We have an election coming up next week, related to ballot propositions on the state, county, and local levels.

Looking them over, I’d like to offer the following positions for your consideration.

STATE OF TEXAS

Amendment 1

Clarifies in law the legislature’s transfer of Angelo State University from Texas State University System to Texas Tech University System.

Yes – a technical correction

Amendment 2

Issues $500 million general obligation bonds for student loans

Yes – reluctantly. We need to restore tuition caps

Amendment 3

Limits the ad valorem tax on a homestead to the most recent market value or a 10 percent increase from the value of last year’s appraisal.

Yes – while it fails to go far enough in capping property taxes, that is no reason for not taking the incremental step.

Amendment 4

Authorizes up to $1 billion in bonds from the state general revenues for maintenance, repair and construction projects

Yes – too many projects have been delayed too long, and must be completed in the short term. The Battleship Texas project and the law enforcement provisions alone are reason enough to pass.

Amendment 5

Allows cities under 10,000 to vote to authorize the city to enter agreements encouraging revitalization programs by deferring ad valorem taxes

Yes

Amendment 6

Exempts ad valorem tax on one vehicle used for both professional and personal use

Yes

Amendment 7

Allows the government to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owner at the price paid by the government in acquiring the land

Yes – though it should be mandatory in those cases in which projects are cancelled.

Amendment 8

Clarifies and alters procedures related to making and using home equity loans

Yes – but this proves that there are things in the Texas Constitution that don’t need to be there

Amendment 9

Allows legislature to exempt totally disabled veteran’s homesteads from ad valorem taxes and changes the method for determining the amount of a disabled veteran’s exemption

Yes

Amendment 10

Eliminates the authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals

Yes – since the office is no longer in existence

Amendment 11

Requires a record vote on any final passage of a piece of legislation except local bills, and assures Internet access to those votes

Yes – a good government bill, though the local bills should not be exempt

Amendment 12

Authorizes Texas Transportation Commission to issue $5 billion in bonds for highway improvement projects

No – let’s rein-in the Trans Texas Corridor

Amendment 13

Authorizes the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders in misdemeanor family violence cases.

Yes

Amendment 14

Permits judges reaching mandatory retirement age to finish their terms

Yes – though we ought to be eliminating the retirement age completely

Amendment 15

Establishes the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizes state to issue up to $3 billion in bonds from the general revenue for research

No Recommendation – I’m still struggling with this one

Amendment 16

Allows Texas Water Development Board to issue up to $250 million in additional bonds for clean water in economically distressed areas

Yes

HARRIS COUNTY

Proposition 1

The issuance of $190,000,000 Harris County road bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 2

The issuance of $95,000,000 Harris County park bonds and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No

Proposition 3

The issuance of $195,000,000 Harris County bonds for a central processing and adult detention center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

Proposition 4

The issuance of $80,000,000 harris county bonds for a medical examiner's forensic center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof

Yes

Proposition 5

The issuance of $70,000,000 Harris County bonds for a family law center and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

Yes

PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY

Proposition

The issuance of $250,000,000 Port of Houston Authority bonds for port improvements (including related transportation facilities, security facilities and environmental enhancements) to provide economic development and the levying of the tax in payment thereof.

No -- and may I add HELL NO! Privatize the Port.

CITY OF SEABROOK

Proposition

In accordance with Texas law and Section 5.21 of the Charter of the City of Seabrook, Texas, shall the City Council of the City of Seabrook, Texas be authorized to issue bonds of the City in the amount of $2,500,000 maturing serially or otherwise at such times as may be fixed by the City Council not to exceed 40 years from their date or dates and bearing interest at any rate or rates, either fixed, variable or floating, according to any clearly stated formula, calculation or method not exceeding the maximum interest now or hereafter authorized by law as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance, and to levy a tax upon all taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the interest on the bonds, and to provide a sinking fund for the payment of the bonds as they mature, for the purpose of making permanent public park improvements as follows: the Pine Gully Enhancement Project located at 502 Pine Gully, Seabrook, Texas, including acquisition of approximately 8.433 acres of property immediately north of Pine Gully Park, construction and improvement of such property, all as more specifically described in Resolution 2007-14, and all matters necessary or incidental thereto.

Yes

Seems to me that this judge has just injected himself and his courtroom into the middle of a political campaign in a very inappropriate way..

The straight-and-narrow proceedings of federal court took a striking political detour yesterday during a hearing in Camden for six men accused in a terror plot against Fort Dix.

The U.S. district judge presiding over a pretrial hearing for the group known as the "Fort Dix Six" threw sharp words from the bench when shown a campaign flyer being circulated by Republicans vying for state legislative seats in Burlington County.

The flyer, which was entered into evidence because of its potential impact on jurors, implies that Democratic Assembly hopeful Tracy Riley is a terrorist sympathizer.

The reason? Her husband, Michael Riley, is defending one of the men accused in the alleged plot to gun down soldiers at Fort Dix, the Army base in Burlington County. One of the men is expected to enter a guilty plea today.

Judge Robert B. Kugler, who examined the flyer for its impact on potential jurors, did little to conceal his shock.

"Wow," Kugler said, inspecting the mailer that Riley had handed him. "I had heard this was going on. . . . It's pretty despicable stuff, honestly."

When I was a seminarian, the brother of my moral theology professor was representing Jeff Dahmer, and Fr. Pat pointedly reminded us that ensuring that a client’s rights and interests are protected is appropriate to the degree that one neither lies to undercut justice nor acts to become enmeshed in the client’s crimes (like Lynn Stewart did). After all, no sane person would have argued that my professor’s brother was condoning or supporting murder or cannibalism by representing his client.

Now I’m not going to get into the propriety of the ad – after all, if we are going to continue to follow the misguided policy of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of the state, we are going to have to afford them the right to an attorney. It is a part of our system, and an attorney for a terrorist is no more responsible for his client’s crimes than is the attorney for a murderer or a child molester. Based upon this belief, I know that as a candidate I would not have signed off on this campaign flyer for that very reason.

That said, I don’t believe that the issue of the flyer should have been dealt with in the manner it was, especially not in open court. The attorney in question, the husband of the candidate opposed in the flyer, expressed concern about contamination of the jury pool. It was his job to raise the issue. But for the judge to make the comments that he did from the bench – in particular, the attack from the bench on one of the candidates supported by this campaign literature – seems to me to have crossed a line into inappropriate political involvement by a judge. By making said criticism from the bench, he implicitly endorsed the defense attorney’s wife. Such criticism should not have been made at all. As such, Judge Kugler ought to be sanctioned for unethical conduct.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I’ve said it every time folks complain taxes are too low, or that they don’t deserve a newly implemented tax cut – they don’t need to keep that cash they feel isn’t rightfully theirs. And so I offer this suggestion to the latest “I’m not taxed enough” whiner – Warren Buffett.

The United States' second-richest man has delivered a blunt message to the Bush administration: he wants to pay more tax.

Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the "Sage of Omaha", has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: "The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It's dramatic; I don't think it's appreciated and I think it should be addressed."

An analysis of his arguments shows that he wants to treat capital gains like income and wants social security contributions to be unlimited. That this would grind the economy to a screeching halt is overlooked by Buffett, but that is neither here nor there to the billionaire.

The thing is, though, that Buffett can already overcome the horrors of being undertaxed. As columnist and blogger Don Surber points out, he can diverst himself of his excess wealth quite easily. All he has to do is cut a check and mail it in.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D17
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Put your money where your mouth is, Warren – determine what you should pay and then actually pay it. Otherwise you lack any and all moral authority to call for higher taxes for other Americans.

If this keeps up, there won’t be enough dead soldiers for the eventual Democrat nominee to stand on when declaring defeat in Iraq.

The number of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq is headed for the lowest level in more than a year and a half and the fifth consecutive monthly decline.

Twenty-seven Americans have been killed in action in October, with one day left in the month, Pentagon records show. That would be the lowest monthly level since March 2006, when 27 servicemembers died in hostile action, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Pentagon reports.

The total number of U.S. deaths, including accidents, in October so far is 35, records show.

A new strategy, backed up by 30,000 more U.S. servicemembers, has led to a decline in violence and weakened al-Qaeda, commanders say. The U.S. military started building combat outposts and moving troops outside major bases earlier this year in an attempt to provide more security.

That strategy led to higher U.S. casualties in the spring, as the new troops moved into areas that had been insurgent sanctuaries. Combat deaths in April and May were the highest for a two-month period since the war started in March 2003, records show.

More recently, casualties have declined as security has been established. "I think we've turned the corner," Brig. Gen. John Campbell, an assistant commander for the U.S. division in Baghdad, said Tuesday in an interview from Iraq.

The Surge is working. Victory will happen, if we stick with the strategy and support the Iraqis. That means, though, that we can’t elect a candidate who is counting on American defeat as a path to electoral success.

It really is the height of hypocrisy for certain Democrats to demand that a nominee for a Cabinet slot declare before confirmation something that Congress lacks the courage to legislate itself.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said late Monday that unless Michael Mukasey defines waterboarding as torture, he won't vote to confirm the attorney general nominee.

Biden said he is waiting on a response from Mukasey to a letter he and all the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee members sent last week asking the nominee to clarify answers he gave about waterboading during his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The presidential candidate indicated that he considers Mukasey's responses to lawmakers' questions at the hearing evasive at best.

"I think Judge Mukasey's comments on waterboarding were outrageous, especially given that he's seeking the job of attorney general," Biden told FOX News. "Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture, is not fit — and will not have my support — to be attorney general."

Well, Senator, I personally think that any member of the Senate who insists that waterboarding is torture but has not introduced legislation to make it unambiguously illegal under American law is not fit to be a member of the Senate – and certainly not to be President. After all, it is the province of the legislative branch to make the practice illegal under American law. Why not be man enough to take the lead, sir, so that the question is settled?

UPDATE: Again yesterday, there was more piling on from Democrats, who won't act to put their view unambiguously into law. Is it political grandstanding on their part, or simply their own moral cowardice?

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats yesterday that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is "repugnant to me," but he said he does not know whether the interrogation tactic violates U.S. laws against torture.

Mukasey's uncertainty about the method's legality has raised new questions about the success of his nomination. It seemed a sure thing just two weeks ago, as Democrats joined Republicans in predicting his easy confirmation to succeed the embattled Alberto R. Gonzales.

* * *

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary panel's chairman, reacted with blunt dissatisfaction, saying in a statement yesterday that he will continue to delay any vote on Mukasey until the nominee answers more questions from lawmakers. "I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States," he said.

But Leahy, who said last week that "my vote would depend on him answering that question," stopped short of declaring he will oppose the nomination. Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), also issued a statement criticizing Mukasey but did not say whether he would vote no.

"We asked Judge Mukasey a simple and straightforward question: Is waterboarding illegal?" Durbin said. "While this question has been answered clearly by many others . . . Judge Mukasey spent four pages responding and still didn't provide an answer."

Senator Durbin, why don't you introduce legislation to make it clear that waterboarding is illegal? Could it be that you know it is an effective tactic, one that has produced hard intelligence in the past and will in the future, intelligence that has safeguarded the American people? Could it be that you don't want your name attached to any measure that takes this effective technique off the table when American lives are at stake? What about you, Senator Leahy -- same questions.

Either act legislatively on waterboarding, Senators, or shut up about it and let the confirmation vote proceed.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I agree with the New York Times here -- Congress needs to act to make it easier for those who have helped the US in Afghanistan and Iraq enter the US legally.

Congress has finally pried open America’s door to Iraqis and Afghans who have served this country at great risk. Congress needs to go a lot further, adding more visa slots and approving resettlement benefits that would allow these people to grab the lifeline the United States has been far too slow to offer.

Translators, interpreters and thousands of others have aided American troops and diplomats — and have become targets for militants. Under current American law, 500 Iraqis and Afghans per year who have worked for the United States armed forces for a year, may obtain special immigrant visas.

I remember 1975 very well, when I was a kid on Guam. I watched refugees stream into the temporary camps around the island as Saigon fell to the Communists, with planes landing on the runway only a mile from my house at NAS Agana. Many of these were Embassy employees and their families, or others who would be seen as collaborators by the Communists -- and countless others were left behind. We must not allow such a situation to happen ever again, where those who help us are abandoned.

There is legislation for a 10-fold increase in the number of people admitted from these countries. Congress should support it -- especially if Democrats are preparing to abandon Iraq as part of their policy of surrender and defeat in the face of victory.

I have to agree with this bit of advice being offered to my favorite presidential candidate -- don't try to equate Mormonism and Christianity.

As Mitt Romney scours the South for endorsements from evangelical leaders, he is getting some unusual advice on how to explain his Mormon faith: Don't try to be one of us.

``I told him, you cannot equate Mormonism with Christianity; you cannot say, `I am a Christian just like you,''' said Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, which is scheduled to hold the first primary among the Southern states. ``If he does that, every Baptist preacher in the South is going to have to go to the pulpit on Sunday and explain the differences.''

This advice, which reflects the views of many Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, makes Romney's co-religionists bristle. ``The fact that we are Christians is non-negotiable,'' said Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

What you have here is a twofold problem. On one level, you have the theological issue of how to classify Mormonism. Most Christians, and certainly most evangelicals, would struggle with classifying the LDS Church as within the pale of orthodoxy due to its distinctive theology and additional scriptural claims. There is serious room for theological discussion, but not in the context of a presidential campaign. Romney needs to dismiss the issue, regardless of the adamant claims of LDS authorities that Mormons are Christians. It just isn't relevant to Romney's needs as a candidate.

Besides, that issue isn't relevant to the presidential campaign. What Romney needs to do is focus on the shared values and policies, as well as his independence from official church control. That should be easy to do, given both the social conservative stance taken by the LDS Church and its long-standing history of recognizing the political independence of the Mormon faithful, including officeholders. But Romney needs to act soon on this issue, lest it continue to be a distraction.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, , third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Inside the Northwest Territory, The Pet Haven Blog, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Those who disagree with him are not merely wrong, they are mentally ill!

Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich questioned President Bush's mental health in light of comments he made about a nuclear Iran precipitating World War III.

"I seriously believe we have to start asking questions about his mental health," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board on Tuesday. "There's something wrong. He does not seem to understand his words have real impact."

Kucinich, known for his liberal views, trails far behind the leading candidates in most Democratic polls. He was in Philadelphia for a debate at Drexel University.

So I guess the next step is for Kucinich to insist that the President of the United States be subject to forced mental health treatment until he adopts policies more to the Ohio congressman's liking. I believe that was the tactic favored in the Soviet Union for many years -- but Kucinich is so far left that he probably finds nothing wrong with that.

Of course, there are those who think that Kucinich is as lacking in intellectual and political stature as he is in physical stature -- and one look at his website makes it clear that he might well have personal expertise in mental illness. After all, he thinks he is a serious presidential candidate, which is among the most delusional beliefs I've ever heard of.

Is it just me, or does this sound like an attempt by Barney Frank to impose an ex post facto liability burden on companies involved in subprime mortgages?

But the losses at Merrill and Countrywide show that the market economy is working as it's supposed to. Companies that made overly risky decisions are having to pay for them, and to adjust their business models accordingly. Over the long run, everyone should be better off as firms learn from the subprime mistake.

The question is whether market discipline is enough, or whether government needs to reinforce it. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is working on a comprehensive bill that would impose legal liability on the "securitizers" of mortgage debt. Mr. Frank's proposal would let borrowers sue issuers of bonds that are backed by "no doc" mortgages or other products that do not meet "minimum standards for reasonable ability to pay." To those who suggest that this would chill the mortgage-backed securities market, Mr. Frank notes that the proposed penalties are not unduly onerous. The most a borrower could sue for would be cancellation of a loan and court costs; there are "safe harbor" provisions for securitizers who generally follow sound practices or offer to settle with a borrower out of court. And Mr. Frank candidly replies that, given the recent excesses, the market could use a little chilling.

Now let's consider this. The legislation would make actions that were legal and proper at the time the occurred a form of fraud today -- and allow those who knowingly and willingly entered into contracts sue to cancel their debts. I recognize that these are civil, not criminal penalties, but doesn't this seem to be at odds with our constitutional heritage -- imposing liability where none existed before? I hold no brief for the mortgage industry, but do shudder to think of the implications of this legislation.

Frankly, Hillary Clinton lacks the basic qualifications to be President. She has never led anything of any significance, and her best known “accomplishments” were her failed health care plan, her questionable trading in cattle futures, and her smearing of those who correctly pointed to her husbands misdeeds as being part of a “vast right wing conspiracy”.

But now she and her campaign are upset over a single word.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney said last night that electing Hillary Clinton is akin to putting an “intern” in the job - a potentially loaded statement where a Clinton presidency is concerned. In remarks that drew immediate fire from the Clinton camp, Romney said on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes” last night, “She’s never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn’t run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern.”

Frankly, Clinton may be a decent lawyer, but she has no management experience of the sort that would qualify her for the leadership of America’s executive branch. That’s not to say that a single term legislator is unqualified for the office, but the junior Senator from New York’s record is pretty sparse, and indicates no aptitude for the presidency.

Besides – if Hillary had been competent enough to do the jobk of an intern, the nation might have been spared the indignity of her husband’s impeachment.

It amazes me the things folks will steal to make a dishonest buck.

Unprecedented copper thefts have spurred a crackdown to stop the damage, as at least 16 states have passed or proposed new laws, and businesses have boosted security and offered bounties for information on the thieves.

The crackdown comes as losses to businesses hover around $1 billion, the U.S. Department of Energy reports, and as escalating thefts have disrupted the flow of electricity, slowed construction projects and knocked out irrigation networks crucial to commercial farms.

Seizing on rising worldwide demand and surging value for the popular metal — up from 80 cents per pound in 2003 to about $3.50 this year — thieves sell stolen copper for millions of dollars in cash, state and federal authorities say.

"We're trying to do everything possible to fight this epidemic," says Adam Grant, spokesman at Nevada Power, where copper thefts have more than doubled since last year. "It's crazy."

My favorite law? One in Washington State that immunizes those from whom copper is being stolen from liability for injuries to the thieves. This puts me in mind of something that happened about 20 years ago. I recall there being a big market in vintage bricks, often taken from old, abandoned buildings. One guy in St. Louis was killed when a building collapsed while he was removing bricks from a wall. Seems he decided to start on the first floor and work his way up…

In the last 50 years, every federal tax cut has produced increased revenue for the federal government. Repeated observation has shown that the connection exists, as surely as the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, or consumption of alcohol and intoxication. That’s why it is almost inexplicable that certain liberal writers have been out to debunk the connection between tax cuts and increased revenue.

As the Democrats prepare to attempt one of the largest tax increases in American history, their allies in the press corps are softening the ground with a campaign against the ideological underpinnings of the Bush tax cuts. People can debate any particular tax increase or tax cut. But the left-wing side of this debate is rolling out a new argument. In publicity material for a new book, "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked By Crackpot Economics," the author, Jonathan Chait, puts it this way: "The notion that tax cuts can cause revenue to rise, though now embraced by every leading Republican politician, is rejected by even the most conservative economists."

On the Web site of the New Yorker, the magazine's financial page columnist, James Surowiecki, writes, "The supply-side argument that, in the United States, tax-rate cuts pay for themselves — that, after cutting taxes, the government actually ends up with more revenue — has little or no support within the mainstream economic profession, and no hard empirical data to back it up." He likens it to "saying that the best way to treat sick people is to bleed them to let out the evil spirits."

Messrs. Chait and Surowiecki are playing fast and loose with the facts. The first few pages of Mr. Chait's book are packed with the names of economists who back supply side ideas — Arthur Laffer of the Laffer Curve, who has been on the faculties of Pepperdine, the Southern California, and Chicago; Robert Mundell, the 1999 Nobel Laureate who is a professor of economics at Columbia; Martin Feldstein of Harvard; Lawrence Lindsey, who was an associate professor at Harvard from 1984 to 1989; and Glenn Hubbard of Columbia.

Now the two authors are correct in their statement that not every tax cut will increase revenue. There is a point, which I do not see us as having reached yet, at which revenue will decline – otherwise a tax rate of 0% would produce infinite revenue. But to dismiss the idea that tax cuts produce more revenue as flawed is fundamentally wrong. But much like Al Gore does on the global warming issue, the two writers seek to define anyone who disagrees with them as being “outside the mainstream”, despite the fact that it is demonstrably untrue and also irrelevant. After all, truth is rarely determined by a majority vote.

The Sun then goes on to point out that the various GOP tax cuts have invariably been accompanied by increased revenues. That is empirical data, which the pro-tax Left attempts to explain away as the vagaries of the business cycle. Interestingly enough, though, the two phenomena seem to correlate so strongly that it is impossible to ignore the connection and dismiss it as mere coincidence.

But it is the conclusion that interests me the most.

Even framing the issue as primarily about government revenue, however, concedes the terms of the debate to the left-wingers — as The Great Bartley comprehended. No doubt crucial government activities need to be funded. But as the political season wears on, the candidates — and the journalists who follow them — will come into contact with more and more voters who when they think of "revenue" don't first think of the government's bottom line, but of their own household's. You don't need a Ph.D. or a seat on the faculty of an Ivy League university to know that tax cuts let individuals keep more of the money they have earned, allowing them to spend it as they see fit, rather than as some bureaucrat or lobbyist-influenced politician wants to spend it.

The right way for politicians to approach these issues is by putting the individual's wallet ahead of Washington's, an approach that puts property rights and incentives for hard work and growth ahead of government revenues. Understanding incentives has always been a key to the supply-side argument. It's good politics and good economics. While the Party's deep thinkers of today may dismiss it as hoodwinking, hijacking, crackpottery, or evil spirits, there was a time the Democrats were on the right side of the issue. Ask JFK. Our own prediction is that to the extent the tax issue drives the debate in 2008 — and we think it will be a big factor, though not the only one — the key point won't be which candidate wins the votes of the economics faculties, but which one can show voters he or she understands it's their money, and Washington should take as little as it possibly can.

Indeed, the assumption of Chait, Surowiecki and their ilk is that they begin with the assumption that your income is a government resource, and that the government should get first dibs on it. The reality, however, is different – we have a moral right to every penny of our income, though we relinquish a portion of it for NECESSARY government programs. That does not mean every idea proposed by the latest pandering politician seeking votes.

Squirrels safe to eat again in New Jersey

They go on to say this is good news for local Indians and those who like squirrel meat – and bad news for the squirrels.

Now I've indicated multiple times in the past that I am a Romney supporter. I've also indicated that I find his religion to be irrelevant to the issue of his fitness for office. So I agree, at least in part, with this column written by Martin Frost for FoxNews.

Sometimes things happen in American politics that make no sense at all. We are experiencing just one of those moments in the 2008 presidential campaign.

I thought that the concept of a religious test for public office in our country was put to bed once and for all when John Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected president in 1960 and Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, was nominated for vice president in 2000.

Now we have a candidate with a record of accomplishment, Mitt Romney, who is consistently lagging in the polls with the most credible reason being that significant numbers of Republican primary voters will not support him because of his Mormon religion.

When voters, particularly in the South, are asked to identify candidates that they would not support for president under any circumstances, Romney leads the list. Romney is rejected as a potential presidential candidate in this type polling more often than other polarizing figures such as Rudy Giuliani. It has become increasingly clear that many conservative voters will not support an otherwise qualified candidate who happens to be a Mormon.

As a Democrat, I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated by the Republican Party. But I’ll be damned if I can understand why he should be disqualified from seeking his party’s nomination because of his religion. This makes no logical sense in the world’s greatest democracy in the 21st century.

The question is, how many of those opposed to Mitt Romney are really opposed to him based upon his religion. In my experience, that number seems smaller thatn some in the media might like to make it. Pressed a little harder, most individuals who raise the Mormon issue will come back to questions about Romney's past positions on important issues, and wonder if he is really conservative enough. The religious issue simply becomes the tipping point for them, the one on which the question of shared values becomes decisive.

Now I think that such individuals are wrong -- but I don't think religious issues are necessarily irrelevant in making political choices. While I'll gladly vote for any Christian or Jew who supports my views on major issues, even I have a tipping point -- I don't know that I could bring myself to vote for an individual, for example, who was a Satanist, because our value systems would be too greatly at odds. Is that a wholly rational position, one consistent with my stated beliefs on religion and elections? Maybe not, but then I've never met anyone who was wholly consistent on the values they espouse.

There are those who will argue that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office. They are right, but they ignore what that restriction really means. That provision restricts government itself from requiring or forbidding certain beliefs or practices, but does not extend to the sanctity of the voting booth and the individual's weighing of a candidate's relative merits for office.

Now for all I find myself unable to accept Mormon religious doctrines (and I have studied them, having once been painfully smitten with a Mormon girl who would allow our relationship to progress no further unless I converted) and the historical roots of that faith, I have rarely met a Mormon whose fundamental decency I have doubted. That gives me a certain confidence that Romney's values and mine are congruent, even if not identical. It is why I can support his candidacy for president with a clear conscience, and why I can urge my fellow Americans (of whom my fellow Republicans are but one subset) to support him for the presidency in 2008.

Good grief -- have we so few issues of importance in the field of civil rights ad race relations that so-called "civil rights leaders" (all-to-often merely racial grievance mongers) are reduced to protesting something as absurd as this.

Nobody got shot, but Vice President Cheney still fired up controversy Monday when he went hunting at a private club that hangs the Confederate flag.

A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.

"It's appalling for the VP to be at a private club displaying the flag of lynching, hate and murder," said the Rev. Al Sharpton. "It's the epitome of an insult."

Sharpton demanded Cheney distance himself from the exclusive club where the Stars and Bars was flown, and said he might hold a prayer vigil there.

I'm curious -- how many folks, including club members, even knew that the thing was there before the picture was taken? Probably not many. If Al Sharpton is going to try to make a cause celebre out of this, it proves that the racial climate in this country even better than I had believed.

Indeed, if a flag in a garage and the six felonious thugs from Jena are the worst offenses the racial grievance mongers can muster, then I'd argue it is time to zero-out the civil rights division of the Department of Justice -- its work is done.

From The Campaign Spot at NRO.

This Would Be Awesome: Ted Olson for Virginia Senate Seat?

I’m hearing rumblings that high-ranking Republicans want to coax former Solicitor General Ted Olson to run against Mark Warner in next year’s Virginia Senate race…

And it might still leave him in contention for a future Supreme Court seat – one which is richly deserved.

Because after all, we wouldn’t want to make those breaking the law feel uncomfortable, stigmatized or unwelcome.

One of the toughest state laws targeting illegal immigrants takes effect Thursday in Oklahoma, prompting efforts by immigrants trying to block it and work by state agencies to comply.

The law makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one.

The measure denies illegal immigrants certain public benefits such as rental assistance and fuel subsidies.

"It's clearly one of the most restrictive policies" in the country, says Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Muñoz says she's particularly concerned about a provision that gives local police the authority to check immigration status. Such policies create fear among all Hispanics, including those in the country legally, and may contribute to discrimination, she says.

On Thursday, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed its second lawsuit against the measure. The group says it is unconstitutional because immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility.

I’m particularly troubled by their attempt to block the provision allowing legal workers to sue employers of illegal immigrants. After all, according to the advocates for the border jumpers, those folks are only doing the jobs Americans won’t do. Could it be that they are afraid of being proved wrong when there is a flood of lawsuits from American citizens who want jobs but are being undercut by those with no legal right to be in (much less work in) the United States?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Heck, the real news would be if she wasn’t voting Republican.

Sorry, sister: Laura Bush says experience as First Lady may count, but she won't vote for Hillary Clinton just to see the first female President. Putting party over gender pride yesterday, Bush said she wasn't at all conflicted over opposing the first woman with a real chance to break the marble ceiling.

"It doesn't matter to me - I hope it doesn't matter to other people," the First Lady said. "I hope that people will choose the candidate that they think really has the views that they want.

"I'll be supporting the Republican," Bush added on "Fox News Sunday."

Republican wife of a sitting Republican president gets asked of she is going to vote for a Democrat in the upcoming election. What do you think she would say? The question itself is asinine.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The MSM's Rush Limbaugh Horror Story by Bookworm Room, and Resistance Is Futile by Michael Yon.  Here is a link to the full results of the vote.  :

Found in this magnificent quote from Mark Steyn.

"If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security: it's the difference between hanging upside down in your dominatrix's bondage parlor after work on Friday and enduring the real thing for years on end in Saddam's prisons."

Exactly.

And similarly, if the Bush Administration were truly the fascist regime the anti-war crowd keeps claiming it is, those making the claim would have long since been imprisoned or executed for the audacity of their claims.

H/T Right Wing News

Dare I state that I don't care that he was detained, searched and inconvenienced? It happens to average Americans every day.

BRITAIN'S first Muslim minister said he was "deeply disappointed" yesterday after being detained at a US airport where his hand luggage was tested for traces of explosive materials.

Shahid Malik, the MP for Dewsbury and an international development minister, was returning to Heathrow after meetings and talks on tackling terrorism, when he was stopped at Dulles Airport near Washington yesterday morning.

He was searched and detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - the department whose representatives he had been meeting on his visit.

You, sir, at least fit the profile of a terrorist. We regularly see nuns and Medal of Honor winners searched at random as a condition of air travel. Why should you be treated any different? And if, as you claim, all of those getting the special search that day were Muslims, it appears that someone may have been awake to the fact that Muslims are the folks who have been committing the bulk of terrorist activity over the last 20 years or so.

The great Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban in 201. It was a great loss for the cultural heritage of all humanity. Roger Cohen reflects on that loss today, following a recent visit to the site.

People still speak of the Buddhas as if they were there. The Buddhas are visited and debated. A “Buddha road” just opened. It boasts the first paved surface in Afghanistan’s majestic central highlands and stretches all of a half-mile.

But the 1,500-year-old Buddhas of Bamiyan are gone, of course, replaced by two gashes in the reddish-brown cliff. They were destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban in their quest to rid the country of the “gods of the infidels.” The fanatical soldiers of Islam blasted the ancient treasures to fragments.

“It is easier to destroy than to build,” Mawlawi Qudratullah Jamal, then the Taliban information minister, noted on March 3, 2001. True enough, but few in New York or elsewhere listened.

Memory, however, is another matter. It is stubborn and volatile and hard to eradicate. The keyhole-like niches in the rock face are charged. Absence is presence. The visitor is drawn into the void as if summoned, not by vacancy, but by the towering Buddhas themselves.

Cohen clearly intends this to be a call for peace, but I think that the quote from Mawlawi Qudratullah shows the problem we face in the current conflict. Our enemy thinks nothing of destruction for destruction's sake, to the point that bombarding Buddhas or flying planes into buildings, not to mention engaging in terrorists bombings and beheadings, are not only not unthinkable but are instead second nature to them. We are faced, then, with new barbarians whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of our society, and we must continue to stand against them or allow them to succeed due to a pacifism born of laziness. Our society has been one of of great building in every field of endeavor. What lasting contribution to the world has our enemy built in the last six centuries?

Cohen ends by noting that fear is not the answer. He is right -- but neither is surrender to the forces of evil that would engulf us in a tidal wave of destruction.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Never mind that it could play into the same sort of frenzy set off by false reports of flushed Qurans.

A Muslim inmate says prisoners around the country are regularly mistreated by their jailers because of religious faith. The Supreme Court is considering his case Monday.

The issue in the inmate's lawsuit is whether he can sue prison officials for allegedly confiscating two copies of his Quran and his prayer rug.

Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.

Muslim inmates have been subjected to "very hard times and bad treatment" at the hands of federal, state and local prison employees because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Ali says in court papers.

Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia.

So we know the true nature of the guy making the complaint -- he is a cold-blooded killer. I guess that doesn't stand in the way of his being a good Muslim, does it? Religion of Peace and all that.

Ali says the items he turned over to prison officers in Atlanta for shipment never arrived at Inez.

In the Supreme Court, the question is whether federal prison officials qualify as law enforcement officers and are therefore exempt from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. The statute bars liability claims against law enforcement officers involved in detaining property. Two lower federal courts ruled against Ali.

Besides the two copies of the Quran and the prayer rug, Ali is missing stamps and other personal items worth $177 that he says weren't sent along to Big Sandy penitentiary in Kentucky.

Gee, growing up my family moved at six times -- and every time, something got lost in transit. My complete medical records for the first six years of my life were lost by the Department of Defense when they were shipped from Naval Hospital Balboa to Naval Hospital Bethesda, though the rest of the family records arrived just fine. Sounds like the same thing here. But I guess you can get more press claiming confiscation than simple loss.

A new site dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism has opened -- Kafir Canada.

If the first major post (second overall) is any indication, the site will become an important one in the fight against those who would do violence against us in the name of the Muslim faith, as well as those who object to efforts to combat Islamic terrorism. Provided, of course, the Canadian government doesn't try to shut it down for speaking the truth.

As they try to force workers at one company to pay for union representation they don't want.

Unite (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) has been trying to wedge a foot in the door at Cintas since 2003. Unable to get enough worker support to force an election, Unite wants to skip the customary secret-ballot and force 17,000 Cintas workers to join the union and pay dues. But Cintas and its workers have said no thanks.

"What they're asking for is they want me to agree to put all of our people in a union without giving them a chance to vote for themselves," said CEO Scott Farmer, after the shareholders meeting on Tuesday. "Our position is that our employees have a right to say yes - but they also have a right to say no."

So Unite has resorted to desperate attacks on the Cincinnati-based uniform company.

Unite copied license numbers from Cintas workers in Pennsylvania, to snoop in personal information and harass them at home. The union has been ordered to pay the workers $2,500 each. Unite also published a false press release that caused Cintas stock to drop $300 million, according to a defamation suit by Cintas that is going to trial in Warren County court.

"For four-and-a-half years now our people have heard it all," Farmer said. "The union is not going anywhere, but I consider it a failed campaign."

For every "sweatshop" accusation from Unite, there are dozens of Cintas workers who like their jobs and want no part of a union. Many have signed petitions asking Unite to stop harassing them.

If a business engaged in such tactics to stop their workers from unionizing, they would be subject to criminal and civil penalties. If that business engaged in such tactics to break an existing union, they would be subject to criminal and civil penalties. When will unions be subject to the same sort of penalties -- and when will our government quit coddling the union thugs and seeking legislation to force workers into unions they don't want?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I think this really sums the matter up quite nicely, since the Democrats seem to believe that we have enough extra cash around to "insure" the health of every single American and any illegal alien able to sneak across the border.

The first fallacy should be obvious to anyone. The government does not have any extra money! In fact, our government owes $9 trillion, give or take a few billion. That is what we call the national debt, but really, it is not owed by the government; it is owed by you and me. Every time some politician gets another bright idea to give away a million dollars here or $250,000 there, it comes out of your pocket. Don’t just believe me; ask your pocket.

The second fallacy may be more subtle. What is being called “health insurance” by the politicians is nothing of the sort. As we have already established, insurance is a financial gamble where you put money at risk on the chance that you will reap a reward later. Notice the word “risk.” But the only one assuming any risk in the “feel-good” version of insurance being proposed by Clinton, Obama, Edwards and the gang is the American taxpayer. What they are talking about is “free health care,” not insurance. But it is only free for the sick person; instead of them paying for their own care, you and I pay for it.

* * *

Which brings us to the unstated third fallacy of the health-care debate, the one which is pivotal and sadly which is accepted as truth by the vast majority of people. It is this: If there is something that is good for me, I am entitled to it, whether I can afford it or not.

Put more simply:

1) We can't afford it.
2) It is socialism, not insurance.
3) It isn't a right.

Interestingly enough, medical care used to be affordable for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Then the government got involved in paying for it for those who couldn't? The result? Prices went up to the level that health insurance became a necessity for everyone else -- which drove costs still higher. After all, when you have to document every aspirin in triplicate and submit the paperwork to get reimbursed, that pill that costs a penny to buy does start to cost $4 to administer..

I hold a certain ambivalence towards the death penalty. On the one hand, I have deep concern over its use upon the innocent. At the same time, I recognize that some crimes are, by their very nature, so heinous that no other penalty is adequate to express society's outrage. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that some offenders -- and not just murderers -- clearly forfeit the presumption of a right to life by the very nature of their crimes.

And that is where I come to this case, which transfixed the nation this summer, and the community of faith that struggles to deal with it.

The United Methodist Church here is the kind of politically active place where parishioners take to the pulpit to discuss poverty in El Salvador and refugees living in Meriden. But few issues engage its passions as much as the death penalty.

The last three pastors were opponents of capital punishment. Church-sponsored adult education classes promote the idea of “restorative justice,” advocating rehabilitation over punishment. Two years ago, congregants attended midnight vigils outside the prison where Connecticut executed a prisoner for the first time in 45 years.

The problem, of course, with the whole "restorative justice" concept is that there is no real way of making whole the victims and the community in certain cases. And that is precisely the problem in the case at hand.

So it might have been expected that United Methodist congregants would speak out forcefully when a brutal triple murder here in July led to tough new policies against violent criminals across the state and a pledge from prosecutors to seek capital punishment against the defendants.

But the congregation has been largely quiet, not out of indifference, but anguish: the victims were popular and active members of the church — Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11. On July 23, two men broke into the family’s home. Mrs. Hawke-Petit was strangled and her daughters died in a fire that the police say was set by the intruders.

The killings have not just stunned the congregation, they have spurred quiet debate about how it should respond to the crime and whether it should publicly oppose the punishment that may follow. It has also caused a few to reassess how they feel about the punishment.

Yeah -- the liberal "principle" at work here gets really hard to stand by when it hits too close to home. All of a sudden one is forced to reexamine what one believes when the hard, cold reality and unspeakable evil intrudes. Sure, ideas like "restorative justice" sound great in theory -- especially when one talks about property crime -- but it doesn't work when you have three dead loved ones to deal with. They are not going to be restored.

At the heart of the debate are questions about how Mrs. Hawke-Petit’s husband, William, who survived the attack, feels about the death penalty. The indications are conflicting. Sensitive to his grief, many of the church’s most ardent capital punishment opponents have been hesitant to speak against the capital charges brought against two parolees charged with the killings, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes.

“I’m treading lightly out of respect for the Petit family,” said the church’s pastor, the Rev. Stephen E. Volpe, a death penalty opponent. “I do not feel we, in this church, ought to make this tragedy the rallying cry for anything at this point.”

Yeah -- but if this was some other family from some other church, would you be more than willing to do so? If so, then that is either a sign that you are unwilling to stand by your principles when they are inconvenient, or that you know that they are wrong but unwilling to own up to that reality. After all, if you really believe that your position is coming out of the Gospel, then you need to proclaim it when it is hard, not just when it is easy -- unless it is less about the Gospel and more about a political agenda sugar-coated with a veneer of religion.

At the same time, there is a widespread belief that Mrs. Hawke-Petit was opposed to capital punishment. Having her killers put to death would be the last thing she would want, many say.

“It’d be so dishonoring to her life to do anything violent in her name,” said Carolyn Hardin Engelhardt, a church member who is the director of the ministry resource center at Yale Divinity School Library. “That’s not the kind of person she was.”

At least two church members say they think that Mrs. Hawke-Petit endorsed an anti-death-penalty document known as a Declaration of Life. The declaration states a person’s opposition to capital punishment and asks that prosecutors, in the event of the person’s own death in a capital crime, do not seek the death penalty. The documents have been signed by thousands of people, including Mario M. Cuomo, the former governor of New York, and Martin Sheen, the actor.

“She was a nurse and she would not cause harm to anyone,” said Lucy Earley, a congregant who notarized at least a dozen declarations during an appeal at the church and said she thought Mrs. Hawke-Petit’s was among them.

Declarations of Life are often kept with a person’s will or other important papers; sometimes they are filed with registries. But it could not be independently determined whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed one. Although the family’s home was heavily damaged in the fire and no independent copies have surfaced, death penalty opponents both inside and outside the church have kept trying to find one. A clear indication that Mrs. Hawke-Petit rejected capital punishment could help them mobilize, they say, not only in the Cheshire case but also on behalf of the nine people on Connecticut’s death row in Somers.

The opponents also say that a signed declaration by Mrs. Hawke-Petit opposing capital punishment could help counter the public outrage to the killings — outrage that has pressured state officials to suspend parole for violent criminals.

I'm about to make a really terrible sounding statement -- the views of Jennifer Hawke-Petit (or her daughters, or her surviving husband and other family members) on the death penalty are at best tangentially relevant to the eventual sentence given in this case. When prosecuted, the case will not be prosecuted in her name -- it will be prosecuted in the name of the people of the state of Connecticut, recognizing that the offense committed was not just against her and her family, but also against society as a whole. Indeed, the question is what do the people of Connecticut view as an appropriate punishment for the horrific events that took place this summer -- views quite clearly expressed in support of the death penalty.

But I put a different question to those anti-death penalty ideologues who urge that the victim's views should be the overriding factor in determining the sentence for murder -- if a victim left behind some clear demand for the execution of their murderers, would you be equally passionate in demanding that execution be the only option at sentencing? If their clearly articulated religious views supported the death penalty, would you insist that they be the guiding force in this case? Or would you argue, in typical liberal fashion, that your views are so much more compassionate and humane and advance than theirs and that your views must therefore override the wishes of the victim? You don't need to answer -- we already know.

Still, if proof of Mrs. Hawke-Petit’s sentiments did surface, it would have little standing in court, lawyers and prosecutors say.

“Our job is to enforce the law no matter who the victim is or what the victim’s religious beliefs are,” said John A. Connelly, a veteran prosecutor in Waterbury who is not involved in the Cheshire case. “If you started imposing the death penalty based on what the victim’s family felt, it would truly become arbitrary and capricious.”

Michael Dearington, the state’s attorney who is prosecuting the suspects in the Petit killings, said he did not know whether Mrs. Hawke-Petit had signed a Declaration of Life. Asked if he knew Dr. Petit’s views on the death penalty, he replied, “I have a no comment on that.”

Interestingly enough, the article goes on to indicate that Dr. Petit is in support of the death penalty in this case. That creates an interesting problem for those who talk about "restorative justice", because it appears that the one surviving victim may have a very different view of what it will take for justice to be done. And while there is an anecdote regarding the use of the Prayer of St. Francis at the memorial service for his murdered family, and his struggle with the word pardon, let us not forget that forgiveness and justice are not mutually exclusive concepts in the Christian tradition, or in the American legal system.

I'm going to stop the fisking at this point. I do so for two reasons.

1) Much of the rest of the article constitutes a rehashing of the same issues raised earlier. and a focus on some genuinely good and decent works of the congregation. Frankly, I admire much of what is reported here, and do not doubt the people of the congregation are men and women of faith seeking to follow the Gospel. While I disagree with them on some points (in particular the death penalty issue), I respect them and mean nothing in the way of disrespect for them in anything I have written.

2) It hits too close to home. Jennifer Hawke-Petit, you see, was a friend of my wife's when they were growing up in Pennsylvania. She attended the couple's wedding, and the baptism of Hayley, their oldest daughter. She worked for Jennifer Hawke-Petit's father for a time. The events of this summer caused much anguish around our home, and much talk the victims and their families. I choose to honor those things revealed by not speaking of them more publicly in this forum.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Question: When can you direct a racial slur at a minority politician?

Answer: When he's a Republican, and you can get a fellow minority to say it.

Noting that Jindal, 36, chose the nickname Bobby in place of his given name, Piyush, as a toddler and converted from Hinduism to Christianity in high school, some have accused him of being a "potato": brown on the outside, white on the inside.

Shameful. Absolutely shameful. And no more acceptable than the "Is Obama black enough" meme of a few weeks back.

Jindal's crime, other than conservatism and Christianity, seems to be encapsulated in this view of the America.

“People want to make everything about race. The only colors that matter here are red, white and blue."

Why won't the media -- and too many Americans of minority ethnicities -- begin to embrace the views of one of the great men of twentieth century America?

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today....

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

Bobby Jindal has embraced that vision. The voters of Louisiana have embraced that vision. The Republican Party has embraced that vision. When will the press, the ethnic and racial grievance mongers, and the Left embrace that vision?

Tell me you don't find this funny.

And that it is not revealing of a great deal about the lawyer making the argument.

The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans. She represented the cannery, and she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. “Besides,” she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client’s position, “the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.”

The jury seemed to buy her argument, more or less, as it awarded only token damages. But no one was particularly happy about the case or her performance. Her former partner, Webster L. Hubbell, told one of her biographers that she was “amazingly nervous” in speaking to the jury.

Tell me, friends, doesn't that sound like precisely the sort of argument that she would make in favor of socialized medicine?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Lost Paradise, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, CORSARI D'ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

They say this like it is a bad thing.

'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

Of course, they do manage to find (and extensively quote) a liberal whiner to make it appear that making things tougher for burglars is a bad thing.

But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.

"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.

"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.

"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."

I'm sorry, I can't help but be outraged that you believe I should give a tinker's damn about the life and safety of someone who breaks into my home. Especially given crimes like this high profile incident that recently took the life of one of my wife's childhood friends and her two daughters.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

You know, Leon Jaworski has been a hero to Democrats for decades. Now it has been shown that he was willing to let a guilty white murderer go free to ensure the conviction of innocent black soldiers.

Fortunately, it appears that belated justice is being done.

Guglielmo Olivotto, an Italian prisoner of war, died with a noose around his neck, lynched at a military post on Puget Sound 63 years ago. Samuel Snow, 83, hopes that people will stop blaming him and the 27 other black soldiers convicted of starting the riot that led to Mr. Olivotto’s death. It was one of the largest Army courts-martial of World War II.

This week, a review board issued a ruling that could lead to overturning the convictions of all 28 soldiers, granting honorable discharges and providing them with back pay.

The board found that the court-martial was flawed, that the defense was unjustly rushed and that the prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, a young lieutenant colonel who went on to fame three decades later as a Watergate special prosecutor, had important evidence that he did not share with defense lawyers.

All of the 28 have died except for Mr. Snow and another soldier.

Leon Jaworski went on to fame and fortune after railroading these men. Why did he ignore the evidence and insist upon sending them to prison? Could it have been the race of Jaworski's victims -- and of the murderer?

And I wonder -- Jaworski's grandson, Joe Jaworski, is seeking to unseat my state senator. Will he have the integrity to condemn his grandfather for this clear example of prosecutorial misconduct?

I recently wrote about the bitch witch who demanded Halloween decorations come down in Massachusetts a couple of weeks back. Well, it appears that objections to hanging victims in the spooky displays have become a nationwide phenomenon.

the mock hangings — considered relatively new to the panoply of Halloween mock-menace — have been displayed openly. And they are defended vigorously by people like Jennifer Cervero of Stratford, Conn., who this week removed the figure of a man hanging from a noose in her tree, after protests, but still finds the complaints of racial insensitivity she received “completely overblown and ridiculous.”

“We do up all the holidays really big, and this Halloween we decided to go for the big Wow,” said Miss Cervero, who is white and lives with her mother and sister in Stratford, a mostly white suburb of Bridgeport.

The resulting display included a plastic corpse with its head ripped off, a mechanical ghoul whose head spins around, a rotting corpse — and the offending figure, which she bought from an online catalog that lists it as Item HG-005078: Inflatable Hanging Victim Prop, which she hung, per instructions, from a tree. It cost $89.99.

The Rev. Johnny Gamble, pastor of the Friendship Baptist Church in Stratford, heard complaints from parishioners and went to see it for himself.

“At first, I couldn’t believe my eyes. But there it was. A mannequin of a black man, hanging from the neck,” said Mr. Gamble, who is black.

When he knocked at the door, Joyce Mounajed, Miss Cervero’s mother, told him the figure was not meant to be a black man, but was dark-hued to convey the idea of decaying flesh. It was “just a decoration,” he said she told him.

“I told her, ‘We don’t decorate like that. That is a symbol of lynching,’” Mr. Gamble said. “What if my great-grandfather was lynched? There are no two ways of looking at this; that thing is extremely offensive.”

My response to Mr. Gamble would have been "You don't decorate like that? Fine. We do. That constitutes evidence that there are, in fact two ways of looking at this. Welcome to America, the land of freedom. Now quit trying to impose your politically correct values on me and get off my property before I call the cops and have you arrested for trespassing."

Rather than allow the traditional flag-folding ceremony as an option at the burial of our nation's veterans, the long-standing tradition has been banned by a government bureaucrat? Why? Because of a complaint over a reference to God.

Flag-folding recitations by Memorial Honor Detail volunteers are now banned at the nation’s 125 veterans graveyards because of a complaint about the ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery.

During thousands of military burials, the volunteers have folded the American flag 13 times and recited the significance of every fold to survivors.

The first fold represents life, the second a belief in eternal life, and so on.

The complaint revolved around the narration in the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and “glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

The National Cemetery Administration then decided to ban the entire recital at all national cemeteries. Details of the complaint weren’t disclosed.

Administration spokesman Mike Nacincik said the new policy outlined in a Sept. 27 memorandum is aimed at creating uniform services throughout the military graveyard system.

He said the 13-fold recital is not part of the U.S. Flag Code and is not government-approved.

And, of course, we can't have anything that isn't in the Flag Code. So let's ban the ceremony by government fiat. As I recall, though, the Flag Code also bans disrespectful burning of the flag. I guess that some speech is just a little more equal than other speech.

But most distressing is that a single complaint has resulted in the destruction of a long-standing tradition, and its denial to those who find comfort in the ceremony at a time of loss. Wouldn't a reasonable approach have been to require that the family be asked as a part of the funeral arrangements whether the ritual was welcome?

Veteran volunteers are planning a little civil disobedience on this one.

Here's a petition to overturn this assault on religion in our veteran's cemeteries.
More At Malkin, Stop the ACLU, Liberty Pundit, and Cao's Blog

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Imagine arising on a fall morning in 1947 to read this in the paper.

In late June, three of Adolf Hitler’s senior military officials were found guilty of war crimes, including the notorious henchman Hermann Goering. Iraqi law required that they be executed no more than 30 days after the German courts rejected their final appeals.

That deadline has passed, but the men are still alive and in United States custody. The execution has been delayed because of questions raised by some German politicians and a spirited behind-the-scenes discussion involving senior German and American officials over the death sentence of one of the other men, Joachim von Ribbentrop, the former foreign.

Now, Mr. von Ribbentrop’s fate has become a test case for reconciliation and whether Germany's’s fractious parties and political alliances can work together to resolve the difficult issues surrounding his death sentence. There are also doubts among some German officials about the fairness of his punishment.

Of course, no such article would ever be written. No such dispute or delay would ever have been allowed to override justice being done. Indeed, the New York Times would have been shouting for blood, and condemning any who dared stand in the way of the sentences being carried out.

What a difference six decades makes, as this sympathetic piece in the New York Times today shows.

In late June, three of Saddam Hussein’s senior military officials were found guilty of war crimes, including the notorious henchman known as Chemical Ali. Iraqi law required that they be executed no more than 30 days after the Iraqi courts rejected their final appeals.

That deadline has passed, but the men are still alive and in United States custody. The execution has been delayed because of questions raised by some Iraqi politicians and a spirited behind-the-scenes discussion involving senior Iraqi and American officials over the death sentence of one of the other men, Sultan Hashem Ahmed al-Jabouri al-Tai, the former minister of defense.

Now, Mr. Hashem’s fate has become a test case for reconciliation and whether Iraq’s fractious sects and political alliances can work together to resolve the difficult issues surrounding his death sentence. There are also doubts among some Iraqi officials about the fairness of his punishment.

Beyond the heated arguments about Mr. Hashem’s guilt lies the fraught question of whether Iraqis are ready to stop the retributive killing of members of the former government. It seems that some of them are.

Beyond the heated arguments about Mr. Hashem’s guilt lies the fraught question of whether Iraqis are ready to stop the retributive killing of members of the former government. It seems that some of them are.

I don't know about you, but that this article is being written with such an approving tone strikes me as rather chilling. But then again, given the tendency of the mass media to give aid and comfort, if not explicit support, to the enemies of America, maybe I couldn't be surprised. No doubt they would find a few positive words for the condemned Nazis today.

Well, looks like Ron Paul is going to try to expand his base beyond the internet lunatic crowd. Now he's trying to infect attract the general public with a radio and television campaign.

Hoping to defy more expectations, Rep. Ron Paul is ratcheting up his maverick Republican presidential campaign by launching TV and radio commercials in early primary states and setting an ambitious $12 million fundraising goal.

For a candidate often relegated by pundits to second- or third-tier status, Paul's ability to make a big entry into advertising wars is unusual.

With just over two months until the first primaries, experts question whether the libertarian-leaning congressman from Lake Jackson can expand his intense following to make a credible showing in these early contests.

Officials with Paul's campaign acknowledge they have an uphill battle, but say they plan to broaden his support with an advertising campaign that includes $1.1 million in television spots that begin airing Monday in New Hampshire.

Now the Paul campaign is sitting on a chunk of cash, and has apparently decided to use it to communicate his sometimes reasonable, sometimes bizarre message. That is great, because there are some positive points in his message, things that I do agree with. Unfortunately, he has become a magnet for every conspiracist, lunatic, and extremist out there, as I've pointed out more than once.

Since he'll take their endorsement and their money without comment, I wonder if any of his money will go to Stormfront Radio?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, A Blog For All, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Democrats seemed to be trying "to drill enough small holes in the bottom of the boat to sink the entire Iraqi enterprise, while still claiming undying support for the crew about to drown," said Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia.

But then again, it will be ignored by the mainstream press -- or even echoed approvingly -- because the racist in question is an Asian-American commentator for an Asian-American publication.

When you see a person of color, you expect someone with similar values, views, beliefs — someone in touch with the emerging new majority. With Jindal, you get someone who very deliberately and proudly downplays his race in order to seek his own individual path. That kind of independence under certain circumstances may be commendable. But only if you happen to agree with his ideas that range from free-market health care, intelligent design instead of evolution, anti-choice and a fenced-in America.

In other words, independent thought is only OK when it leads you to the same conclusion as everyone else. "People of color" have no right to be diverse, the argument goes, because it somehow betrays the collective and their interests.

Tell me, though -- what is it about being Asian-American that requires one support socialized medicine? Is there some reason that one whose ancestry comes from East that obliges one to accept Godless evolution over the notion that there was a Creator of some sort? Does an Oriental heritage mandate taking the anti-life position on abortion? And is there something peculiarly and exclusively Occidental about a desire to see the sovereignty of the United States upheld and our immigration laws enforced so that all who come here are law-abiding?

One would think not, if one is a thinking person. There is no mandatory race-based political ideology, just as there is no exclusively "White" position on these issues that must be upheld lest one be a race-traitor. Indeed, suggesting such a thing would be seen as proof positive that one is a racist of the most vile ilk. And that is precisely the category to which individuals of good will must consign Emil Guillermo and the editors who allowed his piece to be published.

Because after all, the Asian community is a diverse one, encompassing multiple cultures, languages and religious faiths, not to mention histories. With all the contempt for assimilation and support for diversity mouthed by Guillermo, why does he insist that every individual of Asian-American heritage must behave as a part of a Borg-like left-wing racial collective?

H/T Malkin, Culture Warrior, World According To Carl

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Seems like a much more fitting punishment for this crime, even though we can't do it under our system of laws.

A man who tossed a 10-week-old puppy off a third-story balcony during an argument with his girlfriend was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday by a judge who said he wanted to "send a message."

Javon Patrick Morris pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after throwing the animal off a North Charleston apartment balcony in March.

The animal, a Yorkiepoo, was in a soft-sided container. It suffered severe head trauma, among other injuries, and had to be euthanized.

Morris, 22, said he was sorry before his sentencing in the Charleston County Courthouse. But Circuit Judge Edward Cottingham, who's owned nine dogs, seemed taken aback by the severity of the crime.

"You mean he threw a helpless animal off three floors because he was mad at someone?" Cottingham asked 9th Circuit Assistant Solicitor Stephanie Bianco.

Of course, we would have to make the drop proportionally higher – I think the Empire State Building’s observation deck might just be high enough.

But only for one special group – Arabs/Muslims. If you are a Christian, a Jew, a Hispanic, or an African-American in Michigan, the Democrat presidential candidates are not allowed to seek your vote.

Hundreds of Arab-Americans and members of the Washington political establishment will meet in Dearborn this weekend for a national conference amid concerns that while Arab-Americans are increasingly courted for votes, attempts also are made to exclude them from the public discourse.

The sessions are considered significant enough that the Democratic chairs of the party in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina extended a singular exemption from a ban on candidates campaigning in Michigan -- in a dispute over scheduling the primary -- so that candidates could attend the National Leadership Conference of the Arab American Institute, beginning today.

Can we get someone to file a complaint with the US Department of Justice over this issue? It is a clear violation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, granting special political privileges to one ethnic/religious group that are not extended to other Americans.

One good thing is coming out of the decision to allow schools in one Maine community to dispense birth control to children as young as 11. These same schools will now start following state law and require the reporting of sex involving those under the age of 14 to the authorities.

Portland's school-based health centers have not been reporting all illegal sexual activity involving minors as required by law, but they will from now on, city officials said Thursday.

Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson questioned the health centers' reporting practices after the Portland School Committee decided last week to offer prescription birth control at the King Middle School health center.

The King Student Health Center has offered comprehensive reproductive health care, including providing condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases, since it opened in 2000. The school serves students in grades 6 to 8, ages 11 to 15.

Maine law prohibits having sex with a person under age 14, regardless of the age of the other person involved, Anderson said.

A health care provider must report all known or suspected cases of sex with minors age 13 and under to the state Department of Health and Human Services, she said. Abuse also must be reported to the appropriate district attorney's office, Anderson said, when the suspected perpetrator is someone other than the minor's parent or guardian.

"When it's somebody under age 14, it is a crime and it must be reported," Anderson said. "The health care provider has no discretion in the matter. It's up to the district attorney to decide."

It seems that school officials hadn’t bee following the law, including the health care “professionals” at the school clinic. I hope that while the local DA subpoenas the records of the clinic to determine whether past criminal violations have not been reported, and that appropriate sanctions are taken against the licensure of those who failed to follow the law.

After all -- we in education have a legal obligation, not to mention a moral one, to protect the children in our care.

Is anyone else disgusted that a public university would cave in to a request like this?

Yesterday, the University of Delaware asked Asaf Romirowsky to step down from an academic panel at the University of Delaware because another panelist, University of Delaware political scientist Muqtedar Khan, didn't want to share the podium with anyone who served in the Israeli Defense Forces. Romirowsky, who holds joint American/Israeli citizenship and lives in Philadelphia, had been invited to join Khan, his colleague in political science, Stuart Kaufman, a staff member of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, and a graduate student to discuss anti-Americanism in the Middle East. The program was organized by the College Republicans, the College Democrats, and the Students of Western Civilization Club. The Leadership Institute provided the funds for the panel, which met on the University of Delaware campus on Wednesday evening. The students offered Romirowsky the opportunity to come to campus next week and speak alone, with no other panel members who might object to his presence.

Khan is not just a faculty member at the university – he is also a staff member of the Brookings Institution and spoke the same day at the Pentagon. That he would make the request indicates his inability to fairly deal with any Israeli student – and perhaps any Jewish student. It also indicates that he is someone who has no place helping to guide and direct the formation of our national defense policy.

But more disturbing than the request is the willingness of a public university to give in to the demands of an anti-Semitic pig like Khan. The appropriate response would have been to rescind the invitation to Khan – and to review his employment status in light of the questions raised by the request. To take the path they did was to cave in to dhimmitude.

I grew up the son of a military officer during time of war. I know what it is like to have a parent gone, and the anticipation of their safe return. Most schools try hard to support such kids – and I love the way this school handled this homecoming.

Brittainy and Madison were hoping their dad, Maj. Robert Thomas, would come home from Iraq in the next couple of weeks.

So it's no wonder they were bowled over when he walked into their school's gymnasium during a student program about patriotism Thursday.

"I thought we were just going to read our (essays) about patriotism," said Brittainy, 11, and a fifth-grader at Atwood Elementary School in Macomb Township. Atwood is in the L'Anse Creuse Public Schools district.

"I had no idea my dad was going to be here," she said. "I'm just really happy my dad is home."

Madison, 6, was also surprised.

"I thought my dad would be home for my birthday on Nov. 8," she said. "I guess I was wrong."

The girls' father returned home Thursday morning after serving in the Army in Iraq for about a year.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article. I’m proud of these fellow educators who handled this special situation with class and dignity – and who turned a special family event into a special learning experience for the whole school.

And call me a sucker, but I cried while reading about the event.

Now we can argue over whether or not the response to receiving the books is the correct one, but I think this situation raises a different question that is being overlooked.

Two dozen Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Quran to a state panel on diversity after a lawmaker claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people.

The books were given to Oklahoma's 149 senators and representatives by the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council.

* * *

[Council Chairperson Marjaneh] Seirafi-Pour said the gift was a way to introduce the council to lawmakers so they could use it as a resource to "serve their offices and constituents." Oklahoma lawmakers also received a copy of the Bible earlier this year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma.

Now did anyone catch the troubling detail in the excerpt? If you didn’t, go back and look again. The books were given to the legislators by an official governmental panel. Why was that? Isn’t that a violation of the constitutional separation of mosque and state? How much government money was spent procuring the books and distributing them to the legislators? Were the sacred texts of other religious groups also distributed by the Governor’s Ethnic American Advisory Council, or did they specifically act to establish Islam as the state religion of Oklahoma? Do Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious believers qualify as second-class citizens in the eyes of these multi-culti buffoons, if their books were not also distributed to enable legislators to “serve their offices and constituents”? Given the large population of Native Americans in Oklahoma (certainly outnumbering Muslims), were Cherokee and other tribal religious texts also put into the offices of legislators?

And don’t try to compare that to the gift of the Bibles, because those came to the legislators from a private organization, not an arm of the government. These Qurans came with the official imprimatur of the executive branch.

Where is the freakin’ ACLU on this one, folks? Or do the rules that apply to Christians not apply to Muslims?

UPDATE: I just came across this information regarding the distribution of the Qurans.

Gov. Brad Henry's Muslim advisory council is offering personalized Korans to lawmakers to mark the state's centennial, with each copy to be embossed with the Oklahoma state seal and the recipient lawmaker's name. The all-Muslim group — plain-vanilla-named the American Ethnic Advisory Council — asked lawmakers to notify it if they didn't want a Koran, which the group described as "the record of the exact words revealed by G-d through the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad." So far, 24 have declined.

Of course, it's the rejection of the Korans that's making headlines, not their state-sealed if privately funded distribution. No one asks what the Koran has to do with Oklahoma's centennial, for Pete's sake; or why a government organization is proselytizing about "the exact words" of Allah; or how those words in that book sound to non-Muslims leery of Islam's age-old message to convert, submit or die. In our weird world, it's not the Islamic message that's branded hateful or even insensitive; it's the person who rejects it. This is the technique that usually shuts people up.

If this is correct, the books themselves are privately funded – but still being distributed by a government panel. This still seems to be creating a “mosque and state” problem to me.

Second, why is an “Ethnic American” group composed solely of Muslims? Even if, as Diana West notes later in the column, it was intended to be a group to be composed of members of the "Middle East/Near East community", why are there no Arab Christians or Middle Eastern Jews? Why doesn’t its name clarify what “ethnic Americans” it is intended to “advise” about if it is intended to be an exclusively Muslim group? Could it be intended to disguise the “mosque and state” violation in question?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson's Website, , A Blog For All, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Stix Blog, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Well, one college study has come up with a list of the 100 best blogs to read to keep up with the news -- and one of them is Rhymes With Right (#72)!

It's great that somebody noticed -- and exciting to know I'm doing something right.

By the way, congratulations to my many similarly honored blog-buddies from the Watcher's council, and also from my blogroll.

After all, the President has proposed an increase, just not the gargantuan expansion of the health insurance program for poor kids to include adults and middle class kids, too.

And Republicans in Congress have proposed an even bigger increase than the President -- but again, keeping the program for poor kids, not the children of families making $60K a year.

But that isn't enough for the NYTimes, which has the audacity to complain about the president being driven by ideology.

The House approved a revised bill to finance the children’s health insurance program yesterday by a 265-to-142 margin — a strong mandate, but still not enough to overcome another promised veto by President Bush.

If the president carries out this threat, we hope Congressional tacticians can find a way to enact this important measure over the adamant, ideologically driven opposition of Mr. Bush and House Republican leaders. The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the president’s visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.

Desire to protect the tobacco industry? Where does that one come from?

And is it just me, or is the complaint by the editors of the New York Times to ideologically driven positions on policy issues somewhat akin to complaints about from a hooker about the loose sexual morality of women in contemporary society?

The fine conservative site RedState recently announced its decision to ban comments favoring Ron Paul by newly registered members, based upon a documented problem with the Ronulans. Whether or not this is the correct move is subject to debate, but it is hard to call teh decision illegitimate in light of the behavior of many Ron paul supporters around the internet.

Andrew Sullivan takes RedState to task over this decision.

RedState defends its decision to bar future posters from supporting Ron Paul:

Erickson thinks that they're a human political cocktail of Code Pink activists and Neo Nazis, and he doesn't expect them to vote for anyone other than Paul.

All thinks that a lot of them are those who  buy into Paul's message of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

I don't think I qualify as a Neo-Nazi or a Code Pink activist. Full Wired story here. But here's a simple message to Ron Paul supporters. You're welcome here. The Dish believes in expanding the range of debate among conservatives, not crushing it. And any cursory look at the degenerate state of American conservatism would not lead you to think your problem is too much diversity of opinion.

Really, Andrew? That's odd -- you don't allow comments at all from anyone, though you do allow trackbacks.

Tell me, sir, how your no-comment site promotes dialogue and debate. Seems to me that your comment-free zone stifles that debate. As such, I hope you don't mind if I refer to this as a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy on your part.

Others commenting on RedState's decision include OTB, Captain Ed, and David All.

UPDATE: And as proof of Andrew Sullivan's hypocrisy, guess what -- it appears that he's refused my trackback! So much for promoting open debate!

Matt, David, and the rest of the folks at LoneStarTimes.com have dug up what ought to be a big scandal -- Ron Paul is taking campaign cash from Nazis, including the owner of the biggest neo-Nazi site on the internet (and the current husband of the former Mrs. David Duke).

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

Now LST has been raising the issue of links to Paul's website (including a fundraising widget) from Stormfront for some time now, without response from the Paul campaign. Paul has not renounced support from white supremacists like Black and Stormfront, despite his campaign being made aware of the links from the racist site. Furthermore, Paul's association with (and courting of) 9/11 Truthers, rabid anti-Zionists, and militia supporters clearly walks him to the extreme fringe of American politics -- right to the very neighborhood inhabited by the neo-Nazis.

Interestingly enough, Ron Paul supporters commenting at LST are defending the acceptance of white supremacist cash, and arguing that LST is in the wrong for revealing the connection.

Will Ron Paul do the right thing in this case? Or will he keep the cash, thereby verifying that he is the candidate of the freaks, weirdos and nutjobs of the internet?

UPDATE: Hot Air notes another donor -- this one maxed out -- to the Paul campaign. It is 9/11 Truther and militia supporter Alex Jones!

Others commenting include JammieWearingFool, American Pundit

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

UPDATE: The original post has been taken down since LST has closed. Here is an archival copy of the original post found at free Republic.

EXCLUSIVE: SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION BY LEADING NEO-NAZI TO RON PAUL CAMPAIGN IDENTIFIED

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

LONESTARTIMES.COM EXCLUSIVE!!!

Must credit LoneStarTimes.com!!!

That means YOU, mainstream media producer/reporter/outlet!

————————-

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

Previous LST posts have focused on banner “widgets” appearing on the front-page of Stormfront. It is important to emphasize that these are NOT “advertisements” placed on Stormfront BY the Paul campaign, but rather publicly-available graphics that Stormfront’s owner has chosen to place himself, with links directly to Paul’s donation page.

Nevertheless, LST has in the past several weeks raised a series of questions for the Paul campaign; specifically–

1. Can Paul confirm that the donation widgets appearing on Stormfront are the result of the site owner’s actions, not the campaign’s?
2. Will Paul take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL to his own website, so that no future donations can possibly flow into his campaign from a site that serves as the on-line nexus of neo-Nazism?
3. Will Paul ask his own web-staff to trace past donations that were made by anyone arriving at his campaign’s webpage from Stormfront, so that these contributions can be rejected?
4. Will Paul explore if there are any legal actions available to try to remove his donation widget from Stormfront, and if so pursue them?
5. At the very least, will Paul personally state publicly, vigorously and unmistakably that he rejects the support of white supremacists, and that he will not knowingly tolerate their involvement with his campaign in any form or to any degree?

LoneStarTimes.com’s managing editor Matt Bramanti left multiple messages last week for officials in Paul’s national campaign press office seeking comment. None were returned.

In the interim, a number of grassroots supporters of Paul’s campaign– including many honorable and regular readers of LST– have argued that…

• It is unfair to hold Paul responsible for receiving political support from racists/neo-Nazis if that support was unsolicited by Paul;
• Paul hasn’t, in fact, solicited white-supremacist support; AND
• Paul’s campaign has no practical way of knowing whether or not a specific financial contribution made has come from a neo-Nazi.

These abstract debates are now moot– a contribution to the Paul campaign by a known white-supremacist has been identified.

The evidence is as follows:

• Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand, and publishes a contact address on the Internet– PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405
• A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405
• A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”
• That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke
• Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203 Lakeland Drive
• According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”

In light of these facts, we believe our previously asked questions continue to have merit.

A final note– it is traditional in political campaigns for candidates to return contributions from “toxic” donors once sufficient public scrutiny and outcry has been generated.

The difficulty in this instance is that if Ron Paul returns these funds to Mr. Black, all he will have done is given a neo-Nazi $500 more dollars with which to spread his psychotic bile.

We would therefore like to suggest that the Ron Paul campaign donate Black’s $500 to any of the following worthy recipients–

• United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ($500 would make Dr. Paul a “sustaining member”)
• One Family Fund (which works to rebuild the shattered lives of Israeli victims of Arab terror; $500 would make Dr. Paul a “healer”)
• Aish Ha’Torah (dynamic Jewish educational foundation; Aish donations are set according to funky Kabbalah-based giving levels–$18, $36, $180, etc.–but for $500 Dr. Paul could simultaneously become a “Friend of the Wall” and a “Gate of Wisdom,” which would entitle him to both a Sterling Silver Menorah bookmark with certificate of authenticity from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and a Western Wall Images CD with over 500 unique photos of life at the Western Wall– perfect “re-gifting” items for the fast-approaching Hanukkah season)

We try to be helpful.

Matt Bramanti, Managing Editor (Gentile Stooge)
David Benzion, Publisher (Z.O.G. Chapter #1948 President)
LoneStarTimes.com

I wonder how this happened.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) enjoyed a more than $2 million fundraising edge over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in September, continuing a year-long pattern. And although the Republican committee’s money margin over the Democratic committee is less than was typically the case before the GOP lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it remains the GOP’s brightest spot in a year in which the Democrats’ U.S. Senate and House campaign units have built up big fundraising leads of their Republican counterparts.

The RNC raised $5.8 million in September, according to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, compared to $3.7 million for the DNC. That continued an RNC winning streak that it has sustained through every month of this year.

Overall through Sept. 30, the RNC raised $63.1 million, and began October with $16.5 million in cash on hand. The DNC raised $40.5 million and began October with $3.3 million left to spend. The DNC has $2 million in debts, while the RNC is debt-free.

Could it be that we are seeing that the people are supportive of GOP principles, but less than happy with the direction taken by some GOP incumbents who are willing to compromise away all principles in an effort to win praise for their “bipartisanship”?

David Crosby used to be a talented musician, before he burned out every last brain cell with all those drugs. And Congressman John Hall used to have a modicum of musical talent – not much, but enough to score a couple of light-weight pop hits along the way. But in his new position, should he really be having a fundraiser featuring Crosby, given the latter’s recent insult to the troops?

Rep. John Hall, D-Dover, is refusing to cancel a planned performance Sunday at a campaign fundraiser in Bedford by longtime friend and fellow musician David Crosby despite Crosby's recent statement that when a U.S. soldier arrives in Iraq "he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister." Crosby appeared on the program "Hardball" last week, commenting to host Chris Matthews on young Americans volunteering to serve in Iraq. "On the one hand, you have got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it," Crosby said. "And he's being told, yes, this is the truth. And we have got to go in there to protect your mother and your sister." Crosby added, "And he goes over and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."

Bad enough that he won’t dump the musical has-been from the fundraiser, but Hall also lacks the decency and integrity to defend our men and women in uniform by repudiating his friend and supporters slanderous comments. If you need any proof of how unfit John Hall is for office, that should do it for you.

Remember when the Democrats had a guy stalk Senator George Allan, looking for some miscue to exploit until they found one poorly chosen word? Well, it looks like a conservative student in Michigan is doing the same thing, and the Democrats – and the educrats he works for – don’t like it one bit.

A politically conservative student armed with a video camera and a Web site is trying to force a Democratic congressional candidate out of his teaching job at Central Michigan University.

Dennis Lennox, a 23-year-old junior, has posted videos on YouTube of himself questioning assistant professor Gary Peters about campaigning for office while holding a prestigious position at the university.

Some say Lennox is persistent. Others accuse him of pandering for attention.
"What I'm doing isn't about getting media attention," said Lennox, a political science major. "I'm speaking for the hundreds of students, alumni, taxpayers and even legislators who have complained because Gary Peters won't pick between Congress and campus."

One college administrator appears to have assaulted Lennox, and there are attempts to prevent him from filming on campus, or from filming public employees. I guess the First Amendment only applies to Democrats and liberals – and that they really don’t consider turnabout to be fair play.

Ileana Hernandez is seeking the office of county commissioner in Pike County, Pennsylvania.

Someone splattered a campaign sign with paint. Someone also dumped dirty diapers in front of her campaign office..

Her response?

Hernandez, a Democrat who is the first Latino woman to run for the office, said the vandalism "could be both racist and sexist — it's Pike County."

Her opponents have criticized the both acts of vandalism. But I can’t help but think that labeling the people you hope to represent as a bunch of racists and sexists is not the best pat to high political office – especially when your victories in previous elections in the county has proven that neither race nor sex has been an obstacle to your political success.

In case yesterday’s post about Illinois Senator Dick Durbin didn’t make the point clear, this comment should. Disagreeing with him is not legitimate – indeed, it is a sign of not of principled disagreement, but of something much more ugly and unacceptable.

llegal immigration remains at a legislative impasse — and that may be a good thing for GOP chances since the party’s base in the South and West tends to be vehemently opposed to any accommodation with illegal immigrants.

In his post-vote assessment, the Dream Act’s chief sponsor, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “In a campaign year, it is a very difficult issue. If it’s tough this year, it’s tougher next year.”

Some senators, he said, “are running scared” on the illegal immigrant issue.
“Switchboards light up, the hates starts spewing, and people get concerned, to say the least,” Durbin told reporters.

Go that, people? Cacting your congressional representatives is not laudable participation by citizens in the political life of the Republic. It is, instead, an exercise in hatred – you know, one of those things the Democrats tell us must be criminalized. When you opposed this piece of Durbin-sponsored legislation because it made a mockery of our borders and amounted to nothing less than amnesty for entire families, you committed a hate crime.

Writer and activist David Horowitz was brought in to speak at Emory University by the College Republicans as part of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. The response of those opposed to his message was not debate or discussion – instead, it was to resort to fascist tactics to silence the speech they oppose.

The most disturbing part of the report on the incident is found here.

Protesters began their efforts as soon as Horowitz was introduced with boos and chants of "Heil Hitler." Despite the people who stood with their backs to Horowitz and the shouting of obscenities and other remarks from audience members, Horowitz attempted to deliver his speech that covered academic freedom and radical Islam. The loud chants, sign-waving, and disruptive gestures continued to escalate from audience members until the atmosphere was so chaotic that even the police present were unable to subdue the crowd. Horowitz was led off stage and left the campus under tight security, and the event came to an abrupt end.

Rather than remove those engaged in harassment and disruption under relevant disorderly conduct statutes and university regulations protecting academic freedom, the authorities removed the victim instead and silenced his message. You should have tazed them, bro!

Is academic freedom dead in America? Or is it available only to those with a politically correct message and the dictators they coddle?

Is it time for the federal government to begin investigating – and prosecuting – the repeated series of civil rights violations committed by Islamists, illegals, and Leftists against conservative Americans?

For a brief moment, I thought we were dealing with a rational liberal columnist.

Then I got to the fourth sentence.

Forget impeachment.

Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

* * *

Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant. But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment procedure in the Constitution.

Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."

I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III, it's really the least I can do.

One more example of how the American Left isn't that far removed from the ideology and practices of the Soviet Union.

And it leads me to conclude that Bush Derangement Syndrome is not a mental illness, but is instead a manifestation of the evil that lives in some people's souls.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Looking for a job in government, one with real policy influence? Are you experienced and competent, and willing to think outside the box? Then Bobby Jindal wants you!

BATON ROUGE, La. — Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal is taking resumes from people looking for jobs at a new Web site, Louisiana Transition

"We are considering every position within the administration an open one and encouraging everyone interested to apply. We are looking for the best and brightest folks out there interested in working to bring our state a fresh start," Timmy Teepell, director of Jindal's transition team and chief of staff when Jindal takes office in January, said in a statement.

The transition team will form committees to choose the Jindal administration's cabinet members, according to Rolfe McCollister, chairman of the transition efforts.

Jindal will have a month longer than most incoming governors to handle transition because he won in Saturday's primary, not a November runoff.

Louisiana government has been a mes for years, and that was quite clearly demonstrated two years ago. If you want to be a part of the reform movement, click the link above and apply to be a part of the solution.

I've not written much about the California wildfires, but I've certainly been praying about them -- I've got family in the area, and have been sent some really chilling pictures of fires on hillsides.

I have, however, gotten into more than one argument over why the evacuation and housing of those displaced is different.

Today the Washington Post agrees (at least in part) with me.

Some will be tempted to attribute the quick action exclusively to race. After all, San Diego County, where most of the more than 800,000 wildfire evacuees live, is predominantly white (66 percent) and well-to-do (9 percent poverty rate) compared to the mostly African American (67 percent) and poor (28 percent poverty rate) victims of New Orleans. But that would be simplistic.

Because of well-organized disaster preparedness planning at the state and regional levels and drills that are continually performed, California is considered the gold standard of emergency response. After devastating fires in 2003, San Diego County invested in the automated reverse 911 system, which this week urged San Diego County residents to evacuate. And Californians have something that Louisianans, in particular those in New Orleans, didn't have when they needed it most: leadership, in this case from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the San Diego mayor on down. That there have been just five fatalities in an inferno that has burned an area twice the size of New York City shows what can result from clear and coordinated leadership.

These fires are regularly occurring events. They have plans to deal with them, and are not afraid to implement them. And everybody does communicate. Race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status are not even a factor in this equation.

And besides -- do those who want to argue that the response to Katrina was incompetent insist that every disaster get the same sort of response? Or would they prefer that we as a nation have learned from the mistakes of 2005?

Do you really want that email read by just anyone? After all, it can happen, either through your mistake or the forwarding habits of others.

First, let’s make one thing clear. Does the local superintendent of schools want to kill any of her teachers? No, she does not.

In fact, for the most part, residents seem relatively pleased with the performance of the Catskill schools superintendent, Kathleen P. Farrell, who in less than three years has gained a reputation as a can-do presence in a tough job.

* * *

Back and forth the discussion went, until Oct. 3, when Dr. Farrell wrote an e-mail message to the district’s director of facilities, John Willabay. She vented a bit and then allowed: “Please go KILL these people....Please, please, please.”

Then she sent it — not just to him — but, accidentally, to an unknown number of others as well, including Terri Dubuke, a sixth-grade teacher who was one of the critics. Ms. Dubuke read it in shock and referred it to the teachers’ union, and the matter was discussed at a closed-door school board meeting on Oct. 17.

It is stuff like this that causes our principal to caution us regularly at faculty meetings about being too quick to respond in anger or with a sarcastic tone.

But my question is this -- why does Farrell still have her job? After all, the head of the district union points out the disparity in treatment.

“If a student had written that, we would have been under lockdown and the student would have been escorted from the building,” she said. “Same thing if it had been a teacher. But when you have the person doing the policing writing it, none of that happens.”

Not only would a student or teacher have been escorted from the building, it is quite likely that a kid would have been expelled or a teacher fired. After all, we must have zero tolerance for threats of violence, even silly, blowing off steam type of threats that are not threats at all. Otherwise the little sociopath in third period could claim discrimination when his "People to slay" list is found along with detailed plans on how to assault the school.

Shouldn't the rules apply to everyone? And if not, doesn't that show the silliness of the zero tolerance rule?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Nuke's, Perri Nelson's Website, Right Celebrity, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, High Desert Wanderer, Pursuing Holiness, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

It appears that they may have found the seal of one of the most infamous women of the Bible.

An ancient seal that surfaced in Israel more than four decades ago belonged to the biblical Queen Jezebel, according to a new study released on Tuesday by a Dutch university.

The seal, which some scholars date to the ninth century BCE, was first discovered in 1964 by the Israeli archeologist Nahman Avigad, with the name "Yzbl" inscribed in ancient Hebrew, Utrecht University said.

Although it was initially assumed that the seal belonged to Jezebel, the powerful and reviled Phoenician wife of the Jewish King Ahab, there was uncertainty regarding the original owner both because the spelling of the name was erroneous, and because the personal seal could easily have belonged to another woman of the same name.

Moreover, the unknown origin of the seal, which was not found in an official excavation but purchased on the antiquities market in Israel, has left Israeli archeologists uncertain of its ownership for the last 40 years.

But the study by Utrecht University Old Testament scholar and Protestant minister Dr. Marjo Korpel, 48, concludes that the seal must have belonged to Jezebel, based on the symbols that appear on it.

Will it ever be possible to authenticate the seal with 100% certainty? No, it won’t – but once again, we have archaeological evidence that seems to corroborate the existence of biblical figures. And while that doesn’t “prove” that the Bible is 100% accurate, it does show that it contains at least some elements of historical truth not available elsewhere.

Does this signal that China will have men on the moon before the US returns there?

China has launched its first lunar orbiter, on a planned year-long exploration mission to the Moon.

The satellite, named Chang'e 1, took off from the Xichang Centre in south-west China's Sichuan province at 1800 local time (1000 GMT).

Analysts say it is a key step towards China's aim of putting a man on the Moon by 2020, in the latest stage of an Asian space race with Japan and India
Earlier this month, a Japanese lunar probe entered orbit around the Moon.
India is planning a lunar mission for April next year.

NASA says it is on path to a 2020 return to the Moon – but we have spent the last couple of decades concerned with the Space Shuttle and not manned exploration beyond earth orbit. And after the Moon comes Mars – will the Red Planet see a Red Chinese flag before the arrival of the Red, White and Blue? And what of the other spacefaring nations – India and Japan? Are they interested in manned programs or not?

Too bad – I might have considered breaking my pledge not to vote for John McCain if he had.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain told workers of small weapons factory that he not only wants to catch Osama Bin Laden if elected, but said he "will shoot him with your products".

"I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products," McCain said.

You know, I like the image of an American president personally dispatching the archfiend of al-Qaeda to Hell with an American-made weapon. Heck, I’d vote for Hillary if she would make that commitment. Especially if she promised to do it live on national television.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Pet's Garden Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, third world county, Right Truth, The Populist, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.