicide bomber to assassinate anyone."

I guess we shouldn't be surprised -- Galloway was on Saddam's payroll. And given how the Left in both the US and UK have tried to justify "understand" 9/11 and 7/7 as the "entirely logical and explicable" response of Muslims to US policy on israel and British involvement in the War on Jihadi Terrorists, there is absolutely nothing to be surprised about here.

(H/T: Captain's Quarters)

Unless we start seeing a sharp reversal in conduct, I'm done with George W. Bush. This isn't about politics -- it is about the proper stewardship of the laws and the Constitution. I'm disgusted by his intervention in the Jefferson case.

President Bush personally ordered the Justice Department today to seal records seized from the Capitol Hill office of a Democratic congressman, marking a remarkable intervention by the nation's chief executive into an ongoing criminal probe of alleged corruption.

The order culminates an escalating constitutional confrontation between the Justice Department and the House of Representatives, where lawmakers have demanded that the FBI return items seized during a Saturday night raid of the office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.).

In a six-paragraph statement, Bush said he issued the order to give the Justice Department and angry lawmakers more time to work out an agreement on how to resolve the conflict. The materials, which have been described in court filings as two boxes of documents and copies of computer files, will be held by Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is not involved in the Jefferson probe, Bush's statement said.

"Our government has not faced such a dilemma in more than two centuries," Bush said. "Yet after days of discussions, it is clear these differences will require more time to be worked out."

I'm willing to forgive policy differences --but this is a case of allowing a spurious claim of Congressional privilege to trump the enforcement of a duly issued search warrant in a felony case. There is nothing here to negotiate and mediate, and this decision indicates that we have a Chief Executive too weak-kneed to allow the Executive and Judicial branches to carry out their Constitutional perogatives lest it imperil his chances of legislative success --even at the cost of permitting public corruption to continue unabated. This is not to say that I will not side with George W. Bush when I believe him to be right, but rather that I will no longer extend to him the presumption that he is right, nor the level of support that I would ordinarily extend to a president of my party. I think this is that big a deal.

Is our existance as a Constitutional Republic firmly rooted in the rule of law at an end?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Sister Toldjah, Pro Cynic, The Anchoress, Webloggin, Blue Crab Boulevard, Strata-Sphere, Kitty Litter, GOPBloggers, Blogs for Bush, Irish Pennants

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Well, the Courts have spoken on this matter a number of times, and the Washington Post does an excellent job of summing the matter up for us.

The Speech and Debate Clause, contained in Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, says that members of the House and Senate "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

It was meant to safeguard the independence of Congress against executive branch intimidation, of the kind the Founders had witnessed under King George III's colonial governors, and harassment from private lawsuits.

Over the years, however, some lawmakers invoked the clause to shield corrupt activities. Given the clause's exception for serious crimes, the Supreme Court has had to define the scope of its protections.

In a series of cases during the 1960s and '70s, the court drew a protective line around papers, speeches and activities that are "essential" to legislative acts or the motives behind them, such as floor statements or committee reports. But it declined to protect anything not closely connected to legislative work, such as remarks to the press or constituent newsletters.

In 1972, for example, the court ruled that the Speech and Debate Clause could not shield Sen. Daniel B. Brewster (D-Md.) from prosecution for accepting a bribe in exchange for his promise to vote a certain way on postage rate legislation. (Brewster pleaded no contest to the charge.)

That same year, the court ruled that a Senate aide, though covered by the Speech and Debate Clause, had to respond to a grand jury subpoena to answer questions about whether Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) had violated federal law by arranging for a private book publisher to print the Pentagon Papers. (The Justice Department later dropped the case.)

In 1979, the court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) could be sued for defamation by a scientist whose work he had mocked in a news release and newsletter.

But it also ruled in a separate case that the government could not use a House member's past votes or speeches as evidence of his motive for committing an alleged offense.

And a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that the Justice Department was not entitled to look through the telephone records of a member of Congress.

So generally speaking, the protections afforded Congress by the Speech and Debate clause are pretty narrow -- and do not extend to shielding corruption from investigation and prosecution.

A ccouple of law professors also weigh in on the matter.

"An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that" is not covered by the constitutional provision that shields Congress from executive and judicial branch interference, said Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who teaches at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The precise materials sought in the raid were blacked out in a publicly released copy of the search warrant, but Jefferson (D-La.) said in a court filing yesterday that FBI agents took two boxes of documents and copied computer hard drives.

Both the search warrant for Jefferson's office and the raid to execute it were unprecedented in the 219-year history of the Constitution. In that sense, they violated an interbranch understanding rooted in the separation of powers -- and, indeed, in the events of 1642, when King Charles I burst into Parliament and attempted to arrest five members of the House of Commons, triggering the English Civil War.

But the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law.

"It's really a matter of etiquette," said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "I don't see any constitutional principle here."

But that is precisely teh issue here -- there is no violation of the Constitution. Custom has decreed that the Executive branch take a less confrontational appoach to such investigations -- but in this case, there has been teh violation of another custom, namely that a member cooperate with the investigation, which Jeferson and his lawyers have refused to do. Thus the Judicial Branch has weighed in and found probable cause for a warrant to be issued -- and left open room for Jefferson to challenge the search of the office and the seizure of any and all materials, exactly as is the right of any other citizen.

And I'd like to comment upon the responses of Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi.

"The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi said in a rare joint statement.

As noted above, they are clearly wrong in their characterization of the actions of the Justice Department. There is clearly no basis for demanding the return of these materials to Jefferson on the basis of any Constitutional provision, nor does "custom" constitute a basis for the laws not being enforced.

Furthermore, I am appalled by the weakness of this portion of their statement.

Once the papers are returned, "Congressman Jefferson can and should fully cooperate with the Justice Department's efforts, consistent with his constitutional rights," the statement said.

Unfortunately, that assertion ignores the history of this case. Sure, he "can and should" cooperate. But the reality is that he has not cooperated, and is unlikely to do so in the future if the past is truly prologue in this case. And Hastert and Pelosi have no means to enforce Jefferson's cooperation with the investigation -- that power only lies in the hands of the Executive and Judicial branches working together in the request for and issuance of a search warrant and its execution, which we saw over the weekend.

I applaud the position of the justice Department on this matter.

A Justice Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations, said after the Hastert-Pelosi joint statement was released that "the department will not agree to any arrangement or demand that would harm or hurt an ongoing law enforcement investigation."

"We are in discussions with them on something that would preserve law enforcement interests while also allaying their institutional concerns," the official said. "But our position is that we did it legally and we did it lawfully, and we're not going to back away from that."

In other words, compliance with the mandates of the Constitution are sufficient safeguard, and claims of some sort of Congressional immunity from the Constitution are rejected.

By the way, the Congresscrook in question, Louisiana Representative William Jefferson (D-$90,000 in the freezer) is making use of the one legitimate remedy available to him -- he is challenging the warrant in court.

Jefferson challenged the weekend raid in a motion filed yesterday in federal court. The motion sought the return of the documents and "immediate relief," including that the FBI and Justice Department stop reviewing seized items; that the materials be sequestered in a locked, secure place; and that the FBI raid team file a report with the court detailing which documents were reviewed and what was done to sequester the documents.

The motion was filed with Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, who signed the Saturday-night search warrant.

This is the appropriate venue for resolving the issue at hand, not the political arena or a congressional hearing room.

I paricularly like the summary of the case history contained in the Washington Post article. Be sure to read it.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch

Did I miss the announcement that Tinker v. DesMoines had been overturned? This school district certainly acts as if it had -- to the point that even the exercise of student speech off campus is forbidden and punished if it relates to school.

A 17-year-old high school student who posted comments online about Plainfield School District 202 is facing expulsion because of his blog, his attorney said.

After serving a 10-day suspension over his posting on Xanga.com, the teen is scheduled for a hearing Thursday on the matter, attorney Carl Buck said. The student is back in school but could be expelled and sent to an alternative school, Buck said.

"They are trying to terminate his educational rights," he said. "Neither the parents, student or I believe this warrants expulsion. This seems pretty aggressive for the kind of [posting] we are talking about here."

Now I'm the first to accept that certain sorts of off-campus speech can be grounds for discipline, but what are we talking about in this case? Fortunately, we can judge for ourselves.

On May 1, the student posted a letter to Plainfield School District on his blog site on www.xanga.com , telling off the district, using vulgar words and saying he could put whatever he wanted on his site.

On a second post on May 2, without mentioning the school the student wrote:

"I feel threatened by you, I cant even have a public Web page with out you bullying me and telling me what has to be removed. Where is this freedom of speech that this government is sworn to uphold? ... did you stop to think that maybe this will make parents angry that you are bullying their children around? did you ever stop to think that maybe now you really are going to have a threat on your hands now that you have just pissed off kids for voicing their opinions? Did you ever stop to think this will start a community backlash? The kids at Columbine did what the did because they were bullied.

In my opinion you are the real threat here. None of us ever put in our xanga's that they were going to kill or bring harm to any one. We voiced our opinions. You are the real threat here. you are depriving us of our right to learn. now stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

Now I don't see a threat there. Do you? I don't see anything that merits a suspension, much less expulsion. What is the theory upon which this district is taking disciplinary action against this young man, since it is off campus speech on his own time from his own home, on a website that cannot be accesed from the school?

In a written statement, officials said they don't monitor student Web sites or look up postings unless they create a disturbance at school.

"When a posting creates a disturbance to the educational environment or threatens the safety and security of students or staff members, it is the responsibility of the school district to look into the matter," the statement said.

"The district respects the 1st Amendment rights of our students, but not all words can be categorized as protected speech."

Now that is a mighty broad criteria for monitoring and exerting control upon off-campus activity outside of school hours. I don't know what was in his friend's blog that led to his being disciplined and censored, but it is irrelevant to the action being taken against him. He voiced a pretty clear First Amendment argument from a libertarian perspective in the initial post on May 1 (LANGUAGE ALERT).

dear plainfield school district 202:

i know you read this. and you suck. suspend me or what ever you would like to do. but this is my fuckin web site and i can put what ever i want on it. kinda goes with the first amendment. by suspending kyle again for his xanga you guys are pathetic and totally irrational. first amendment you fucks. freedom of speech. and who the fuck are you to say what some one can do from there own personal computer. one more thing kiss my ass.

edit: this one is for you, and yes i have drank it and yes it was delicious!(come get me)

His argument, while less articulate than I would like to see and too profanity-laced, is really quite straight-forward. Outside of school, students have First Amendment rights which must be respected by government officials -- and since they do not "surrender those rights at the schoolhouse gate" it is beyond the scope of school authorities to punish or prohibit that speech except in the most dire of circumstances. I don't see where this even begins to qualify as such a circumstance.

And the second post, which does refer to sanctions being imposed against students for posting about drug and alcohol use at student parties (the paper above editted that out) is probably wrong in asserting that the school has no authority to punish descriptions of illegal activity by students -- but they have that authority only to the degree that students are partcipating in extracurricular activities, and the punuishments can only extend to removal from those activities. But his reflection on bullying is dead on, as is his observation about the possibility of public backlash cause by the extension of school authority beyond the school building and school day and into student homes. His comment on Columbine is hardly sufficient to qualify as a threat, and without a threat there can be no reasonable basis for action.

Now the administration does claim the authority to punish a wide area of speech -- and I am frankly frightened by the scope of their claimed authority.

[Superintendent John] Harper said school districts across the state are having to deal with policy issues regarding Web sites like www.xanga.com . Many area schools, like Plainfield School District, are creating new guidelines for their student handbooks for next school year.

"Kids don't realize that if there is a connection with the school or has a potential of creating a disturbance to the school, they can be disciplined for it and they don't appreciate the personal threat to them for posting information on the Internet," Harper said. "It is our responsibility to educate kids and help them work through some of these issues."

Harper said students need to understand that the First Amendment does not give them "absolute authority to say whatever they want to say in any situation.

"The First Amendment doesn't give an individual the right to scream 'Fire' in a crowded theater and say that is protected by First Amendment rights," Harper said.

"Certainly things that are insulting to a school administrator or to a teacher are protected by the First Amendment rights," Harper continued. "We are looking at safety issues, potential disturbances to the school environment. Those are parameters, those are criteria we will look at when it comes to the issue.

"If we do have a student using inappropriate language on a Web site it is not our business. If they write obscenities in regards to one of our staff members that is grossly obscene, we feel that we would have the right to take action in that kind of case," Harper said.

I'm flabbergasted. First, he trots out the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy -- but then seems to extend it to any speech that the school dislikes on the basis that it could cause a disruption. Does this include a letter to the editor about the school? Would it include an interview by a television station? How about a call to a local talk radio station about events at school. It seem that the definition of "disruption" is "anything that paints the school in a bad light." And while there may be some extreme instances in which a school could act against a student who was grossly disrespectful to a teacher or administrator, it would probably have to be so extreme as to violate provisions of criminal or civil law before the school could act on such speech if it was engaged in off campus. So while Harper claims that he isn't out to control all off campus speech (ore even all off campus internet speech), I think the clear implication of his statement is that the school claims jurisdiction ofver all student speech which comes to its attention, whether it is speech at school or speech away from school.

Schools are supposed to prepare our students for life in a free and democratic society, one in which government is limited and citizens have broad rights to speak and write as they see fit, even if it criticizes or offends public officials. I therefore urge the Plainfield district to rethink its gross abrogation of the constitutional liberties of its students.

And I urge the student, who goes by the handle Heckler3672bro, to write a thank you note to Superintendent Harper and his building administrators for the college scholarship money that he will be receiving from the district following the conclusion of his lawsuit against the district.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Free Constitution, Blue Star Chronicles, Bacon Bits, Conservative Cat, Freedom Watch, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

This could be interesting.

Could Gov. Jeb Bush's future be in football instead of politics?

While U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has publicly flirted with the idea of becoming the next commissioner of the National Football League, Bush has been privately approached to gauge his interest in the job.
Bush, who spends his Sundays each fall watching pro football, acknowledged Tuesday that the NFL job was broached during a recent meeting with Patrick Rooney Sr., owner of the Palm Beach Kennel Club.

Rooney is the brother of Dan Rooney, who owns the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers and co-chairs the NFL's search committee looking for a replacement for Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

And let's be honest -- it gives him a rather public position from which to build popularity for a run for president in 2012 or 2016.

This is a clear abuse of his authority.

A Chicago Police officer is accused of arresting a traffic control aide for jaywalking last week in retaliation for ticketing his vehicle for being illegally parked, authorities said Tuesday.

The female traffic aide slapped a parking ticket on the officer's personal vehicle last Thursday afternoon in the 700 block of North Michigan, said Monique Bond, a police spokeswoman.

The uniformed foot patrol officer was on duty and responding to a call for service, Bond said. "On his return at about 12:15 p.m., he noticed a ticket on his vehicle," she said. "He asked the traffic control aide to 'non-suit' the ticket."
The woman, a supervising traffic control aide, says she told the officer she could not void it, according to Bond.

The officer allegedly handcuffed the woman, arrested her for jaywalking and brought her to the Near North District at 1160 N. Larrabee. The district commander intervened, and the woman was released without being charged, Bond said.

The Chicago Police Department has opened an internal investigation into the officer's behavior after the aide complained that she was the victim of "injury and retaliation," Bond said.

It is obvious that this is a case of retaliation. The ticket was issued by the traffic control aide because the private vehicle was parked illegally. Once the ticket was issued, she could not void it out. The cop didn’t want to follow the departmental procedure for dealing with a ticket issued in such a situation, and so he decided to flex his muscle and make life difficult for this woman who was doing exactly what her job required – ticketing illegally parked cars.

Such actions are unprofessional and smack of a perverse lawlessness on the part of the Chicago Police Department – because this cop is still on the street, despite being under investigation.

I was sure there was an explanation for it – and the Washington Post supplies that explanation.

Justice Department and FBI officials yesterday vigorously defended a weekend raid on the Capitol Hill office of Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), arguing that the unprecedented tactic was necessary because Jefferson and his attorneys had refused to comply with a subpoena for documents issued more nine months ago in a bribery investigation.

So after months of stonewalling by Jefferson and his lawyers, law enforcement availed itself of the legal and constitutional processes that it is permitted to use to root investigate criminal activities. Rather than follow the historical customs regarding investigations of corrupt lawmakers by cooperating with law enforcement, it was Jefferson who violated those practices by claiming a level of privilege that does not exist – congressional immunity from investigation in public corruption cases. Duke Cunningham didn’t claim that, nor has Congressman Ney. Tom DeLay has turned over whole file-cabinets of information to prosecutors down here in Texas – even voluntarily waiving the statute of limitations so that the political hack in Austin could have sufficient time to trump up charges – but William Jefferson won’t even comply with a lawful subpoena. Somebody please explain to me how it is the FBI and Justice Department that are acting in an unreasonable fashion.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with the overweening arrogance of powerful public figures who do not believe that the law applies to them. In that case, I long for the resulting decision of the Supreme Court – one which will either reaffirm that the rule of law applies to elected officials, or which will announce the demise of the American Republic and the necessity of replacing the current system which conforms with our nation’s founding principles.

Well, I give my final finals of the school year today, and will shove the last student out the door by 11:00. Except for the exams for these two classes, my grades are done and will be submitted by noon.

This has been a rough year -- our 10th graders have been a difficult bunch this year, not just in my eyes but in the eyes of teachers with even more experience than I have. Katrina kids, Rita, my wife's hospitalization, the murder of one student's brother (a former student), the trial of another stuident's brother for a different murder, some unpleasant personalities... it hasn't been an easy year.

I'll miss some of the kids, but will be glad to see others go. I hear that this year's ninth graders are a more pleasant, more serious group of kids than we have sen in several years. I think I need them.

* * *

And now time for our linkfest and open trackback carnival!

You know the rules -- link back to this post with your best/favorite current posts. I won't limit your number of posts, but instead ask you to exercise prudent judgement about how many you send.

Some folks have tols me they have problems trackbacking to this site. If this is the case, please use the Wizbang Standalone Trackback Pinger to establish the link.

And, of course, don't forget the big three rules.

No Spam. No Porn. No Problem.

To read this article, that is precisely the claim that is being put forward by members of both bodies from both sides of the aisle.

An unusual FBI raid of a Democratic congressman's office over the weekend prompted complaints yesterday from leaders in both parties, who said the tactic was unduly aggressive and may have breached the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Rep. William J. Jefferson (La.), who is at the center of a 14-month investigation for allegedly accepting bribes for promoting business ventures in Africa, also held a news conference in which he denied any wrongdoing and denounced the raid on his office as an "outrageous intrusion." Jefferson, who has not been charged, vowed to seek reelection in November.

"There are two sides to every story; there are certainly two sides to this story," he said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained."

The Saturday raid of Jefferson's quarters in the Rayburn House Office Building posed a new political dilemma for the leaders of both parties, who felt compelled to protest his treatment while condemning any wrongdoing by the lawmaker.

The dilemma was complicated by new details contained in an 83-page affidavit unsealed on Sunday, including allegations that the FBI had videotaped Jefferson taking $100,000 in bribe money and then found $90,000 of that cash stuffed inside his apartment freezer.

So what is the problem that some folks are pointing to here? Is there one at all? I’ll let some of them tell you. Some are elected officials, some are former staffers, and some are legal scholars.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

"Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress," he said. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation" but that "Justice Department investigations must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent."

* * *

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

Well, if we were going to deal with issues of historical precedent, then Jefferson would be cooperating with the investigation. He isn't, prompting the more adversarial approach.

Legal experts are divided on the issue.

Many legal experts and defense lawyers agreed with Gingrich. Charles Tiefer, a University of Baltimore law professor who served as solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years, called the raid "an intimidating tactic that has never before been used against the legislative branch."

"The Framers, who were familiar with King George III's disdain for their colonial legislatures, would turn over in their graves," Tiefer said.

Washington defense lawyer Stanley M. Brand, a former general counsel for the House who has represented numerous lawmakers accused of wrongdoing, also questioned the government's strategy.

"This is really an over-the-top move, and it could create some real blow-back problems for them in the courts," he said.

But Viet D. Dinh, a former assistant attorney general in the Bush administration who is now a Georgetown University law professor, said that "the raid on his offices itself does not define a constitutional issue."

The constitutional privilege for lawmakers does not "expand to insulate everything that goes on in a congressional office, especially if there's allegations of abuse of process or bribery," Dinh said. ". . . The fine line is whether or not it relates to a legislative process or not, not whether they've raided his office."

So what constitutional provision are they referring to that they believe gives Jefferson immunity from the same laws that apply to every other American? It is found in Article I, Section 6, Clause i.

Article I, Section 6, Clause i The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. (italics added)

Now let’s break this down.

The FBI had a valid warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate, authorizing the search under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. The limits placed upon the agents conducting the search were meticulously designed to keep from interfering with any privileged materials. So far, we are seeing actions in conformity with the Constitution, and special deference being given based upon the respect due a co-equal branch of government.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asked about the search, said he understands the concerns raised about FBI agents raiding a congressional office. "I will admit that these were unusual steps that were taken in response to an unusual set of circumstances," Gonzales said.

The search warrant affidavit spells out special procedures put in place to ensure the search did not infringe on privileged material. The procedures include use of a "filter team" of prosecutors and FBI agents unconnected to the investigation. They would review any seized items or documents and determine whether the documents are privileged and therefore immune from the search warrant.

If the status of a document is in doubt, the filter team will give the documents to a judge for a definitive ruling before giving them to case prosecutors, according to the affidavit.

There is the question of whether these charges can be brought while Congress is in session. In light of the fact that the matter at hand (accepting bribes) is a felony, Representative Jefferson is subject to indictment, arrest, and trial while Congress is in session. Such charges and arrest are therefore clearly contemplated and permitted by the Founders – and therefore an investigation is equally permissible. And in light of historical precedent, the investigation and bringing of charges are accepted practice.

What is more, the search is for materials related to an alleged felony, not words in a speech or a debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. It is not Jefferson’s words, but his actions, that led to this search, and a search of his offices is a legitimate exercise of police powers to the degree that his action (accepting a bribe) may have impacted the operations of his Congressional office. Again, given the meticulous procedures put in place when the warrant was issued, there can be no legitimate question regarding the respect shown for the co-equal legislative branch. Not only is this not a case of the Executive and legislative branches operating outside of their proper spheres, it is a case of them operating within those spheres to serve as a check and balance upon Congress.

Nothing in Article I, Section 6, Clause i can be legitimately interpreted to apply to the current situation – nor can this provision of the Constitution be held to exempt the criminal conduct of a lawmaker from the ordinary operation of the law in this situation. I therefore find the outrage expressed at this search to be specious in nature, premised not upon the text of the Constitution itself but rather upon the belief that the separation of powers confers a degree of immunity beyond that which the blueprint of American government provides.

Who were these noble Romans, and why are they buried together, not cremated?

Archaeologists exploring one of Rome's oldest catacombs are baffled by neat piles of more than 1,000 skeletons dressed in elegant togas.

The macabre find emerged as teams of historians slowly picked their way through the complex network of underground burial chambers, which stretch for miles under the city.

They say the tomb, which has been dated to the first century AD, is the first known example of a "mass burial".

The archaeologists are unable to explain why so many apparently upper-class Romans - who would normally have been cremated - were buried in the same spot, apparently at the same time.

Forensic tests are being carried out to try to establish whether the Romans suffered violent deaths, or were victims of an undocumented epidemic or natural disaster.

There are dozens of catacombs beneath the ancient city, some dating back 2,000 years and many used as burial places by early Christians. Others were used as secret places of worship to avoid persecution.

The Vatican's Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology is overseeing the dig. Its chief inspector of catacombs, Raffaella Giuliani, said: "This is the earliest example of such a mass burial. Usually two or three bodies at the most were put into holes dug out of the rock in the catacombs, but in these case we have several rooms filled with skeletons.

"They are placed one on top of the other and not in a disorderly fashion. They have been carefully buried, with dignity, but the puzzle is why so many at a time?"

The skeletons were dressed in fine robes, many containing gold thread, and wrapped in sheets covered with lime, as was common in early Christian burials.
The discovery was made at the Catacomb of SS Peter and Marcellinus on the ancient Via Labicana in south-east Rome.

Miss Giuliani said there was no obvious sign that violence was the cause. "We are trying to establish whether the skeletons were buried there following some form of epidemic or natural disaster.

It is possible they could have been persecuted and killed by the Romans and then buried there by fellow Christians - we just don't know."

The Vatican will officially present the discovery next month, along with officials from the University of Bordeaux who had been involved in the excavations.

The mysteries of history continue to be exposed and deciphered. I look forward to learning more in the months and years ahead.

After defending the deletion of the national moto, “In God We Trust�, from a photo of a nickel on the cover of an elementary school year, district officials in Keller ISD have reversed course and admitted that there would have been no violation of the law or district policy had the censorship not happened.

Keller school district officials are hoping to clear up a flap over a school yearbook cover by issuing an apology to parents.

A letter from Superintendent James Veitenheimer was sent Monday to parents of students at Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville. The same letter was e-mailed over the weekend, officials said.

The superintendent said "we would like to express our regrets for any distress" resulting from the cover photo of the newly minted Liberty Nickel without the words "In God We Trust."

* * *
District officials said the photo could have been used in its entirety without violating district policy.

"While it is always easy to look back on campus decisions in hindsight and agree that a different decision could have been made, our principals often find themselves on the front lines of issues regarding the separation of church and state," Dr. Veitenheimer's letter said. "In most of these cases, school administrators find themselves making decisions that are not going to please all parties involved.

"Unfortunately, the decision at Liberty Elementary School fell into this category," the letter said.

This was the sort of decision that any competent administrator could have made without too much trouble – the censorship of incidental references to religion is not necessary, especially when it comes to reproducing works of art or US currency and there is no intent to engage in religious proselytism. And if he was not sure, a quick call to the district’s lawyer could have settled the matter.

But he principal decided to knuckle under to the PC urgings of a couple of parents, and the district decided to be “sensitive� by shielding kids from exposure to the same coinage they bring to school to buy their lunches. What cowardice!

I guess we can’t have folks at a Catholic speaker express Catholic teachings at a Catholic university – it might be offensive.

A spring term that began with controversy at the University of St. Thomas ended the same way Saturday when a student used part of his commencement address to admonish people he considered "selfish," including women who use birth control.

The remarks by Ben Kessler, a well-known student recently honored by peers and faculty as Tommie of the Year, led to catcalls and boos during commencement at the Catholic university in St. Paul. Others booed those who were booing. Some students walked out on their own graduation ceremony.

Buzz about the incident dominated post-graduation parties, spread throughout the community and sparked a flurry of e-mails. By Monday, there were scattered requests to strip Kessler of his Tommie of the Year award and questions about why St. Thomas officials didn't try to pull the plug on Kessler's speech as the crowd's unhappiness intensified.

"He definitely ruined the day for pretty much everyone in the audience," said Darin Aus, who was awarded his bachelor's degree Saturday and stayed for the entire ceremony. "He made people mad enough to leave their own graduation."

Kessler, a celebrated football player with a deep Catholic faith, apologized Monday in a written statement distributed by the university.

"Instead of providing hope to all, I offended some by my words and by my decision to speak those words at commencement," he wrote.

He was unavailable for comment beyond the statement.

The university's president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, also expressed regret "that graduates and their families and guests were offended by Mr. Kessler's remarks." Dease said he told Kessler it was inappropriate for him to use commencement to express his opinions.

The problem is, what he said didn’t just express his opinions – they also expressed the teachings of Catholic Church.

I guess Father Dennis Dease is one of those priests who doesn’t think the last four popes should have expressed their opinions on the issue of birth control, either.

I guess this is jus one more example of folks thinking that the expression of conservative or traditional or Christian viewpoints on a college campus is wrong, while the expression of secular liberalism is to be celebrated.

Even if the venue is a school allegedly founded and operating on Christian values.

I, for one, applaud Ben Kessler for standing up for Catholic teachings at a Catholic school – even if the administrators are too lukewarm in their faith to do so.

As a teacher, I find this case of “mission creep� by one Illinois school board to be a bit disturbing.

Illegal or inappropriate blogging or social behavior over the Internet is now a violation of District 128's student code of conduct at both Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools and can lead to denial of extracurricular student privileges.

The board of education of Community High School District 128 approved the revision Monday night without dissent before a packed house of media, parents and students at Vernon Hills High School. It is one of the first such school board policies in Illinois to address some of the risque social mores students frequently encounter when surfing Internet blogs and various Web sites designed to attract children.

Like many other schools, the district requires a certain standard of conduct from students in order to participate in athletics, fine arts or extracurricular activities. Signatures from both a student and parent bind them to honor the Student Code of Conduct. Nearly 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students are involved in one or more of these extracurricular activities.

The newly amended policy approved Monday night consists of a simple sentence. It reads: "Maintaining or being identified on a blog site which depicts illegal or inappropriate behavior will be considered a violation of this code."

Now let’s look at some potential problems here.

“Being identified on� someone’s website is now an offense, based entirely on what the other content is found on the site. Now this is entirely beyond one’s control – and this policy does not make an exception for “being identified on� a site when one is in no way connected with the illegal or inappropriate behavior depicted elsewhere on the site.

The definition of “inappropriate� is frighteningly vague. Does this mean the expression of opinions and positions not endorsed by the school administration is now the basis for disciplinary action if those officials consider such dissent to be “inappropriate�? What about discussions of and reflections upon experiences at school – comments on the personalities of teachers and classmates, or criticism of the quality of the education being received? Are such comments “inappropriate� blogging? Since I went to high school just a couple of miles down the road from Libertyville High School and also spent my seminary years in the area, I know that many folks might consider the legal possession and use of firearms by a minor to be “inappropriate� – would pictures of a student with his legal firearms be considered “inappropriate�? I won’t even get into the question of profane language or the sort of provocative photos some photos some ditzy teens post on MySpace or Facebook. Are these really school issues – even as regards extracurricular activities? After all, these restrictions clearly have the potential to implicate the First Amendment.

So I’ll throw this one out to you folks – what do you think on this issue? Is the board up in Libertyville making good policy, or is it crossing a line into a place where school boards ought not go?

The Houston area was shocked yesterday by the loss of one of its more colorful characters. County Treasurer Jack Cato passed away during heart surgery at the age of 70.

Harris County Treasurer Jack Cato, a former award-winning newsman and Houston police spokesman, died Monday of heart failure while undergoing tests at St. Luke's Hospital for a heart condition. He was 70.

Cato had served as county treasurer since 1999 and had defeated former city councilman and mayoral candidate Orlando Sanchez in the Republican primary in March.

He was expected to breeze into a third term as county treasurer in the November general election.

As he had in every venture he had sought, his friends said, Cato endeared himself to those around him.

Jack Cato is survived by his wife, Shirley; his sons, Chris and John; and seven grandchildren. They have my prayers and deepest sympathies at this time.

His is an obituary filled with colorful stories of his days as a reporter and editor here in Houston. Let me offer some samples.

As famous for his news scoops as his idiosyncrasies, Cato reigned in the world populated by cops and cop reporters — the once dark and dirty underbelly of Houston.

He was stabbed in the back while covering the 1978 Moody Park riot and then gave an interview while being examined in a hospital shortly afterward.

Cato was as famous for showing the scar from his stab wound — he once auctioned off a look at a fundraiser — as he was for the actual stabbing.

Mass murderer Elmer Wayne Henley confessed in a call to his mother on Cato's car phone.

He once stopped a fleeing drug suspect with a gun-shaped hand and a firm shout to halt.

When he was refused the name of a heart-transplant patient, he donned surgical scrubs and took a look at the man's medical chart. In 1976, he tried to get one of his employees at Houston News Service to sneak into a Harris County morgue and get a picture of Howard Hughes.

"He was more concerned with getting the story than anything else — that was Cato," said Phil Archer, a KPRC reporter who got his start in the news business from Cato. "Cato was the last of that era, the two-fisted, cigar-smoking cop beat reporter."

He got into politics in the late 1990s, and was elected to two terms as county treasurer. He faced a strong challenger in this year's primary, and beat him handily. I'll concede I endorsed that challenger, but only because I had been hearing rumors of health probmems for some time and had become concerned about whether or not Jack was still up to the job. Sadly, it appears that he was not, though his death yesterday did come as a bolt out of the blue to many of us involved in Harris County politics.

Cato's death leaves a vacant office to be filled and a new candidate to be named for the November election.

The Harris County Commissioners Court will meet to appoint Cato's successor through the November general election. The Harris County Republican executive committee will then name a replacement for the November ballot.

I'm sure I'll start hearing about potential replacements soon, since my job as precinct chair makes me part of the executive committee. I hope that the potential candidates at least wait until after the funeral before they start seeking to take Jack's place.

But I knw that whoever follows him in office and on the ballot will be no where near the stuff of legends that Jack Cato was.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Public Virtue by Done With Mirrors, and You Dissin' My God! by Vox Poplar Is Right About Everything & Don't You Forget It!. 

Here is where you can find the full results of the vote.

UPDATE -- 5/25/2006: KIM CONTACTED ME A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE DAYS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AND AN APOLOGY FOR HER SEEMING THREATS IN THE EMAILS. I'LL TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE, AND PRESUME THAT SHE IS SINCERE IN HER STATEMENT THAT SHE JUST WANTED MY cc: REPLIES TO STOP AND DIDN'T REALIZE HOW SERIOUSLY I WOULD TAKE HER WORDS. IN THE COURSE OF THIS MOST RECENT EXCHANGE, SHE SHOWED A LEVEL OF CLASS, DISCERNMENT, AND HUMILITY THAT SPEAKS WELL OF HER, AND LEADS ME TO BELIEVE I MAY HAVE MISJUDGED HER. IN RETURN, I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I MAY NOT HAVE DEALT WITH HER IN THE BEST FASHION AT ANY TIME SINCE SHE ARRIVED HERE. I'VE UNBANNED HER, AND HOPE THAT THIS WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF A HEALTHEIR AND MORE RESPECTFUL CONVERSATION.

Remember Kim, the arrogant spoiled child who irritated most everyone on the Ashley Reeves comment thread. Well, she decided to email me tonight, despite my specific request that she make no more contact with me.

Oh, and by the way, Kim -- you still are not welcome to post comments on my site -- and any attempt to do so will generate further reports to AOL and Yahoo.

We’ve been hearing for some time now about the howls of protest at Boston College over the graduation speech by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Well guess what – the protests were small and Condi received a standing ovation from most of those in attendance.

A few students turned their backs but more stood to applaud as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received an honorary degree and addressed graduates at Boston College on Monday.

After weeks of turmoil and anti-war protests over Rice's invitation to address the Catholic school, Rice told graduates that their education comes with responsibilities.

She drew scattered applause when she discussed what she called a "commitment to reason," or an obligation to test and challenge their own views.

"There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion and holding it passionately," Rice said, "but at those times when you are absolutely sure you're right, go find someone who disagrees."

About 50 students stood with their backs toward the stage as Rice was introduced to give her commencement speech, but they were quickly drowned out by a standing ovation.

A half-dozen signs that said "Not in my name" were held in the air by students, who sat down by the time Rice started to speak. One banner that said "BC honors lies and torture" was held on the side of the stadium, away from where the students were sitting.

Other students cheered Rice, and an Internet broadcast of the ceremony included a shot of a student, talking on his cell phone, with an "I Like Condi" button pinned to his graduation cap.

I think the Secretary of State put it well when she commented on the potential for protest before the graduation itself.

"People have the right to protest, but I hope when they protest they realize also that people now have a right to protest in Baghdad and Kabul, and that's a very big breakthrough for the international community," Rice said Monday before the BC commencement.

"I think it's just fine for people to protest as long as they do so in a way that doesn't try to have a monopoly on the conversation," Rice told WBZ-AM in an interview. "Others have right to say what they think as well."

I think those who attended today’s graduation showed they understand the values of America in their response to her speech. We can listen to those with whom we disagree with respect, and honor their right to express their thoughts and views. There is a time and a place for speak dissenting words, and a manner for appropriately expressing opposition to the views of another. It seems that the students of Boston College understand that, even as the graduates of New York’s New School proved that they missed that part of their education with their uncouth reception of Senator John McCain – and their own school’s president, former Senator Bob Kerrey.

Let’s be clear about this – I support the marketing of Merck’s new vaccine, Gardasil. If I had a daughter, I would have her vaccinated as a precaution against cervical cancer. But I draw the line at the notion of making a vaccination against a disease that is 100% sexually transmitted mandatory for admission to public schools.

The drugmaker's efforts to educate Christian groups while touting the vaccine's top selling point -- prevention of cervical cancer -- helped win them over.

But Merck may ultimately find itself at loggerheads with those same groups as it seeks to make the vaccine mandatory for school admission, a step considered key for widespread acceptance and one that many of the groups oppose.

The vaccine, known as Gardasil, with an estimated $2 billion U.S. market potential, targets four types of sexually transmitted human papilloma virus, or HPV, which is believed to cause more than 70 percent of cervical cancer cases and 90 percent of genital warts.

"We don't think it should be made mandatory for school attendance," said Peter Sprigg, vice president of policy at the Family Research Council, who attended the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting on Thursday.

That view is shared by evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family.
"We support the widespread availability of the vaccine, but we do oppose the mandatory vaccination for entry to public school," said Linda Klepacki, an analyst for sexual health for the group.

For Gardasil to be widely adopted, Merck must first win FDA approval. Then, it must garner widespread backing from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices -- a group that advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization standards. Both Merck and analysts deem widespread backing likely.

States would then consider whether it should be included in the list of vaccinations required for school admission.

And I do draw the line there. Cervical cancer and genital warts are not transmitted via casual contact. No child is going to catch the human papilloma virus just by sitting in the same classroom with and breathing the same air as a child who has the virus – or even either of the resulting conditions. There is simply no way to make the sort of public health argument that exists for requiring other childhood vaccines as a condition for being allowed into school – unless you want to argue that there is rampant sex taking place in the hallways and classrooms of America, and that this vaccination is the means of preventing the uncontrolled spread of the conditions in question. But if that argument is to be made, then there is a much bigger issue surrounding public education that needs be addressed much more quickly.

Frankly, requiring Gardasil would be no different than requiring Norplant of all female students. After all, the means of transmission for the condition to be prevented is identical, and the “exposure� to the risk of transmission is identically likely to happen outside of school as the means of transmission of genital warts and cervical cancer. Pregnancy, like the human papilloma virus, isn’t being transmitted through the air, in the drinking water, or via toilet seats. The very concept of state-mandated birth control shocks the conscience – why doesn’t state-mandated STD-preventatives cause the same outrage?

I teach high school. I know there are many health needs that go unaddressed among my students. We try to take care of some of them through school breakfast and lunch programs, through school-based health clinics (which are not, contrary to some claims, all about birth control and abortion), and through various health screenings. But we don’t mandate a good breakfast, force-feed kids a healthy lunch, or require anything but the most minimal medical care or diagnostic testing. We don’t even require a flu shot, despite the fact that a classroom is a swirling, seething culture of viruses and bacteria during certain times of the yearThat isn’t our mission. Neither is this, and the advocates of mandatory Gardasil are just setting up one more big-government nanny-state intrusion into family decision-making on child-rearing issues.

And by the way, don’t forget that making the vaccine mandatory will also give Merck $2 billion in mandatory profits every year for the foreseeable future. So is this really about public health – or private profits?

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.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. Let’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

I didn’t think that the separationist absurdity could go any further, we get this bizarre action from a Texas principal.

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter's elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words "In God We Trust" from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

What exactly was it about this image that was so offensive – after all, each and every student probably has at least one of these in a pocket or piggy bank – and the school probably gives tehm as change.

Officials chose an image of an enlarged nickel for the yearbook cover because this is Liberty Elementary's first year and because the nickel has a new design this year.

The nickel design features President Jefferson and the word Liberty in cursive, with the words "In God We Trust" along the right edge.

Keller administrators agreed with the decision, which Travis made in conjunction with a school parents group, district spokesman Jason Meyer said. District policy states, in part: "The District shall take no action respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech."

Principals must strive to remain neutral regarding religion, Meyer said.

Oh, please! An accurate depiction of United States coinage has now been deemed to be offensive by school officials in Keller, Texas. That is nuts!
The ACLU, of course, thinks this is just great.

Michael Linz, a Dallas attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the district's move was appropriate, sensitive and constitutional.

"Sometimes administrators and schools are really caught trying to make appropriate decisions with respect to people's views. Someone is always going to complain," he said. "I think that the school administrators were drawing the appropriate line by trying not to offend others."

Presumably this clown would find it appropriate to forbid carrying US currency on campus, for fear that some little kid might spy the dreaded “G word� on a coin or bill.

Common sense will not, of course, ever be permitted to prevail – after all, that isn’t “sensitive�.

You have to admire this valedictorian.

When graduating senior Jed Michal told his classmates Sunday to treat each day as though it were their last, he spoke from experience.

The leukemia patient gave his valedictorian's speech via teleconference from his hospital room at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where he is recovering from a bone-marrow transplant.

"Everything we are and become is not what happens to us — it's what we do with the hand life deals us," said Michal, 19, as he faced a televised image of his classmates back home in Colorado. "Live each day as if it is your last. After all, it may very well be."

Fighting leukemia for more than two years, Michal underwent the transplant a week ago, using marrow from his 25-year-old brother. He became valedictorian of his class of 19 students at Flagler High School in east Colorado despite missing nearly his entire junior year due to his illness.

He hopes to leave the hospital next month, move back to Colorado this fall and begin studying agricultural business at Colorado State University in January.

I’m already willing to bet that this young man will fulfill his wildest dreams.

Congratulations, Jed.

Now here's a shocker for you!

Elections Are Crux Of GOP's Strategy

Elections are always the first consideration for a political party -- they are the very reason they exist. Even more than governmance, political parties are concerned with achieving and maintaing power so that they can hold and exercise teh power of governance.

Confronting the worst poll numbers seen in the West Wing since his father went down to defeat, President Bush and his team are focusing on the fall midterm elections as the best chance to salvage his presidency and are building a campaign strategy around tax cuts, immigration and national security.

Modern history offers no precedent of a president climbing from a hole as deep as the one Bush finds himself in, and White House strategists have concluded that no staff shake-up or other quick fix will alter their trajectory. In the sixth year of his tenure, they said, Bush cannot easily change the minds of voters whose impressions are fully formed.

And so short of some event outside their direct control -- such as a dramatic turnaround in Iraq or the capture of Osama bin Laden -- Bush advisers have turned to the election as the most important chance to rewrite the troubled narrative of his presidency and allow him to recover enough to govern his last two years, Republican strategists said. With that in mind, Bush last week called on the National Guard to help stop illegal immigrants, signed tax-cut legislation and headlined three party fundraisers.

In other words, the President and other political leaders int he GOP are doing what politicians do -- keeping an eye firmly on the elections so that they can continue to wield the powers of elective office.

Duh.

I'd love to say this is beyond belief -- but give Madonna's penchant for the outrageous (including sex with a saint's statue come to life in her "Like a Prayer" video two decades ago), I'm not surprised.

MADONNA kicked off her new Confessions world tour in Los Angeles on Saturday – and showed it will be her most controversial routine ever.

As my snap shows, at one point Madge appears hanging from a cross, which is sure to stoke up a backlash from Christians.

Maybe I'll have some respect for her blasphemous tendencies when she insults the Islamic beliefs, teachings, and symbols.

Oh, that's right -- that won't happen.

Muslims would kill her -- Christians will only criticize her and create lots of publicity for the tour and album.

Just so you know what sort of swine we are dealing with here -- the jihadis are funding their cause by kidnapping and selling Christian children.

A SENIOR member of an Islamic organisation linked to Al-Qaeda is funding his activities through the kidnapping of Christian children who are sold into slavery in Pakistan.

The Sunday Times has established that Gul Khan, a wealthy militant who uses the base of Jamaat-ud Daawa (JUD) near Lahore, is behind a cruel trade in boys aged six to 12.

They are abducted from remote Christian villages in the Punjab and fetch nearly £1,000 each from buyers who consign them to a life of misery in domestic servitude or in the sex trade.

Khan was exposed in a sting organised by American and Pakistani missionaries who decided to save 20 such boys and return them to their homes. Using a secret camera, they filmed him accepting $28,500 (£15,000) from a Pakistani missionary posing as a businessman who said he wanted to set up an operation in which the boys would beg for cash on the streets.

Khan was observed driving from the meeting with a knapsack full of cash to the JUD headquarters at Muridke, near Lahore.

The base was funded by Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, in the late 1990s and the JUD’s assets were frozen last month by the US Treasury after it was designated a terrorist organisation.

Sweet Jesus -- sounds like the sort of stuff perpetrated by the Ottomans against Anatolian Christians for centuries, in East Africa to supply slaves to the Muslim wold. The slave trade has been wiped out in civilized parts of the globe, but still continues -- licitly and illicitly -- in the Muslim world.

This evil perpetrated by the jihadi swine is beyond comprehension -- but not without Koranic precedent or sanction by the hadith and by sharia law. After all, non-Muslims have very few rights that a Muslim is bound to respect in the Islamic tradition followed by these scum.

Thank God for the actions of those brave Christian missionaries -- already living under the threat of death for preaching the gospel in the Islamic world -- for acting to save these boys and expose those who would violate human rights in the name of their malignant theology.

But why do I suspect that this horror will be ignored in the rest of the Western media? And I suspect that the usual apologists for Jihadi Islam will accuse those of us who point to this attrocity of being "inflammatory" and "hateful" -- just as they always do.

MORE AT: Jawa Report, The Western Seminarian, Isaac Schrödinger, ninme, Right Wing Nation, Preemptive Karma, Clarity & Resolve, Blue Crab Boulevard, American Thinker, E.L. Frederick, Bullwinkle Blog, Western Resistance, Jihad Watch, Dvorak Uncensored, Daily Pundit

I'll be honest -- I enjoyed listening to the Dixie Chicks, but I joined the boycott when they started all the anti-Bush trash-talk. Yes, they had a right to take the position they took -- but I have every right to express my disapproval by refusing to buy their product.

Well, they are at it again, hoping to turn their bush Derangement Syndrome into commercial success. But I don't think this is the way to go.

The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines apologized for disrespecting President Bush during a London concert in 2003. But now, she's taking it back.

"I don't feel that way anymore," she told Time magazine for its issue hitting newsstands Monday. "I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."

And we should take your views into consideration because...?

But probably the most significant reason I won't buy their new CD has nothing to do with Natalie's politics -- it has to do with this statement.

For band member Martie Maguire, the controversy was a blessing in disguise.

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

Well, I wouldn't want to limit you by contributing to your commercial success. I'll stick with Reba, Kenny Chesney, and a few old Chris LeDoux CDs. But thanks for making it clear that you aren't interested in those of us who helped build your career in the early days. We'll pass those sentiments on to country radio stations around the country.

Let's treat Mexicans like Mexico treats Americans and other foreigners.

Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.

In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.

Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.

One more reason to close the southern border and deport the immigration criminals who stream in from Mexico.

This US diplomat is undercutting the immigration policies of the United States. As such, US Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza needs to be fired by the President -- or Congress needs to act to force his resignation.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as un-American in a speech to the University of Texas at Austin graduating class Saturday night.

"Simply building walls does not speak America to me," said Garza, a former Texas railroad commissioner and a close friend to President Bush. "I know we can be both a welcoming society and a secure and lawful one."

Congress currently is debating proposals for building fences as a means of controlling illegal immigration. President Bush, who has opposed fences in the past, this week endorsed a limited fence-building proposal for Arizona and California.

The Chonicle calls his speech "a message of tolerance for the millions of Latin American immigrants who have poured into the United States in recent years". That is a miccharacterization. Garza's speech was nothing less than an apologia for law-breaking and border-jumping by those who disrespect our country, and a call for more of the same. As such, Tony Garza does not speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans -- and if President Bush does not wish to further alienate the American people, he needs to fire his old friend immediately, for it is his message that is truly un-American.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

A gullible subset of the world's population has embraced Dan Brown's fictional work, The DaVinci Code, and the underlying conspiracy theory most notably expounded in the pseudo-historical work, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The idea is that there are secret descendants of jesus living among us, and that the Catholic Church has been hiding this from the followers of Christ for centuries. It is all a load of bullcrap, of course, but thre exist enough fools to believe such tripe.

Well, here is another flaw with the hypothesis -- there would not be some small group of descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene hidden away. Instead, most of us would have the Son of God popping up on our family tree. Not because we are particularly special, but because of the geometric progression that goes along with geneaology.

This absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the workings of ancestry. People may have just a few descendants in the two or three generations after they lived, but, after that, the number of descendants explodes. For a population to remain the same size, every adult has to have an average of two children who grow to adulthood and have children. So the number of descendants for the average person grows exponentially — two children, four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, and so on. In just 10 generations — roughly 250 years — an average person can have more than 1,000 descendants.

Of course, no one is average. Some people have lots of children; some have none. But over time the fecund and the barren balance each other out. Also, a person's descendants eventually start having children with each other. That slows the rate of growth of a person's descendants, but usually not much, at least in the short term.

It's virtually impossible to "manage" a genealogical lineage so that a person has a limited number of descendants. The lineage would quickly go extinct in the occasional generation in which all of a person's descendants do not have children (or their children die). And a managed lineage inevitably would "leak" — someone would begin having children at a normal pace, and the usual process of growth would commence.

In real genealogies, a person's descendants either peter out within a few generations or begin to grow exponentially. That's why people who came to America on the Mayflower now have thousands of descendants. People who lived just a few centuries earlier have many millions of descendants.

So what about the possibility that Jesus and mary Magdalene had kids, as per Dan Brown?

The same observations would apply to Jesus, although we'll never know if he really had children.

But let's assume that he did, and that he also had a lower than average number of descendants — say 500 in the year AD 250. Where would they have lived?

Those centuries were a time of great ferment in the Roman Empire. Although most of Jesus' descendants probably would have lived in the Middle East, at least a few would have moved as far away as modern-day Italy and central Asia (whether as soldiers, traders or slaves).

Many of these individuals also would have had 500 to 1,000 descendants 250 years later. And these tens of thousands of descendants of Jesus likely would have been scattered along trade routes from western Europe to southern Africa to eastern Asia. After another 250 years, Jesus would have had millions of descendants. Repeat that cycle five more times and the whole world begins to fill up with descendants of Jesus.

Essentially, whether you have descendants is an all-or-nothing proposition in the long run, as two co-authors and I showed in an article in the scientific journal Nature a couple of years ago. If a person has four or five grandchildren, that person will almost certainly be an ancestor of the entire world population two or three millenniums from now. And if a person lived longer than two or three millenniums ago, that person is either an ancestor of everyone living today or of no one living today.

The idea that we all could be descended from Jesus takes some getting used to. After all, if we're all descended from Jesus, and Jesus is the son of God, that's a pretty illustrious bloodline.

But don't let it go to your head. You're also descended from Pontius Pilate and Judas, as long as they produced the requisite four or five grandchildren.

Every time we elect a new president, we learn that he is the descendant of some British monarch's bastard child. The genes of Ghengis Khan are said to have been passed on to much of today's population through his multitude of offspring (to paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the khan."). So if you aren't descended from Christ, and I'm not descended from Christ, nobody is descended from Christ.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

But if this were, for example, Tom DeLay and not Democrat Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), it would be plastered on the front page of every newspaper in america as more evidence of a "culture of corruption" in the GOP.

But it is just business as usual for a Louisiana Democrat.

More than a dozen FBI agents raided the Capitol Hill office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) last night, searching for documents related to an ongoing public corruption investigation, a government official said.

As many as 15 agents wearing business suits began searching the office in the Rayburn House Office Building about 7:15 p.m. and were expected to continue possibly into the afternoon today, the official said shortly before 4 a.m.

Debbie Weierman, an FBI spokeswoman, said that "the search was conducted this evening in conjunction with an ongoing FBI public corruption investigation."

Portions of the search warrant are expected to be unsealed later today.

Jefferson's lawyer is, in typical defense attorney form, outraged.

Robert Trout, Jefferson's attorney, complained that FBI agents refused to allow him or the general counsel of the House to witness the search.

"The government's actions in obtaining a search warrant to search the offices of a United States Congressman were outrageous," Trout said in a statement, the Associated Press reported. "There were no exigent circumstances necessitating this action. The government knew that the documents were being appropriately preserved while proper procedures were being followed. We are dismayed by this action. The documents weren't going anywhere and the prosecutors knew it."

Yeah. Sure. Isn't this the guy who got a rescue craft and emergency personnel to take him to his home in the days following Hurricane Katrina to remove material from his home -- material that included a laptop computer, briefcases, and boxes of documents that may well be related to the case? Do you want to assure us again that nothing would have happened to the material sought in the warrant if it had not been immediately executed?

And let's not forget this little tidbit from teh end of the story.

The investigation became public on Aug. 3 when FBI agents raided Jefferson's homes in New Orleans and Northeast Washington, where they found about $90,000 in cash in his freezer, law enforcement sources have said.

They also raided five other locations, including the Kentucky and New Jersey offices of iGate Inc., which has become central to the investigation.

I say again -- why isn't this story getting the play that DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham get> Because William Jefferson is black, Democrat, and from teh corrupt state of Louisiana, so nothing better is expected of him. Ethics rules and laws apply to Republicns only.

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Expose the Left, and No Agenda.

UPDATE: GatewayPundit notes that the FBI caught Jefferson on tape taking a $100,000 bribe. Instapundit reminds us of an earlier Jefferson indiscretion -- is the cash linked to the bribe in question? Additional news coverage at these sites.

Proof positive that not only is New Orleans the dumbest place to build a city in the United States, but that it is also the dumbest city in the United States.

Voters here endorsed the leadership of incumbent Mayor C. Ray Nagin Saturday, narrowly approving his reelection bid even though his term was marked by the apocalyptic chaos of Hurricane Katrina, his controversial "chocolate city" remarks and the stalled recovery.

Nagin overcame a strong challenge by Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, the scion of a politically powerful clan, who outspent him by large margins.

Many here, such as City Council President Oliver Thomas, considered Nagin's victory the "biggest upset ever." With all precincts reporting, Nagin had 52.3 percent, or 59,460 votes, to Landrieu's 47.7 percent, or 54,131 votes.

The vote split largely along racial lines. Nagin won by getting the support of about 80 percent of black voters and about 20 percent of white votes, according to election analyst Greg Rigamer.

Many here called the election a pivotal moment in city history. Scores of voters arrived after a five-hour bus trip from Houston. Some emerged from cramped FEMA trailers parked in otherwise abandoned neighborhoods. And even those who came from the comfort of houses untouched by the flooding said the only issues that mattered were the hurricane and its aftermath.

Let's remember some simple facts. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order an evacuation. It was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who failed to order those school buses to be used for evacuation purposes. And it was Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco who decided the SuperDome and Convention Center would be fantastic places to keep folks for the duration of the storm and beyond. But for some reason, the people of New Orleans want to keep their incompetent mayor around for another term. No doubt we will soon hear that this is george Bush's fault, just like all the failures of Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco.

As far as this Houston area resident is concerned, I hope that all those folks who traveled by bus from our area stay in New Orleans -- the crime rate in the area dropped significantly as they crossed the county line, and the collective IQ of texas was raised when they crossed they crossed the Sabine River into Louisiana.

Here's hoping that the people of the "chocolate city" realize that they will be getting it up the "Hershey highway" as long as they continue to select the sort of corrupt and incompetent officials that are legion in Louisiana.

More At Stop the ACLU">Stop the ACLU