He says he won't make them.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday he will never question others' patriotism during the race and blames his own "carelessness" for some criticism of him so far. Obama sought to reassure voters about his commitment to the country, choosing the aptly named town of Independence as his backdrop.

Oh, really?

Then what was this comment?

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a [flag] pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the attack on the patriotism of a whole lot of people -- after all, you are indicating that you are a true patriot, and that those who wear a flag pin are phony patriots.

I guess this means you've made another flip-flop, Senator. Do you think you could make up your mind?

Once upon a time, military tribunals were considered acceptable for some crimes.

On this day in 1865, a military tribunal convicted seven men and a woman involved in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Four of the eight were later hanged by the U.S. Army at the Washington Navy Yard.

On the other hand, today they are not considered to be good enough for jihadis captured in the field while violating the Geneva Convention's rules for combatants.

And remember -- these folks were all US citizens apprehended, held, tried and executed withing the continental United States.

Thanks for the reminder, Michael -- and I loved your book.

A Harris County grand jury has declined to indict Joe Horn for killing two guys robbing a neighbor's house.

A Harris County grand jury decided today that Joe Horn should not be charged with a crime for shooting two suspected burglars he confronted outside his neighbor's home in Pasadena last fall.

The decision to clear Horn of wrongdoing came two weeks after the grand jury began considering evidence in the case, including Horn's testimony last week.

Horn, a 62-year-old retiree, became the focus of an intense public debate after the Nov. 14 shootings. Many supporters praised him as a hero for using deadly force to protect property, while others dismissed him as a killer who should have heeded a 911 operator's instructions to stay in his house and wait for police.

One of the key details in the case?

Pasadena police Capt. A.H. "Bud" Corbett said a few weeks after the shooting that a plainclothes detective had parked in front of Horn's house in response to the 911 call. He said the detective saw the men between Horn's house and his neighbor's before they crossed into Horn's front yard.

It appeared that neither Horn nor the men knew a police officer was present, Corbett said.

"It was over within seconds. The detective never had time to say anything before the shots were fired," Corbett said. "At first, the officer was assessing the situation. Then he was worried Horn might mistake him for the 'wheel man' (getaway driver). He ducked at one point."

When Horn confronted the suspects in his yard, he raised his shotgun to his shoulder, Corbett said. However the men ignored his order to freeze.

Corbett said one man ran toward Horn, but had angled away from him toward the street when he was shot in the back just before reaching the curb.

"The detective confirmed that this suspect was actually closer to Horn after he initiated his run than at the time when first confronted," said Corbett. "Horn said he felt in jeopardy."

What really needs to be looked into here is why the cop sat in front of the house watching rather than confronting the robbers. The city council in Pasadena may need to investigate that -- and do a thorough housecleaning.

My hope is that the next move is a lawsuit against the families of Diego Ortiz and Hernando Riascos Torres, seeking recovery of all legal fees that have been incurred by Mr. Horn -- and restitution for the good ammunition that Joe Horn had to use on these thieving illegal aliens who died as a result of their own felonious conduct.

Great commentary on this decision here.

Conservatives nationwide have been counting on Louisiana's Bobby Jindal to get this one right. Today he decided to keep the campaign promise and veto the legislative pay raise.

Gov. Bobby Jindal announced today that he has vetoed the legislative pay raise.

After days of saying he would not reject the unpopular measure, Jindal said this morning that he had changed his mind.

"I thank the people for their voice and their attention," Jindal said of the public outcry against the raise. "I am going to need your help to move this state forward. ... The voters have demanded change. . . . I made a mistake by staying out if it" originally.

Jindal said that legislators "are going to be angry I broke my word to them" by promising to stay out of the pay raise issue. "Let them direct their anger to me and not the people of this state," Jindal said.

It isn't always the right thing to follow the majority voice of the people -- but this time it certainly is. The more I found out about this bill, the more I personally recognized it was not just a bad idea to break that campaign promise, but that the increase was bad public policy. After all, this is a part-time legislature with benefits and a per diem that made their total compensation package quite generous to begin with -- a $21,000 increase in their base pay (something like 123%) was clearly inappropriate.

H/T Hot Air

I happen to agree with Congressman Ted Poe about the recent immigration raids here in Houston and around the country.

"Once again the federal government has it backwards," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, a former state judge and prosecutor. "It is a waste of time if we don't go after the business owners who are knowingly hiring illegals.

"If we eliminate the illegal job opportunities, we can start to eliminate the problem."

Unfortunately, only 75 owners and mangers were arrested in conjunction with these raids -- and prosecutions are much more difficult to undertake than they are for the illegal workers.

Seems to me that this is one more reason to require electronic verification of employability -- so that we can begin prosecuting the major players who take jobs from Americans to give them to illegal aliens.

Well, that seems to be the current thinking within the McCain camp.

McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days.

Surprising many Republican insiders, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is at the top of the vice presidential prospect list for John McCain. But lack of personal chemistry could derail the pick.

“Romney as favorite” is the hot buzz in Republican circles, and top party advisers said the case is compelling.

Campaign insiders say McCain plans to name his running mate very shortly after Barack Obama does, as part of what one campaign planner called a “bounce-mitigation strategy.”

A major factor in this is the ability of Romney to raise money. He's got a base that hasn't been tapped yet by McCain, and it is very possible that Romeny is the only guy who can get at it.

Unfortunately, there is still bad blood between McCain and Romney dating back to the primary season. That could yet derail this pick.

In the end, I agree with Hugh Hewitt, who was also a Romney supporter during the primary.

No matter who the selection turns out to be, I'd prefer a nominee announcement sooner rather than as part of a "mitigation bounce" strategy as outlined by Mike. Every day as the veep allows the nominee to make four or five appearances on the trail, generating enthusiasm and contributions, especially if the nominee is throwing hard punches at Obama. 30 or 60 days of extra effort is too much of an advantage to keep on the shelf pending an Obama selection.

We need a pick sooner rather than later -- and not simply a reactive choice following Obama's selection.

Well, the New York Times is at it again, demanding that punishment for felony convictions be reduced. In this case, the editors are griping about the fact that the state of Florida requires that a felon's entire sentence -- incarceration, parole, probation, and restitution -- be completed before their voting rights are restored.

In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.

Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.

The system also requires extensive and unnecessary background checks before voting rights can be restored for some applicants, making it hard to reduce the backlog. Florida could clear up that backlog in a hurry, treat all ex-offenders fairly and enhance democracy by automatically restoring voting rights to inmates who have completed their sentences.

That last line is the real kicker -- that is precisely what the law requires -- that the full sentence, including restitution to the victims, be completed before voting rights are restored. But therein lies the problem -- the editors of the New York Times don't recognize the restorative justice portion of the sentence to be a part of the sentence.

But I'll tell you what. I'm willing to go along with the New York Times on this one -- provided they are also willing to support the restoration of Second Amendment rights at the same time. After all, it seems highly improper to deny these folks the right and the means to defend themselves with a gun if we entrust them with the ballot -- which I fully believe to be much more powerful force than any pistol.

Well, it certainly looks that way.

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

What do the numbers show?

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

Now am I accusing Senator Obama of invidious sex discrimination against women in his office? No, I'm not. But I cannot help but notice that when it comes right down to it, Senator John McCain offers more opportunities for women, promotes them to higher level positions, and pays them better. Seems to me that he puts into practice hat liberal Democrats often preach but fail to implement.

Over at Hot Air it is pointed out that Obama has 18 more staffers than McCain, with nearly $1 million dollars in extra payroll expenses -- despite the fact that he chairs no committees and has no significant legislative accomplishments during his half a term in the Senate, while a senior senator like McCain gets by on a smaller staff and a smaller budget. I wonder why?

While celebrating Obama's lack of experience.

This bit from Wesley Clark's Face the Nation interview today is absolutely astounding -- and indicative of the fact that Clark has ceased to be a patriot, and instead become a partisan whore.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, "untested and untried." And I must say, I had to read that twice, because you're talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war, he was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy, he's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried, General?

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

So never mind three decades of military service, nor a quarter century of experience in Congress. because John McCain has never ordered anyone into combat, he is really unqualified to be president.

Oh, and Clark's candidate, Hopey McChangerson, who not only has two decades less congressional experience than John McCain, no military experience, and no executive experience at all?

Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not--he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

Oh, I see, he lacks the credentials to be president, but he has "other strengths". He's a pretty boy who gives a good speech and shows such good judgment that he hangs out with domestic terrorists, anti-American polemicists, and corrupt businessmen. That might qualify him for office in the Illinois legislature -- maybe even to be mayor of Chicago -- but certainly not President of the United States!

Oh, and exactly how respectful is Wesley Clark of John McCain's military service? I think this line sums it up nicely, when taken in conjunction with Clark's denigration of McCain's time as a squadron commander.

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

Yep -- highly respectful words there, Wesley. That shows quite well how much you honor that time as a POW.

Seems to me that what you really deserve is something like this.

I personally like the response by the McCain campaign.

Brian Rogers, of the McCain campaign, was quick to hit back in a release: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to question John McCain's military service, that's their right. But let's please drop the pretense that Barack Obama stands for a new type of politics. The reality is, he's proving to be a typical politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, including allowing his campaign surrogates to demean and attack John McCain's military service record."

Interesting, isn't it, that Barack Obama is neither man enough to make such an attack himself, nor decent enough to denounce this sort of attack himself. I guess this lets him have both sides of the issue -- sort of like on guns, religion, campaign finance, FISA, and most every other issue.

Blogs for Victory sums this one up quite well.

CLOSING QUESTION: Will Barack Obama add Wesley Clark to the list of those thrown under the bus, or will this attack move him to the head of the VP list?

UPDATE: Over at Q and O, McQ asks the following question about the relative qualifications of the two remaining presidential candidates.

But here's a question: if the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?

UPDATE 2: Looks like that weasel John Aravosis has decided to renew his campaign of attacking John McCain's military service with a post entitled "Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"

I wonder if he would consider it fair game to ask the question "Honestly, besides picking up a live hand grenade while waiting for a beer, what did Max Cleland do to excel in the military?" After all, he was one of the folks who argued that it was illegitimate to even question Cleland's record on defense issues in 2002 -- how dare he actually denigrate McCain's service.

And I wish to associate myself with this post written by Robbie at Urban Grounds about Aravosis and his disgusting post.

The Next Right/Blog, P.I. documents the depths of the depravity of Aravosis' commenters, too.

UPDATE 3: Newsbusters points out that this isn't the first time Clark has made this sort of comment while acting as an Obama surrogate.

Greetings to visitors from Right Wing News.

UPDATE 4: Blackfive reminds us that Wesley Clark's judgment was so bad that he was fired from his job as Supreme Commander of NATO because he personally almost provoked a war with Russia -- something that every other American commander managed to avoid for 40 years. Speaks to the judgment issue for me -- both Clark's and Obama's.

But at least Wesley Clark got to exchange hats with war criminal Ratko Mladic!

UPDATE 5: LGF points out that the KOSsacks are at it now. I guess we see what Obama's new style of politics is -- and reminds me of why I love Kathryn Jean Lopez so very much.

And GayPatriotWest points out that even Andrew Sullivan is condemning Clark -- though he doesn't see the very real difference between this and the questions raised by some of John Kerry's fellow Swift boat vets in 2004.

UPDATE 6: Confederate Yankee actually finds an honest Obama supporter (and campaign cash bundler) who comes right out and says what Barack and his surrogates really mean when they talk about McCain's military service -- Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin.

"I wouldn't characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero."

Or at least not anyone who fought on the American side -- and we know her position on today's soldiers as well, given her providing material assistance to the enemy during time of war.

He also links to this piece by NRO's Jim Geraghty, noting that Wesley Clark is the SEVENTH prominent Democrat supporting Barack Obama to engage in this sort of attack on John McCain.

Newsbusters notices the media's refusal to give the attacks on McCain's service the coverage they deserve.

UPDATE 7: Obama rejects Clark's comment -- in a very tepid manner.

MORE AT Neptunus Lex, STACLU, Gateway Pundit, Ace of Spades, Sister Toldjah, In From the Cold, Joshuapundit, America's Election HQ, Michelle Malkin, Hot Air

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, , The Amboy Times, Beagle Scout - Support the No More Excuses Energy Act, Democrat=Socialist, third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, Stageleft, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Nuke's News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

There are various forms of workplace related injuries and illnesses that afflict workers each year. One that is often not considered is hearing loss. If one believes that a hearing loss is due to conditions in the workplace, then it is very important that the affected person consult with an experienced hearing loss attorney.

This is especially true because hearing loss is rarely a temporary phenomenon. Not only is it a major inconvenience and disruption of a variety of everyday activities, it can also be a serious financial burden to treat that hearing loss. Just consider the cost of hearing aids, testing and doctor visits – those add up really quickly. And they are not one-time costs – they will be repeated by the individual for the rest of their lives. Not only that, but a hearing loss can change person’s ability to be employed in their chosen field of work. Quite bluntly, there are many jobs that cannot be safely performed by a person who has difficulty hearing.

If you suspect a work-related hearing loss, consulting an experienced hearing loss lawyer is the best way to proceed. That lawyer will help you evaluate whether the workplace was the cause for the hearing loss and if it is reasonable to pursue that hearing loss claim in court or through the workman’s compensation process.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are South Africa's Neville Chamberlain by The Razor, and Why You Should Apologize -- Ineffectively and Dishonestly -- For What You Didn't Do by Classical Values.  Here's where you can check out the full results of the vote:

A pre-school bus carrying a group of toddlers was attacked by a rock-throwing, epithet-hurling gang in New York's Crown Heights last month.

Why no banner headline, and no stop-the-hate marches led by folks like Al Sharpton?

Oh, I see -- the victims were Jews, and the perpetrators were black. The story doesn't fit the template -- but it would have been national news if the kids had been black, Muslim, or Hispanic and the perpetrators had been white.

But since it wasn't, no harm, no foul in the eyes of the civil rights establishment and the liberal media.

Fortunately, hate-crime charges are pending against the perps. How long until Sharpton and company are out protesting against that decision?

H/T Atlas Shrugs

Certainly not when you give an article a headline like this one:

A Win by McCain Could Push a Split Court to Right

But then again, the article isn't any more balanced.

A victory by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, would probably mean preserving the uneasy but roughly balanced status quo, since the justices who are considered most likely to retire are liberal. A win for his Republican counterpart, John McCain, could mean a fundamental shift to a consistently conservative majority ready to take on past court rulings on abortion rights, affirmative action and other issues important to the right.

Notice -- a victory for McCain pushes the Court to the right -- but a victory for Obama "would probably mean preserving the. . . balanced status quo."

Yeah. Right. Sure.

While I'll concede the two most likely retirements are liberals Stevens and Ginsburg, does anyone really believe that Obama would appoint a successor in the mold of Scalia or Thomas if one of those two were to unexpectedly die? No, we'd get another doctrinaire liberal on the court, pushing it firmly to the Left -- even as the majority of the American people find the Court to be in balance too liberal.

This looks like a big-time "gotcha" story.

When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.

The only problem is that the actual story, as revealed in the second paragraph of the story, is a little different. It seems that there is a reason that the tax bills have not been paid by the bank that manages the trust on Cindy McCain's behalf.

San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response. County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain's trust, were returned by the post office. According to a McCain campaign aide, who requested anonymity when discussing a private matter, an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain's lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."

Gee -- that does rather make a great deal of difference, doesn't it? The US Postal Service has been returning the bills to San Diego County, which has not made any particular effort to get in contact with the bank or Mrs. McCain about the matter. And unlike a little blurb at HuffPo implies (even cutting that detail out of their Newsweek excerpt along with the bit about the bills being returned by the post office), this isn't some sybaritic retreat for the super-wealthy -- it is the residence of an elderly family member of Mrs. McCain's. Yeah, that's right -- Cindy McCain is making sure that her aunt has a roof over her head and is well cared for.

What happened when the matter was brought to Cindy McCain's attention? The bills she was given were paid -- though there still seems to be an outstanding balance that will no doubt be taken care of on Monday, probably relating to this year's bill and some penalties on the back taxes, I would suspect.

So while this is a nice attempt to create a scandal, it really isn't one. But I'm sure that the feral pigs at Kos and DU, as well as the rest of the fever swamp that is the Leftosphere, will try to gin up a controversy over it anyway.

More At Hot Air, The Moderate Voice, OTB, The Other McCain

I knew that there were a lot of unstable folks attracted to the Obmessiah's campaign, but this one is weird no matter how you slice it.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

I'm sorry, people -- this is cult-like behavior. What next? Tattooing the name across your forehead? You sound like a bunch of followers of the Manson family or some fringe religious group that begs for money on the street corner and survives by dumpster diving.

However, Sweetness and Light reports that this might not be much of a phenomenon at all -- and that based upon a quick search of Google, the buzz is more about the New York Times writing about the phenomenon rather than any grassroots movement to do this.

This hasn't gotten any MSM play -- and I've not seen it among my fellow conservatives. But the Obama "No Dissent Express" bus to Hell has driven over a number of PUMA bloggers this week -- as a number of them were mysteriously shut down/blocked by Blogger as "spam blogs" after multiple reports by other users.

This is Thursday.

Dear Readers,

I have just been informed that three anti-obama blogs have been locked up by Blogger.

I myself have had posting locked up since June 3. I am lucky though, I can post but I have to use word verification until blogger "reviews" my blog. It seems that blogger has to check to see if I am not a spam blog or "bot".

I suspect that the vicious Barack Obama campaign is behind all of this. They want to turn America into a Marxist state. These people are nothing short of evil bastards. It is my guess they have reported our blogs en masse as "bots" or "spam blogs". My God, may this evil bastard and his vicious campaign sycophants never ever be in charge of this country!

Followed by more nefarious action on Friday.

My own blogger "unblock request" was completed for the third time again this morning. It was completed the first time on June 3 and the "verification" that it was listed mysteriously disappeared on June 17. I filled it out again on June 17. The "verification" for that request was gone this morning. So I have submitted the "request" again. I would say it's pretty safe to assume that Blogger isn't going to do this "review" and, if I dont' check to see if the "verification" is there every single day, it can disappear arbitrarily. I think it's pretty safe to say that Blogger is never going to "review" my blog and that in a few weeks this "verification" will also "disappear" and I will have to resubmit the request again. Since I can honestly say that the word verification I have to go through to write a post is horrendous and the worst I have ever seen. Sometimes I have to try a half dozen times. I no longer have "autosave," so everytime I want to save my work, I have to verify and then "save as draft". Then I have to reopen the post and go through the same process to save or publish. Blogger just isn't worth it. I am lucky next to the people below though, who have been COMPLETELY blocked from posting. Frankly I am tired of being toyed with by Obama people and Blogger. Therefore I will stay with blogger till the "four days" is up for the other bloggers who have been completely blocked and then I am permamently moving.

Now one PUMA blog shut down would be nothing. Even two or three would not draw attention. But six in one night? Seems mighty suspicious -- especially since there seems to be some buzz among Obama bloggers that there has been an organized effort to get this done. And given that the liberal wing of the Democrats has always been pro-censorship -- consider their efforts to reimpose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in an effort to make sure that conservative talk radio is severely curtailed.

Why raise this issue now? Because I can imagine a similar effort against pro-McCain blogs come September and October. These people have no scruples against silencing members of their own party -- why would they respect the free speech rights of members of the GOP?

Just a little FYI on who has been hit.

A list of Anti-Obama blogs locked up as spam in the past 36 hours

Locked Out:

Old location: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/

New Location: http://bluelyon.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://nobamablog.blogspot.com/

New location: http://nobamablog.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/ (no alternate blog listed as yet)

Locked Out:

Old Location: http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com/

This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or Bust.com

The Hillary or Bust site also lists the following additional blogs have been unfairly locked:

Locked Out:

Old Site: http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/

New Site: http://nativeamericansagainstobama.wordpress.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site: http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/

New Site:http://mccaindemocrats.wordpress.com/

Locked out:

Old Site: http://politicallizard.blogspot.com/

New Site: http://thelizardannex.blogspot.com/

Locked Out:

Old Site: http://comealongway.blogspot.com/

New Site: http://comealongway.wordpress.com/

It isn't quite the sort of departure that Andrew Carnegie did when he quit running his steel company to become a philanthropist, but Bill Gates is doing something similar at Microsoft.

On his final full day at Microsoft Corp., Bill Gates went on stage to reminisce with his longtime friend Steve Ballmer, and neither man could hold back tears as Ballmer handed Gates a large scrapbook as a farewell present.

Gates, who is stepping back to focus on his philanthropy, sat with CEO Ballmer in a Microsoft conference room and meandered through moments in Microsoft's history. They stopped to get in a few good digs at IBM Corp., whose first personal computers were loaded with Microsoft's DOS operating system before IBM adopted its own operating software and their relations strained.

Frankly, I see this as a good thing. After all, as long as Bill gates remains the driving force at Microsoft, there is really only a single ultimate source of the vision for the company. On the other hand, this change could spur more and better ideas from the company that now dominates the software world.

And let us have no doubt about the importance of Bill gates.

I'm sitting at a computer using a Microsoft operating system, a Microsoft office suite, and at least one peripheral that is a Microsoft product. There is literally nothing I do on this computer that does not intimately involve Microsoft products -- and that is true of most computers in the country. Not bad for a college drop-out.

Words I thought I would never type on this blog.

"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

Let me say for the record -- if he wants my support, Barack Obama can kiss my ass, too. And even then, he won't get it.

But I love the reaction of come of the anonymous sources in this article.

"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

Why the hell can't he talk like that about Obama? You friggin' Democrats have spoken far worse about the President of the United States for 7 1/2 years -- if you can do that, why can't Bill Clinton speak in such a manner about the unqualified flip-flopper your party is about to nominate, especially if he does not actually support the man's candidacy?

Other Perspectives At Cannonfire, Buck Naked Politics, Gateway Pundit, Political Byline, Baldilocks, The Other McCain, Hot Air

Frankly, I find this to be a bit misleading.

Barack Obama has won over more than half of Hillary Rodham Clinton's former supporters, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll that finds party loyalty trumping hard feelings less than three weeks after their bruising Democratic presidential contest ended.

Like that is a surprise? No one doubted that Barack Obama would eventually get over half the supporters of Hillary Clinton. After all, a lot of them are like my favorite Democrat -- they think that Obama is under-qualified and something of a phony, but they could no more vote for the Republican nominee than they could disown their own grandmothers. That has never been at issue.

The problem for Obama was always that some 20-25% of Clinton supporters indicated that they could not support him. That loss -- about 10-15% of the Democrat base -- would be critical in November. Being at 50%, then, really doesn't matter. He needs to be at 90-95%.

And he isn't. According to the survey, 23% of Clinton supporters favor John McCain, and 16% are undecided. Good God Almighty! He has lost (at least for now) 4 out of 10 Clinton supporters -- which if the election were held today would quite possibly mean that 15% of Democrats would be voting for John McCain.

And those Clinton supporters are not enthusiastic about him, nor do they find him qualified for the office. Indeed, only 25% of Clinton supporters view Obama as experienced enough to be president, which drops to 5% among that 40% of Clinton voters not supporting him.

What does this mean? Obama isn't the lock some people think he is -- and he might be forced to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate to secure the Democrat base.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, third world county, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Nuke's News, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

And the survey says:

McCain, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, edged out Obama on national security issues. When asked who “would best protect the U.S. against terrorism,” 53% of respondents chose McCain to just 33% for Obama. And nearly half, 48% to Obama’s 38%, trusted McCain to handle the war in Iraq, though 57% said they believed the U.S. was wrong to invade Iraq and 56% said they would like to see the troops brought home within the next two years.

Only 1/3 of Americans believe Barack Obama is the best candidate to protect America against the threat of the jihadi horde, while over half believe the best choice is John McCain. Americans even think that McCain is the better choice to handle the war. And since national security is Job 1 for a president, that bodes well for John McCain.

Maybe that explains why most national polls show McCain within 5 points of Barack Obama -- and why the electoral college totals are stacking up so very close as well for McCain when one looks at the state-by-state numbers.

H/T Patterico, Hot Air

Rick Noriega claims that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and that it is therefore too dangerous to have American troops there. But now he argues that it is stable enough that we should depend on it as a major source of oil -- suggesting that we should convert the war in Iraq into the very sort of "War for Oil" that his lefty KOSsack supporters have been condemning.

Rick Noriega -- Daily Kos Diarist

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Rick Noriega said Tuesday that America should not try "to drill our way out of this problem" of soaring gasoline prices but instead rely on Iraqi oil and alternative energy sources.

* * *

In a speech before taking questions, Noriega asked, "Why should we tap into what finite resources we have left versus using the enormous reserves we're sitting on in Iraq?"

Needless to say, Noriega has taken shots from Senator John Cornyn and others for his asinine proposal to make America more dependent on foreign oil -- and in particular foreign oil from an area that Noriega believes is completely out of control.

To which Noriega's press spokesperson offered this priceless response.

"This is a five second soundbite, not a serious proposal."

Translation -- Rick Noriega doesn't have proposal for energy independence. And this is the guy who thinks he ought to be a US Senator? You've got to be kidding me!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT

Looks to me like politics influenced the actions of the prosecutors in the Tony Rezko trial.

After all, they had evidence of much closer linkages between Rezko and Barack Obama -- and approval from the judge to use it.

And then they didn't.

Newly unsealed documents show that prosecutors sought to call witnesses to testify about Rezko's ties to Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

The Illinois senator was the recipient of "straw" campaign contributions made by others on behalf of Rezko -- money that Obama has since given to charities.

The documents indicate that prosecutors considered offering witnesses to explore why Rezko used others to contribute to Obama and also to Blagojevich, and U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve ruled that they could. But they did not end up offering any such testimony during the trial.

"Witnesses will testify that Rezko was a long-standing supporter and fund-raiser of Barack Obama," prosecutors wrote.

Later, St. Eve ruled that Obama references would be allowed into the trial, but prosecutors apparently opted not to invoke Obama's name.

Seems to me that the feds had evidence of serious wrong-doing on the part of a major Obama supporter and Obama's campaign -- and yet it was not invoked at the trial. Could it be because of Democrat attempts to argue that any charges against Democrat politicians are evidence of the politicization of the Justice Department? Or were there threats of retribution against the lawyers involved in the case should the Democrats win this fall.

There ought to be an investigation of this stuff -- but since Obama is a Democrat and the Democrats control congress, there won't be. Expect massive file shredding to be ordered at the Justice Department and the office of the US Attorney in Chicago on January 20, 2009 if Barack Obama wins the presidency. After all, it wouldn't do to leave around evidence that could trigger another investigation like that against Bill Clinton, would it.

One of the most anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year is in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. This decision involves the critical question of whether or not the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In a ruling handed down only moments ago, the justices affirmed the decision of a lower court holding that the Second Amendment does confer an individual right to keep and bar arms, striking down a Washington, DC law that virtually forbade the legal ownership of firearms -- and which required that those which were permitted be stored disassembled.

The decision, which was 5-4, was written by Justice Scalia. The usual liberal foursome (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer) dissented against the clear language of the Constitution -- and actually argue that there is no Constitutional right to possess (much less use) a weapon to defend oneself.

Some interesting notes:

1. How Appealing notes that Scalia cites no fewer than THREE law review articles written by noted legal blogger Professor Eugene Volokh. Congratulations, sir! Lot's of great analysis from Volokh and his co-bloggers at his blawg, too.

2. AP notes that the decision goes even further in protecting Second Amendment rights than proposed by the Bush Administration.

3. This quote from the majority is troubling:

On the question of the Second Amendment’s application to the States: “23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.”

4. Hube notes that at least one news source declared this to be "a narrow, 5-4 ruling". Oddly enough, "narrow" was not used by the same paper to describe yesterday's 5-4 ruling in favor of child rapists.

5. Confederate Yankee notes that there is already a call to assassinate Justice Scalia in a comment by lefty gay blogger David Eherenstein over at Crooks and Liars.

6. John McCain notes that Barack Obama refused to sign on to a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. That makes Obama's efforts to distance himself from last year's campaign statement on the issue a bit hard to believe -- unless you are an Obama true believer to begin with.

OTHERS BLOGGING: Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, Ace (twice), Urban Grounds, Dirt From Texas, Big Lizards, Hillbilly White Trash, Megan McArdle, JoshuaPundit, Wold Howling

She's willing to stand up for what's right for America -- and isn't one of those NIMBY creeps like Teddy Kennedy who is unwilling to have a little personal inconvenience in order to make this country energy independent.

In a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and key members of Congress, Governor Palin stressed the need to enact an energy policy that includes oil and gas production from domestic sources, since failure to enact a sound energy policy is having real-life consequences. The Governor reminded members of Congress that the footprint of development would be less than 2,000 acres. She also assured members that any development would be conducted in a responsible and environmentally safe manner.

Bravo, Governor -- especially for the statistic cited in your letter that the area of drilling would be less than 1/4 the size of Dulles Airport. Or to use a different yardstick, the area is 80% the size of Boston's Logan International Airport in an area nearly three times the size of Massachusetts! In other words, the footprint of the development is miniscule.

Does this help Palin's case to be the GOP VP nominee, or does it hurt it? I'm not sure. On the one hand, it does show her to be a ballsy politician willing to take a stand. On the other hand, John McCain doesn't support drilling in ANWR. In the end, though, I don't think she is a serious candidate right now.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin as a GOP candidate for president in 2012 or 2016? I could see it -- and think that any ticket composed of her and Bobby Jindal would be a winner.

UPDATE: Great interview with Gov. Palin by Larry Kudlow.

Kudlow: Why don’t we just liberate, and decontrol, and deregulate the whole bloody energy business – whether it’s oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar – why don’t we just decontrol, deregulate, go for an America first energy policy? Get independent of Saudi Arabia? America first. Create all of these millions of high paying jobs. Why isn’t anybody talking about that in this race? That’s the natural, Reaganesque thing to do. Isn’t it?

Palin: Yeah absolutely! You’re hitting the nail right on the head. That’s what so many of us normal Americans are asking. The same thing. Why aren’t the candidates talking like that? Where we can secure America and we can be more independent when we talk about energy sources if we could drill domestically.

Here we sent [Energy] Secretary Bodman overseas the other day, and our president had to visit the Saudis a few weeks ago, to ask them to ramp up development. That’s nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska, where we’re ready, willing and we’re able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the U.S. We want it to happen. It’s Congress holding us back.

A real plan for American energy independence. Go Sarah!

H/T Hot Air, STACLU

I've always liked Tim McGraw.

And now I have to respect the hell out of the guy for taking action on violence against women -- in the middle of a show, no less.

Country singer Tim McGraw hauled a rowdy fan out of the audience and up onto the stage during his Washington concert on Tuesday.

Video shot by a fan at the concert shows McGraw shouting "Get rid of this guy," summoning security and helping arriving crew members to haul him onstage. When the heavyset fan moves toward McGraw, the singer threatens him with a cocked fist as he's hauled away.

McGraw's rep said, "While Tim was performing at the White River Amphitheater in Auburn, Wash., last night, he watched a man rush to the front of the stage. This overly aggressive fan attacked a female fan and Tim witnessed this incident.

"Tim called for security, but when they could not respond quick enough Tim and several crew members removed the fan from the audience where he was then turned over to the local authorities."

I may disagree on some political things with McGraw, but I certainly do admire him taking action in this case. My question -- why didn't the fans around this creep act to defend the woman from her assailant?

Justice Anthony Kennedy LOVES child rapists. Anyone want to guess Justice Kennedy's position on this new law signed yesterday by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal?

SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

Of course, the chemical castration is not mandatory for the convicts. They may choose to be surgically castrated if they don't want to take the drugs.

I'm pretty sure that Justice Kennedy isn't going to like that at all, Neither will the pedophile-cuddling editors of the New York Times, who have never met a child molester (outside the Catholic clergy) who they didn't like.

And remember folks -- even though Barack Obama says he opposes the decision, he has promised to appoint more justices like the ones in the majority.

The McCain campaign has a field day with Barack Obama's opposition to every effort towards alternative energy.

But don't worry -- Barack Obama is prepared to force you to lower your standard of living by increasing taxes on gasoline, thereby raising the price you pay at the pump! After all, he is a typical Democrat -- like these in Virginia.

And remember the words of Michelle Obama -- Barack Obama never allow you to go back to your lives as usual.

Let's not give him that chance.

A vote for McCain is a vote for energy independence.

But not really bipartisan when Democrats vote in a direction that liberals define as conservative.

A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval.

On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock.

As Ed Morrissey points out over at Hot Air, 48 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for cloture, while 15 Democrats voted against it. Why is the cloture vote therefore labeled as "mostly Republican", even though Democrats voted 2-1 for cloture and supplied some 40% of the votes for the motion?

But on a more important note, this means the bill will be voted on (and presumably passed) on Friday, and that it should be in the hands of President Bush for his signature by next week.

For the second time this month, US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has written an opinion which says it doesn't matter what the political branches of government or the US Constitution have to say on a matter -- the Supreme Court knows better and will impose its will on the people of the United States.

The first time was in granting habeas corpus rights to terrorist detainees, despite Congress having acted under its authority in Article III of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of any jurisdiction is such cases.

This time it is in a decision that decrees that the sense of the Supreme Court will be the basis for determining when the death penalty may be imposed, not the laws of the states or the US Constitution -- and that the "evolving standard" on the death penalty can only move towards greater restrictions on capital punishment, not the other direction -- and that the rape of an eight-year old is not a sufficiently serious crime to merit the ultimate sanction.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it illegal to execute persons convicted of child-rape in a 5-4 decision Wednesday.

"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion. The ruling broke on party lines, the liberal Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer siding with Kennedy.

In their decision, the liberal justices ruled that a Louisiana law that sent 43 year-old man named Patrick Kennedy to death row in 2003 for raping his 8-year old stepdaughter was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The utter constitutional, legal, and moral depravity of Justice Kennedy in this ruling is clear to see for anyone who reads the majority opinion and the dissent. Indeed, Kennedy expresses more concern with the dignity of the child-raping scumbag than he does for the innocent eight-year-old victim in this case.

In his dissent, Justice Alito shreds Kennedy's arguments, ending his analysis of the flaws of the majority opinion with this conclusion.

In summary, the Court holds that the Eighth Amendment categorically rules out the death penalty in even the most extreme cases of child rape even though: (1) This holding is not supported by the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (2) neither Coker nor any other prior precedent commands this result; (3) there are no reliable"objective indicia" of a "national consensus" in support of the Court’s position; (4) sustaining the constitutionality of the state law before us would not "extend" or "expand" the death penalty; (5) this Court has previously rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment is a one-way ratchet that prohibits legislatures from adopting new capital punishment statutes to meet new problems; (6) the worst child rapists exhibit the epitome of moral depravity; and (7) child rape inflicts grievous injury on victims and on society in general.

Indeed, as in the recent case granting terrorists outside the United States access to federal courts, Kennedy again twists precedent, law, and fact to fit a pre-determined conclusion at odds with all three. This must stop -- and it must stop now.

The American people are really quite outragedabout this. National Review Online analyzes this decision's wrongness. Rush notes the same attitude on Kennedy's part that I did above.

[W]e just have the court deciding, "We're going to decide these political issues. We're going to decide these things." We don't even need a Congress, anymore. We don't even need a president. We'll just take you all of our controversial issues, submit them to the lawyers [and] the Supreme Court decides, and that's it because that's what it has become.

In the United States,Congress has rarely exercised its power to impeach and remove a sitting federal judge. Furthermore, it has been over two centuries since Congress impeached a Supreme Court justice, and in that case the Senate refused to remove him. Even more importantly, mere disagreement with Supreme Court rulings has not been held to be an appropriate cause for impeachment.

Those things noted, I return to the ultimate authority in this case -- the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 4 speaks to the matter as follows.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors.

Furthermore, Article III states that judges (including Supreme Court Justices) shall hold their office during good behavior.

This brings me back to the point at hand -- in these two rulings, Justice Kennedy has demonstrated bad behavior. In both cases, he has placed himself and the Supreme Court above previous court precedent, the laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and the Constitution itself. As such, he has exceeded his authority in office and promulgated lawless decisions and attempted to make them binding upon the people of the United States and their elected representatives. This is malfeasance in office, pure and simple, engaged in under color of law and authority.

I'd like to urge one or more members of the House of Representatives to file motions for impeachment against Anthony Kennedy. Put each and every Congressman on record right now, four and one-half months before the next election -- do they support allowing the Supreme Court to impose their own extra-constitutional standard rather than that set by the Constitution and the laws enacted by the United States and the several states.

Now some may challenge me, raising the spectre of billboards from decades past urging Congress to "Impeach Earl Warren". The difference here is that while many of the opinions of the Warren Court were controversial and unpopular, it was difficult to argue that they were not grounded in the Constitution -- indeed, the roots of those decisions were buried in the fertile loam that is the text of that guiding document. The same cannot be said of these two most recent judicial monstrosities brought forth by Anthony Kennedy.

I sincerely doubt that the Senate would vote to remove Anthony Kennedy if the House adopted articles of impeachment against the him, but the precedent would serve as a powerful warning against such naked judicial activism.

And in addition, there is a course of action which should be followed by in every state as a result of this ruling. Every state legislature should pass, and every governor should sign, legislation imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child. If even half manage to accomplish this task, it would establish a strong national consensus in favor of the view that "the evolving standards of decency" hold that child rape is viewed by our society as meriting death. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has already vowed to resist this decision.

Oh, and for those of you curious, here is what Justice Kennedy argues does not merit capital punishment in today's ruling.

Now he's dumping Scarlett Johansson!

She said the pair of them had an email relationship.

He says not.

She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."

But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"

The Obamateur just lost major cool points. And after all, since he is seeking to be the first second black president (remember, we were told Bill Clinton was the first) despite his utter lack of qualifications for the job, he needs to show America that he at least has the good judgment to do the job.

Take a good look at the decision here, folks. Does it really show good judgment?

On the other hand, I think this shows much better judgment.

Any questions?

H/T Ace

Will the "Texas Two-Step" bite the Texas Democrats in the ass?

A local Hillary Clinton supporter has filed a challenge to Texas delegates elected to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Fort Worth lawyer Jason Smith sent a credentials challenge to the Democratic National Committee’s rules and bylaws panel last week alleging that the makeup of the Texas delegation is invalid.

The Texas Democratic Party allocated its delegates based partly on the results of the March 4 primary and partly on the results of precinct caucuses held statewide that evening.

That arrangement is counter to a DNC rule that delegate selection must "fairly reflect" the presidential preference of primary voters, Smith said.

So tell me -- with Hillary winning at the polls here in Texas, how does awarding the her 94 delegates while the Obamessiah got 99 delegates begin to "fairly reflect" the preferences of the primary voters?

Simply put, it doesn't -- especially given some of the shenanigans pulled by Obama supporters at precinct caucuses and senatorial district conventions. Seems o me the best solution would be to refuse to seat those delegates chosen through the caucus process, and seat only those reflecting the vote on primary day.

And they already have a precedent -- the stripping of delegates from Florida and Michigan over procedural issues.

They always say that the two most dangerous spots in Washington are:

1. Between Chuck Schumer and a microphone; and
   
2. Between Chuck Schumer and a photo op.

NOTE: Maryland Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski (center, crushed between the two senators from New York) was not injured in the course of this photo op.

I was also struck by this bit of information in the article about Hillary!'s return to the Senate.

Also yesterday, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a triumphant return to the Senate, where she was greeted by a large group of female interns and exchanged hugs with Democrats.

Hmmm...

"Greeted by a large group of female interns."

Isn't that where a lot of Bill Clinton's problems started?

I guess old Ralph thinks Obama should be wearin' a doo-rag and talkin' Ebonics, homey.

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."

"Talking white?"

Could you imagine if some conservative argued that Obama was some sort of Oreo trying to make himself palatable to white voters by rejecting his blackness? How on earth does Nader get away with this stuff?

On the other hand, we've seen seen that the only difference between Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Michael Dukakis is that the latter two were more qualified for the presidency when nominated than Obama is -- and yeah, that he is half African (not African-American -- in the interest of accuracy we have to remember that his father was Kenyan). But it is really just the same old liberalism, repackaged to sell Hopey McChangerson to the American public.

By the way -- I love how Ralph nader attempts to set himself up as the arbiter of authentic blackness.

"He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician," Nader said. "He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up."

WTF, Ralph? I'm an anti-Obama conservative, and I find that crap to be offensive. And for what its worth, Ralph, as a Republican descendant of a Union Civil War veteran and having been born a century after the issuance of the Emancipation proclamation, I don't feel any sort of "white guilt".

On a related note, rumor has it that Nader will soon announce his selection of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd as his vice presidential running mate this year.

More At Hot Air, OTB, Protein Wisdom, Suitably Flip

From my perspective, there is no way that Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana can avoid vetoing this pay raise for the Louisiana Legislature.

The reformist image of Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered by Republicans a top potential vice-presidential choice, has recently taken a beating after Mr. Jindal refused to veto a sizable pay increase that Louisiana legislators voted for themselves this month.

The increase would more than double the salary of the part-time legislators effective July 8, to $37,500 from $16,800, with considerably more money available once expenses are added in. It has touched a nerve in this impoverished state.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't find that increased legislative salary of $37,500 to be all that outrageous (although a 123% pay raise is galling) -- though I am unsure whether or not the legislature is a year-round entity or only a part time, limited session institution like we have here in Texas. But when you add in the per diem and benefits, this looks really bad. And due to a promise during the campaign, Jindal finds himself in something of a bind on this one.

More confounding to many citizens here than the action by the lawmakers is the inaction of Governor Jindal, who came into office this year with promises to overhaul Louisiana’s reputation for dubious ethics.

During his election campaign, he vowed to prohibit legislative pay raises. Once elected, he quickly pushed through a package of measures increasing the Legislature’s transparency and stamping out conflicts of interest, basking in the subsequent glow of his image as a youthful Ivy League reformer doing battle in a shady subtropical outpost.

Governor, less than six months ago you were saying that you would veto pay raises. Why haven't you done so on this one? I could understand letting one slide through after you have cleaned up Louisiana government, but you still have a long way to go to accomplish that end.

And if you are afraid that a veto would doom the rest of your legislative agenda, then use the bully pulpit provided you by your office to make the case for that agenda with the people directly. After all, they responded to your ambitious reform agenda during the election -- they can pressure the legislators to do what is correct, not what is personally profitable. Indeed, a string of governors whose leadership failed (or who were as corrupt as the legislature) is precisely why your state is in the mess that it is.

And Governor, this isn't just an issue for the people of Louisiana. For many of us among the GOP base, you have been seen as a great hope for our party's future, and we have been backing you for five or six years, going back to your first run for governor. Your failure to stand strong here will not only damage your effectiveness as a leader and your ability to bring about reform in your state, but also your ability to be that leader for the future that our party needs.

Stand strong, Bobby Jindal -- wield that veto pen like a sword, and then be prepared to get down into the mud and wrestle with the corrupt alligators in the legislature. You can do it -- and you will have the support of the people who elected you AND Republicans nationwide.

And remember, the people might well support you in recalling some of the recalcitrant legislators, Bobby -- or they might recall you if you don't do the right thing here.

UPDATE: Some movement?

H/T Hot Air

I'm a member of one of the other teacher organizations here in Texas (we don't have unions per se, and are a right-to-work state), but I am thankful that the ATPE has filed this suit to keep the results of teacher background checks from becoming subject to release under the state's public records laws. Indeed, I'm surprised that the other groups didn't file it along with them.

The Association of Texas Professional Educators filed suit Monday against the Texas attorney general's office and Austin school district to prevent the disclosure of information about the criminal histories of school employees.

Earlier this year, Austin teachers and certain other employees were required by a new state law to submit to fingerprints for national background checks. The suit, filed in Travis County district court, is the latest legal twist in the case of media outlets gathering information under the Texas Public Information Act on what the checks found.

The district said the attorney general's office has ruled that some information that could be used to identify specific employees is public. But the educators group, which represents 112,000 members statewide, says releasing such information could violate privacy rights. The group is fighting to keep identifying information, such as dates of birth, confidential, although the district says as of yet, no media outlets have requested that sort of information.

This isn't a question of "having something to hide", folks. It is a question of having our personal privacy respected to the same degree as our fellow citizens. And the format in which the data was going to be released has the potential to reveal personal information, especially in smaller schools and districts.

And that brings up the larger question. Does the public really have a right to know that a local third grade teacher has a misdemeanor conviction for writing a bad check when she was 19? How about that the local football coach was cited for public intoxication when he was a junior in college? Or what's worse -- what about the teacher who was arrested on suspicion of something or other, but never charged or convicted because they were not guilty? These are lives and reputations we are talking about here -- and matters unrelated to the safety of children.

I hope this is enough to make you understand why so many of my colleagues leave the field with a sense that they are disrespected -- and why so many young people won't consider teaching at all. Low pay, low respect, low support from parents -- and now you want to strip us of our privacy, too? You're going to need to do a lot better in the salary and working condition departments if you are going to do that to us, my friends.

Oh, and for the record -- I've never been arrested or convicted of anything, so I really don't have anything to hide. I don't mind proving that to my district. I do, however, object to having less privacy than other members of the public at large.

Congresswoman Laura Richardson is sort of the gift that keeps on giving.

The latest on the triple-default, single-foreclosure Democratic congresswoman from Long Beach: "Rep. Laura Richardson initially failed to disclose economic interests -- including a loan from a strip club owner -- when she served on the Long Beach City Council, public records show," the Long Beach Press-Telegram reports.

From the Press-Telegram: the loan in question was for $20,000, in 2000, and came from a family trust controlled by Jerry Westlund, who owns the Fantasy Castle strip club in Signal Hill and 13 other strip clubs in seven states. Two years later, Richardson -- who had not yet disclosed the loan -- voted with the council to place Westlund's father on the city's board of examiners. She eventually disclosed the loan in 2004.

It gets more complicated: Westlund tells the newspaper that the 60-month loan, at 15.5% interest, was made to Richardson and her then-husband, Long Beach Police Chief Anthony Batts, but Batts strongly disputes that, and the newspaper reports that only Richardson's name is on public records of the loan.

Now here's the interesting twist -- the loan wasn't called in by Westlund until 2005. Why so long? Well, it seems that the Long Beach police started to raid his business establishment.

What does that say to you, folks?

Am I the only one who thinks that Richardson needs a full rectal exam by both state and federal law enforcement authorities seeking evidence of official corruption?

Too bad the California GOP doesn't even have a candidate running against her this fall.

Don't you love it when all you have to do is roll tape of your opponent to show why he is unfit for office?

(H/T Hot Air)

Barack repeatedly said he would take public financing. His party is suing John McCain to try to force him to do the same for the primaries. But Barack Obama is now going to chuck that system out the window because it is to his advantage to do so.

Not, mind you, that I support public financing. I don't. But once Obama made the commitment, it seems he is morally obligated to stick with it -- unless the "Change" he is for is changing his own mind.

I do wish, though, that The McCain campaign had used one of the following for background music.

There are certain laws that apply to public health -- and when a community group is giving out food in a manner that violates the rules, it should be shut down. Last year there was a food poisoning outbreak in Odessa when the rules weren't enforced, but there is an even bigger uproar now that they are being enforced.

Leaders of the Black Cultural Council say volunteers and the black community felt "humiliated" after two health department food inspectors threatened to put a stop to a Juneteenth celebration over questions about food preparation for 600 free barbecue sandwiches.

Council President Jo Ann Davenport-Littleton said health inspectors told them it was illegal for the group to serve the sandwiches because they were not prepared at the site where they were served.

Gino Solla, the county's top health official, said state law prohibits any food service operation from having food prepared in a private home for public consumption.

"I hate that it happened," Davenport-Littleton said in a story for today's edition of the Odessa American. "I wanted people to go away talking about how great the celebration was this year. All you heard was 'They were going to deny us barbecue. Here we are in modern-day slavery again.' "

I wonder what Jo Ann Davenport-Littlebrain would have said if she and the folks she were feeding got a little modern-day food poisoning?

My guess is Davenport-Littlebrain would be complaining that the health inspectors didn't enforce state health regulations -- based upon their racism, of course.

And when Davenport-Littlebrain and her group got sued and faced a big damage award to those made ill by the tainted food, she would probably argue that the equal application of the law was another case of modern-day slavery.

In other words, Davenport-Littlebrain is part of a long line of grievance-mongers, poverty-pimps, and race-hos who insist upon making even the most neutral of actions an example of insidious racism.

More at Urban Grounds, Malkin.

John Rosenberg over at Discriminations makes some pointed observations about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

• opposes school vouchers for poor families but sends his own children to a private school;

• supports “campaign finance reform” but opts out of public financing since he can raise more money privately under the old, presumably corrupt system;

• attests to the centrality of his religious experience in shaping his identity but regards others, who are less privileged and culturally and politically different, as “clinging” to religion;

• promises an end to bitter partisanship even though his own record (what there is of it) is one of the most partisan in the Senate and his opponent’s is one of the most bi-partisan;

• promises to transcend race even though he a) married, sat passively for 20 years in the pews of, and raised his children in a church led by and permeated with a militant afro-centrism that often found expression in parnoid (they invented AIDS to kill us), anti-white (“greedy whites” etc.), hatred of America (AmeriKKKa, etc.), and b) continues to support government programs that benefit some and burden others because of their race.

• claims to face the future “with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations” while, several lines later in the same speech, claiming that his own nomination will be regarded in the future as “the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless … the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal….”

It seems though, that John is "struggling" for the proper word to apply to the Obamessiah, given all these contradictions.

I've got my suggestion -- anybody want to contribute one of their own?

That will certainly be acceptable to the anti-gunners supporting this legislation.

Legislation that would make it illegal for holders of a New Jersey handgun-purchaser permit to buy more than one firearm during any calendar month is going before the state assembly on Monday, June 23.

"There's no good reason why anyone would need to purchase large quantities of handguns all at the same time," said Assemblywoman Joan M. Quigley (D-32nd District), a sponsor of Assembly Bill 339, in a news release. "Criminal applications or unrecorded resale are the obvious implications of purchasing handguns in bulk."

Quigley added that passage of the measure -- a similar version of which was approved by the Assembly last year but failed in the state Senate -- "would help curtail gun access by criminal street gangs."

Well, other than that little Bill of Rights thing, they may have a point.

So let's apply their reasoning to the amendment just prior to the one thy seek to undermine.

Let's pass legislation limiting the number of issues any periodical can publish to one per calendar month. Let's similarly limit the number of articles any writer can have published to one a month. Prayer and attendance at religious service. Only once every 20 days. Ditto petitioning the government or engaging in peaceable assembly. After all, there's no good reason anyone would need to write, publish, pray, worship, petition, or assemble all at the same time. Limiting them to one expressive activity each month is therefore a reasonable way of achieving order in our society and preventing the irresponsible exercise of rights by those with nefarious purposes.

Unless, of course, one wishes to be exercise the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them free from interference by the government that is supposed to serve them rather than control them. But then again, limitng the ownership of firearms will certainly make it possible for the servant to become the master -- which is the ultimate goal of the sort of statists who seek to limit or eliminate gun ownership.

I've actually ignored MoveOn.org's "Baby Alex" ad, and hadn't thought to comment on it. After all, after being raised by his emasculating mother, lacking any strong male presence as a string of sex partners move in and out of baby-mama's bedroom, I've no doubt that Baby Alex will be wearing mini-skirts and open-towed pumps, saving his cash for sex-change surgery once he finishes his stint in drug rehab -- in other words, the Corps will be even less interested in Alex than he will be in the Corps.

But Bill Kristol's piece today makes an important point about the ad -- and the philosophy behind it.

Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we’re not entering any such world.

We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But that’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.

The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.

And the sole responsibility of others.

So the ad is not merely a dishonest distortion of John McCain's support for a post-war agreement for a US presence in the Middle East (much like our current arrangements in German, Japan, and Korea). It is an attack on the soldiers who serve and the fitness of the parents who "allow" their adult children to do so.

Which is why I am pleased that Kristol quotes one of my favorite bloggers, Beth from Blue Star Chronicles, who writes movingly of her feelings regarding her son, his service to our country, and the ad that defames both her and her son. I'd like to share her words, in a somewhat longer excerpt that used in the column.

As a mother, I have learned that I have to let my children grow up and make their choices in life, just as I made mine. I respect the choices my children have made and I support them 100%. I am proud of my son. His deployment changed him, but mostly in good ways. He is definitely a man now. He has a self-confidence and personal strength he never had before. That doesn’t mean I wanted him to go to Iraq. It just means that I understand that at some point a mother has to stand aside and allow her son to become a man.

I would rather do it than send my son to do it, but that’s not how it works. People like moveon.org would rather we surrender and appease than stand up to danger. By doing that, they put our sons in more danger.

Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. She’ll put us all in more danger to hide herself and her child in a corner. I love my son as much as she loves hers. I held him in my lap when he was a baby. I watched him take his first steps and go to school for the first time. I sat with him when he was sick and listened to him when he was confused. I waited in terror the first time he took the car out for a drive by himself.

The hardest thing I have ever done is spend 15 months knowing that he was in imminent danger half-way around the world and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

This woman should get used to it. That’s what its like to raise kids.

I honor the men and women who serve our country in uniform. And I honor the families, too, because I remember all too well what it was like to wait at home while my father served in Vietnam a lifetime ago -- including my mother coming back to the car in front of the post office to find my younger brother and I hysterically crying after hearing casualty reports on the radio at the height of the Tet Offensive. And i condemn the MoveOn.org ad because it insults both groups.

And I'm curious -- given Barack Obama's recent comments about the sorts of ads run by 527s and other surrogate groups, when will we hear him condemn the Baby Alex ad? When will he act to force MoveOn.org to drop the ad, and to rein-in the groups speaking on his behalf? And most importantly, when will he apologize to John McCain, our military personnel, and their families for this despicable ad? I think we all know the answer to that one.

H/T Wake Up America

My guess -- yeah, they will.

Conservative journalist David Freddoso’s “The Case Against Barack Obama” will offer “a comprehensive, factual look at Obama,” according to Regnery Publishing President and Publisher Marjory Ross.

But the book’s subtitle makes clear its perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”

Ross contends that the mainstream media has offered insufficient scrutiny of Obama and likens the goal of Freddoso’s book to that of “Unfit for Command,” the scathing assessment of Kerry’s war record that rocketed to number one on the New York Times best-seller list.

By highlighting negative aspects of Obama’s record and background, Ross says, Freddoso may compel others to offer more critical coverage of the Democratic nominee.

“I think it’s critically important that the country gets a clear and honest view of who is running and what they stand for—warts and all,” Ross says. “With ‘Unfit for Command,’ like ‘The Case against Barack Obama,’ we believe the media has whitewashed the candidate.”

Yet for all the attempts to compare this book with "Unfit for Command", I'd have to argue we are looking at something different here. It doesn't appear to be a hit piece per se -- rather, it is an examination of Obama's career and statements on the issues. What on earth is there to object to -- unless you don't like the conclusions that Freddoso draws. But after the lengthy list of anti-Bush books that have been published over the years -- including one long-discredited book that the Left still cites as gospel when it comes to questions of drug use -- on what basis can they object to Freddoso's tome?

And besides, shouldn't we look at candidates critically? Shouldn't we really delve into who they are, their associations, and their platforms? Or are we supposed to accept the words of this particular candidate on faith, without questioning if he has told us the whole truth?

I've avoided engaging in the Tim Russert hagiography seen in the media over the last ten days, but I do want to comment on this decision by the folks at NBC News.

Tom Brokaw will replace Tim Russert as moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press” through the November presidential election, the network announced today.

Brokaw, 68, filled in for the first post-Russert week. “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams was the host today, and revealed Russert's interim successor during the broadcast.

NBC News President Steve Capus said: "A lot has been said in recent days about what 'Meet the Press' means to NBC News and to the nation. To have someone of Tom's stature step up and dedicate himself to ensuring its ongoing success is not only a testament to his loyalty to Tim, but his enduring commitment to NBC News and our viewers."

NBC’s plans for a successor to Russert, who died two weeks ago after collapsing at the network’s Washington bureau, have been the subject of hot speculation. The interim plan gives network executives time to figure out how to preserve the show’s prestige and profitability for the long run.

Frankly, it is the right choice. Love him or hate him, it was always hard not to respect Tom Brokaw. In retirement, he is a voice of reason and something approaching objectivity. In this time of crisis for the network (but not, as some would paint it, for America as a whole), the decision to make him the interim moderator of Meet the Press is a good one. As a known quantity, it signals that there will not be many changes during the run-up tot he presidential election.

There is another reason that this is a good choice. CBS really does not have a successor to Russert waiting in the wings. Chris Matthews? Keith Olbermann? Dan Abrams? Certainly not. Brian Williams? Maybe, but who would take the nightly newscast? By giving themselves six months or longer to consider the best direction, the network will likely be able to preserve the Meet the Press brand. In the end, that isn't just good journalism -- it is also good business.

Following on the heels of his successful faith outreach through the endorsements of Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, the Obama campaign today announced the formation of its Axis of Evil Steering Committee. The impetus for the move was today's endorsement of the Democrat hopeful by North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.

Given the fact that Chosun Sinbo does not make a move without the approval of the North Korean government, and that such approval would come from the highest levels, this can only be seen as an expression of support for Obama coming from the top leadership of the North Korean regime.

Of course, this is not the first supportive statement from one of the worlds leading tyrants that Obama has received. Moammar Qaddafi recently expressed his support for Obama (and warned that the evil Joooos are going to try to kill him). And Fidel Castro has also expressed his support for the Obamessiah. These respected world leaders have joined with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas and Columbian terrorist group FARC to express their fervent hopes for an Obama victory in November.

Seems to me that all Barack Obama needs now are the endorsements of Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden, and Iran's Mahmoud the Mad to have completed the Perfecta of endorsements by America's major enemies. Add to that the garden variety Marxists and Communists in this country and abroad, and you can see that the man has clearly formed a Revolutionary Democratic People's Coalition of support for his campaign.

H/T Malkin, LGF

Lefties have been questioning John McCain's service and sacrifice during Vietnam. Last week I offered some documentation of the facts.

But here is more, from another one of the heroes, Col. Thomas Kirk, Jr. USAF (Ret.).

On Christmas night 1970, the North Vietnamese moved Kirk into a 45-man cell at the prison Americans POWs dubbed the Hanoi Hilton, where he met McCain. They spent the next four months becoming close friends, talking politics and sharing memories of their college days, and Kirk remembers how McCain's quick wit often lifted the spirits of his fellow POWs.

"He's extremely intelligent and tells the greatest stories in the world," Kirk said. "He could almost be a stand-up comic. He's very funny, the life of the party. He has a wonderful personality."

Even more important, Kirk said: "He's a man of absolute integrity and honor."

Despite devastating injuries, McCain rejected the possibility of early release offered by the North Vietnamese because of his father's status as an admiral.

"He said, 'I will not go unless we all go,'" Kirk said. "I will always admire him for that."

Although let's be honest -- Kirk's modesty doesn't allow him to see himself and his fellow POWs to be heroes.

"Every book about prisoners of war seems to make us into heroes," Kirk said. "I don't think we were heroes. We had the misfortune to be shot down, and the good fortune to survive.

"We were doing what we believed in," he said. "And we were blessed to come home."

Colonel, I admire that modesty, but let me tell you on behalf of a grateful nation that WE consider you, John McCain and the rest of your fellow POWs to be heroes.

And by the way, do you know where Tom Kirk will be on the night that John McCain is nominated to be the candidate of the Republican Party? He will be on the floor of the convention, one of Colorado's delegates to the Republican National Convention. My great hope is that the state's party leaders will allow him to cast the state's convention votes for his comrade in arms.

So much for his new style of politics. He's playing the same old DNC grievance game as he tells female members of the Congressional Black Caucus to "get over it."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words — “Get over it.” She found them dismissive, off-putting.

“Don’t use that terminology,” Watson told Obama.

So much for reaching out to the supporters of his major opponent -- the ones who are making noises about jumping ship to John McCain. He's telling them to be good little girls and do what he says -- after all, he's the Obamessiah.

But for the sake of sensitivity to these women, perhaps he can try Bill Clinton's favorite line to outraged women.

H/T Urban Grounds

No, not the one in uniform -- that's his partner, Staff Sgt. Charles Shuck. I'm talking Sgt. 1st Class Gabe, the one with the leash and the panting tongue.

In his early years, he was known to wander the streets and howl at the moon. Then, the Army got ahold of him.

His rough and tumble ways behind him, Sgt. 1st Class Gabe, a bomb-sniffing Labrador retriever, is now a top military dog serving on the front lines in Iraq.

To those who rescued Gabe from a Harris County pound three years ago, it's only fitting that he went on to save the lives of others.

Gabe has been a part of over 170 combat patrols, helping to make Iraq a safer place for American, Iraqi, and coalition forces, as well as the Iraqi people as a whole.

Why take the time for this story? Because it allows me to recognize the many Americans serving abroad in defense of our country -- and allows me to remind my readers that there are good dogs waiting for good homes at shelters and with rescue groups around the country. Not all of them are sorts that can sniff out bombs or missing persons -- but they can make your individual life more wonderful by their presence.

Click the link and find a pet near you.

By getting the same activist court that thrust gay marriage upon the state to strip the people of their right to undo that act of arrogant judicial activism.

Gay rights advocates asked California's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Equality California filed a petition arguing that the proposed amendment to the California Constitution should be invalidated because its impact was not made clear to the millions of voters who signed petitions to qualify the measure before the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions.

"This court has recognized that gay and lesbian couples have a fundamental right to marry and, as of June 16, such couples have been getting married across the state," the petition states.

"Rather than effecting 'no change' in existing California law, the proposed initiative would dramatically change existing law by taking that fundamental right away and inscribing discrimination based on a suspect classification into our state Constitution."

The people of California know exactly what this amendment would do. It would reinforce the will of the people, who passed a proposition banning gay marriage in 2000. It would make clear to the courts and the legislature of California that the people meant what they said in 2000, and firmly establish that the attempts of the legislature to create gay marriage in defiance of that 2000 vote and the subsequent act of the California Supreme Court to find in the state's Constitution that which the people said was not there have been and are illegitimate usurpations of the power of the people to govern themselves.

Which is, of course, the very reason that these gay rights groups want to make sure that the people are effectively bound and gagged as the gay agenda is imposed upon them.

As Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats block energy independence and increased domestic petroleum production and refining.

Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.

Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.

Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.

The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as "the stronger leadership force in Washington." Today, it's a tie.

While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public's current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today's 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.

In other words, the Democrats are sinking fast. The American public is finally waking up to the fact that we have an ineffective, do-nothing Congress. That is something that America cannot afford, especially since the solutions they have proposed are higher taxes, higher prices, and higher government spending -- when members are not proposing to nationalize huge sectors of the American economy.

By the way, does anyone notice something about the dates for the low ratings? June, 2008. August, 2007. March, 1992. In all three cases, the both houses of Congress have been controlled by Democrats. Americans seem to instinctively know that there is no reason to have confidence in the leadership of Democrats. Now if they will only go out and vote that way.

UPDATE: Hot Air shows that the the Dems are out of step with the American people when it comes to more drilling, refining, or even the use of more nuclear power. In each area, the American people favor action while the Democrats favor obstruction.

Well, the Democrats finally concede that national security is more important than partisan advantage -- or maybe that there is no partisan advantage to their continuing to undermine national security.

The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government's eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House passed, by a 293 to 129 vote, an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill provides a legal avenue for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunications firms to ward off about 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Before the vote, Bush said the plan, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, would help thwart new terrorist attacks. "It's vital that our intelligence community has the ability to learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they are planning," he said.

In other words, the current legislation means that there is no need for a warrant to listen in on calls from terrorists that pass through American switching stations and servers. This isn't a program of warrantless spying on Americans. After all, the US Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners outside the US -- unless the Supreme Court decides to grant terrorists outside the US more constitutional protection in defiance of all previous precedent.

Now here's where the political calculus does enter into this one -- Barack Obama has previously opposed such a measure. Does he continue to stick with that position, which is the position of the bulk of his far-Left supporters? Or does he again flip-flop (as he has on public financing for his campaign) -- and risk upsetting his base? Seems to me that the Obamateur is screwed either way he goes. And regardless, it shows that the only change that America can expect is in his positions on the issue -- which we therefore cannot believe in from day to day.

UPDATE: Hot Air notes that Obama has come out in favor of the new bill. Like I said above -- change that shows we cannot believe what Obama says from day to day. Stop the ACLU and Wake Up America note that the NetRoots supporters of Obama are in a lather already. I love it when Democrats eat their young!

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Judicial Activism Run Amok by Wolf Howling, and After the Charge by Miserable Donuts.  Here's your link to the full results of the vote and the vote totals:

One of the reasons behind the current increase in gas prices has been the stagnation of our nation's refining capacity. Our refineries are already operating at 100%, so it is obvious that we need more refineries, right?

Well, not to Congressman Nick Lampson, (D-TX22). He refused to sign a discharge petition to allow the House of Representatives to even vote on a plan to increase the refinery capacity of the United States. This despite the fact that in the last 30 years America has seen a decrease of 60% in the number of oil refineries in the US, and the disruption of only 5% of current capacity at the time of Hurricane Katrina resulted in a 46 cent per gallon increase in gas prices. What happens when the next storm comes -- or a major fire or explosion disables one of the refineries located here in southeast Texas?

And let's not forget where the American people stand on this matter -- 60% of Americans support increased refinery capacity and domestic oil production. Lampson is clearly opposed.

So to all my fellow voters here in CD22, remember that the next time you fill up your tank -- Nick Lampson and his fellow Democrats don't want to increase America's energy independence in order to decrease gas prices. So for all of Slick Nick's talk about not being a liberal Democrat, Lampson sure does walk the walk of one.

Well, the Left -- in particular in the form of Dan Abrams of radical left mouthpiece MSNBC -- wants to make something of a John McCain quote that it clearly was not.

The quote -- as these folks are presenting it -- is this:

I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company."

Here's how Abrams presented it.

The context of that comment -- which McCain has repeatedly used over the years -- is more like this.

HANNITY: — and then I understand you didn’t get any medical help for nine days. You spent two years of this five-and-a-half-year period in solitary confinement. What does that do to a person, to spend that much time in solitary confinement?

MCCAIN: I think it makes you a better person. Obviously, it makes you love America. I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company, but probably the most important thing about it, Sean, is that I was privileged to have the opportunity to serve in the company of heroes.

Clearly, this is indicative of something else -- the impact of his time as a prisoner of war upon his his patriotism. Even Abrams pays lip service to that -- but in the service of defending Michelle Obama's comments about never having been proud of America until her husband became a powerful political figure. I don't know about you, but I see the two statements as very different -- one about the privilege of service to one's country, the other about love of becoming one of the privileged. And given Michelle Obama's long string of comments about America being a mean, awful, racist country that needs to be fundamentally changed by her husband's use of force and coercion, I think the more negative interpretation of Michelle's comments are at least reasonable, even if she now wishes to dispel that interpretation.

But McCain's comment is different. Anyone who has been faced with a loss of someone or something dear, only to regain it, understands John McCain's meaning. I can honestly say I did not truly love my wife until 18 months ago, as I stood in a hospital emergency room and was confronted with the possibility that she might not live out the day. The sense of loss -- of the probability that I would have to live the rest of my life without the presence of the woman whose presence I started to take for granted after a decade of marriage -- made me recognize the depths of my love for her in a way I do not believe would have been possible without that experience. McCain's five-and-a-half years deprived of America -- two years of it deprived even of contact with his fellow American prisoners -- can only have amplified his love for this country and the freedom of which he was deprived in her service.

If the American Left had any shame, they would never make the comparison between the comments of John McCain and Michelle Obama. But we all know that the Left knows no shame.

And so let the comparisons continue -- they can only be good for John McCain, and for America as a whole.

H/T Commentary, Hot Air

Except this time it isn't New Orleans, according to Spike Lee.

“That’s gonna change, though…gonna be a real Chocolate City!”

* * *

When [film critic Lisa] Kennedy began a question with the phrase, “If Obama’s gonna become president…”, Lee interrupted. “There is no if! It changes everything…it’s gonna be Before Obama, and After Obama. And I’m gonna be at that inauguration, too.”

Chocolate City? I guess that means that when the left says the Obama candidacy isn't about race, that means it is really about race.

However, imagine if such a comment had come out of a Republican -- a white Republican, in particular. There would be outrage. Sort of like the kerfluffle over a disgusting button offered by an outside vendor at last week's Texas GOP convention (of which only four sold -- one to a reporter -- to the roughly 10,000 attendees).

But this is Spike Lee -- a black man of impeccable liberal to radical credentials. It is unlikely that the media will even cover this racially-charged statement and his comments deifying Barack Obama. After all, the "objective media" thinks he's right.

H/T Malkin, Gateway Pundit

I suppose we have to exclude the Chicago tribune from that category -- after all, they are giving away Barack Obama paraphernalia as a part of a subscription promotion!

So on my way to Saloon Democrats, I stop by the Walgreens on Clark and Lake. And what do I see just inside the entry? A woman with a bunch of baseball hats and tee-shirts trying to sell subscriptions to the Chicago Tribune.

The deal is, if you sign up for the Chicago Tribune at one dollar a week, you can get one of the hats or teeshirts for free. And what's on the teeshirt? Why "Obama" of course. It wasn't the official campaign logo but it was his name splashed across the white cotton fabric. The only reason I noticed is because the woman called out to everyone entering the store saying they could get a free "Obama" teeshirt if they signed up for the Tribune.

Now, I have nothing against the Chicago Tribune trying to cash in on the success of Barack Obama. Truth is, this is a candidate that makes all of us from the state of Illinois proud.

Now I can't help but point out that there are a fair number of folks in Illinois who are neither proud nor supportive of Barack Obama -- those would be Republicans and Hillary supporters -- but that isn't the point. How can the Chicago Tribune be viewed as a credible, objective news source when it is enticing folks to subscribe by giving away items promoting one candidate for office?

But the scary thing is that the Democrat blogger didn't even see anything wrong with this.

Being a liberal and therefore a believer in the ultimate redemptive nature of human beings, I can only hope that this marketing scheme is a sign that the Chicago Tribune will finally come clean, do the responsible thing, and endorse Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Excuse me? The only way to be "clean" is to support the most liberal (and least qualified) presidential candidate in American history -- a candidate who has broken his word on running a clean campaign by forgoing public financing and refusing to rein-in his supporters while demanding that John McCain do both?

And how can the Left make the argument that the media isn't in the tank for Obama when they are using him in an effort to improve the bottom line? How can anyone expect objective reporting from the paper when it has become a cheering section for the candidate? That should be the biggest concern -- after all, this isn't the Cubs, Sox, Bears, or Bulls on a playoff run, it is a race the presidency.

H/T Stop the ACLU

As you probably know, we here in Texas CD22 have a Democrat congressman due to Tom DeLay's attempts to game the system for his own personal ego-stroking in 2006. In 2008, Lampson faces a strong opponent in Pete Olson -- so strong that Lampson is looking to dodge the only scheduled debate between the two.

A few days after an announcement that U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson and challenger Pete Olson would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate, Lampson's office has indicated he might not make it.

The Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce had announced 12 days ago that incumbent Democratic District 22 Congressman Lampson and his Republican opponent, Olson, would meet in a chamber-sponsored debate on Oct. 20.

But on Tuesday afternoon, a spokesman from Lampson's office said "at this point the congressman's attendance is just tentative for now."

Only tentative? The Chamber had set the date before Lampson even knew who his opponent would be -- and only after Lampson agreed to the date. Why the change? Why isn't he willing to debate Olson? For that matter, with Olson willing to have multiple debates, why isn't Lampson willing to commit to a debate in Harris County, where 40% of the voters in the district live? Could it be that he knows that the more he is out and about among mixed audiences, the clearer his liberal tendencies will be?

H/T The Next Right

But then again, anyone who has listened to the man over the last six months knows that Barack Obama will say anything he has to in order to win the presidency -- even if it means throwing close friends and associates under the bus. So who cares if he has now heaved beneath the wheels the system of public campaign financing that Democrats have long claimed is the last bulwark against the outright purchase of public offices by special interests?

Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

* * *

“The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Now let's point some things out here.

First, Barack Obama indicated months ago that he would take public funding if his opponent did. John McCain is doing so -- but now Barack Obama is refusing to abide by his pledge. Was Obama lying at the time he made the pledge, or is he simply being a self-serving hypocrite at the very time his own party has filed suit to FORCE McCain to accept public financing?

In addition, what efforts has he made to shut down his own allies and their "smears and attacks" against McCain? You know, things like the despicable MoveOn.org ad featuring the unfit mother and her baby.

Obama, of course, knows that neither he nor McCain have the ability to shut down such ads, either by their parties, 527 groups, or any other source. Exerting such control would be illegal -- making every dollar spent by the organizations in question an illegal campaign contribution by those organizations as coordinated expenditures.

As for lobbyists and corporate interests, Patrick Ruffini shows who is really the benefactor of such money -- and it ain't John McCain.

Frankly, I'd have more respect for Obama's move if he had forthrightly said that he wasn't taking the cash because he could afford not to, having the ability to raise more than he would get from the government. What's more, Id have respect for him if instead of talking about fixing the system, he denounced it as a scam designed to limit the speech of the American people and candidates for the presidency, and declared that we need to "end it, not mend it".

But Obama doesn't believe such things. He fully supports a system of campaign speech regulation and limitation -- for everyone except himself. Barack Obama, you see, is different -- the same rules and standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to him.

One of the venerable names in the free email business will be coming back -- and will be joined by a new domain, ymail.com -- under a new plan announced by Yahoo.

Rocketmail has been dormant since Yahoo purchased Four11 Corp in 1997, with no new registrations allowed once Yahoo began offering Yahoo email addresses. Ymail is a totally new domain.

Why the change? Because Yahoo has run out of desirable email addresses at its original domain. After all, to sign up now for a yahoo,com address is to get what you want with some random string of numbers attached to the end -- making the addresses difficult to remember. Yahoo clearly hopes that the newly available addresses will increase its share of the freemail market, with its lucrative advertising revenue.

Or are you just glad to see me?

Police say a cook at a New York restaurant was arrested after coworkers allegedly caught him trying to hide 15 lobster tails in his pants.

Investigators said they found Raymundo Flores, 40, with 15 frozen lobster tails stuffed into his pants and bandages on his legs after two of Flores' coworkers at Junior's Restaurant in the city's Brooklyn borough caught him taking the tails and called 911, the New York Post reported Tuesday.

Two points.

1) Would you want to eat anything that had been stuffed down your pants to get it home?

2) I suppose he had to be satisfied with the lobster tails -- trying to smuggle live lobsters this way has its own punishment.

Tuesday night, the A/C went out, and we took refuge at a hotel with glitchy wi-fi. We were fortunate to get the A/C fixed by late Wednesday, but stayed teh extra night since the room was paid for and the house needed to cool down (the thermostat read 91 degrees when the technician finally got the unit working again).

Well, as i was bringing the luggage to the car, I felt a twinge in the abdomen. A pit stop a little later led me to suspect another kidney stone like the one back around my birthday. A visit to the doctor confirmed that -- so now I am simply waiting it out.

I should be posting, depending upon how I feel through the course of the day.

My output may drop off the next day or two -- a situation has arisen which is going to require some special attention the next couple days.

No illnesses, no deaths -- just a serious inconvenience that could limit my online access.

I don't know about you, but I see a resemblance.

One of them is an Afghan warlord who hates America and denigrates the troops -- the other is a hack sports reporter turned television blowhard who does the same.

Separated at birth? You decide -- but it would help support the theory that Bush Derangement Syndrome is congenital.

Are they out of their friggin' minds? I don't give a rat's hindquarters why this punk burned down the historic building -- the "young, politically-motivated male" -- burned down the Governor's mansion. Indeed, I denounce him and his motivation right now, without knowing a thing about it.

A young male may have been politically motivated when he set fire to the Governor's Mansion June 8, state officials speculated Monday.

State Fire Marshal Paul Maldonado issued two appeals Monday — one to the public with a Texas Crime Stoppers $50,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and another directly to the person responsible for the fire, which caused major damage to the 152-year-old mansion.

Maldonado said investigators figure the arsonist's actions conveyed a message and want him to contact them.

"We do feel that you have a message, and we would like to hear from you," Maldonado said. "We are not quite sure what that message is. But please contact us."

Maldonado promised the arsonist that state officials "will listen to your message."

You know, Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Ladin had messages, too. Neither deserved an audience, due to the methods by which they were communicated. Neither does this guy.

And as an aside, the official description of the arsonist eliminates my prime suspect. After all, despite his anger management problem and propensity to threaten political opponents with violence (as well as to violate federal law), he is certainly NOT young.

You know, I didn't think that the left could sink any lower than debauched literati Gore Vidal's "POW denial" published over the weekend in the New York Times.

Unfortunately, it would appear that I was wrong. Just consider this disgusting commentary published yesterday at HuffPo.

John McCain was in the navy and then he was in the U.S. Senate. He has never cashed a check a bureaucrat didn't write. I'm not trying to be glib, and I realize he was doing a solemn and dangerous job, killing people from the sky. But it was still government work.

Wait, except for those years as a POW. A sick but undeniable fact about John McCain: The only period in his life when he wasn't living off the American taxpayer, he was living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.

John McCain's father was in the navy and his father was in the navy. The last McCain who didn't live in government housing owned a plantation in Mississippi when the state still had slaves.

Which is why John McCain always sounds so emotional when he gets to this line in his stump speech:

"I am absolutely committed to reducing the size of government."

What he's promising is eventually he'll die.

I'd ask if the author, one Chris Kelly, has any decency or shame, but I think the words written above are illustrative of the fact that the answer would be a definitive "HELL NO!"

In one little snippet of a column, this left-wing cretin denigrates military service (a four-generation McCain family tradition that protects the right of scum like Kelly to insult the military), denounces McCain's time as a POW, and tries to make McCain personally responsible for the acts of an ancestor which occurred three-quarters of a century before his birth.

But let's just consider for a minute what we are seeing here, as a pattern has emerged that I think is important.

In the last week, we have had both Kelly and Vidal attack McCain for his military service and time as a POW. A couple of weeks back, Senator Tom Harkin tried to argue that McCain's military career and time as a POW made him unfit for the presidency because of their impact on his views. Some have questioned McCain's retirement pay and disability pension. There have been repeated questions about McCain's mental stability based upon imputed diagnoses of PTSD.

Expect five more months of attacks on McCain's military service and time as a POW. Expect the same folks who objected when legitimate questions were raised about John Kerry's military service (including documented lies by Kerry and his refusal to release the records of his time in the Navy) or legitimate policy differences were raised against former Senator Max Cleland to launch vicious assaults on John McCain and his military career -- especially the heroic nature of he and his fellow POWs (for such attacks do touch on the heroism of each and every one of them -- after all, they also spent their time "living off the Vietnamese taxpayer.") as they resisted brutal treatment at the hands of their captors that far exceeded "US prisoner abuse" like panties on the head at Abu Ghraib. As a teen I was honored to know one of McCain's fellow POWs and saw some of the scars that the torture left -- and I know about these men came home half-starved, rather than getting fat and receiving advanced medical care like the detainees at Gitmo.

Aren't these the same liberals who tell us time and again that they "support the troops" and "honor their service"? How can they make such a claim when they would insult the service of a candidate who made a career of the military and minimize or deny the courageous nature of that candidate's military service? The answer is that individuals of integrity could not -- which means that your average Democrat politician or left-wing activists will have no problem claiming one while doing the other.

Most disgustingly of all, while the Left has attacked McCain over and over again regarding his military service, they insist that they will not allow Republicans to "Swift Boat" Barack Obama -- a man who was too busy "community organizing" to even consider putting on his nation's uniform.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Democrat=Socialist, , Conservative Cat, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Then they need to clean up their own house before targeting John McCain over a supporter's 18-year-old stupid comment.

Let's take it from the top.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) has decided to hold a fundraiser initially sponsored by a controversial Texas oilman later in the summer at a different venue, according to an aide who asked not to be identified.

McCain had planned to hold a joint fundraiser with the Republican National Committee on Monday at the Midland, Tex., home of Clayton Williams, who ran for governor of his state in 1990. But after reporters from The Washington Post and ABC inquired Friday about a remark Williams made comparing rape to bad weather -- "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it" -- the campaign cancelled the fundraiser. Williams has apologized for the remarks.

Democrats have been in a lather ever since the initial fundraiser was announced. They've even gone so far as to demand that McCain return any campaign cash even peripherally connected to Williams. McCain has refused.

But if the Democrats are so outraged about the comment and insistent that the GOP disassociate itself from Williams, what ever are they going to do about this rape-joker in their own midst?

In the 1995 New York magazine profile of “Saturday Night Live,” Franken is described among a group of show writers sounding out a spoof of Andy Rooney centered on a sedative pill bottle found in the “60 Minutes” essayist’s desk. Franken and fellow writers Norm MacDonald and Jim Downey kick around fictional Rooney responses to the discovery of the bottle.

The article quotes Franken putting an edgy twist on the discussion: “And ‘I give the pills to Lesley Stahl. Then when Lesley’s passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her.’ Or `That’s why you never see Lesley until February.’ Or, `When she passes out I put her in various positions and take pictures of her.”

MacDonald takes it a step further, suggesting that the Rooney rape comment be directed at other “60 Minutes” icons Mike Wallace and Ed Bradley. Franken chimes in: “What about `I drag Mike into my office and rape him. Right here! I guess that makes me bad.”‘

I don't know about you, but I find the Franken "humor" to be significantly more offensive than Williams' inappropriate remark -- and since it is both more recent than the Williams comment and made by the party's candidate for election, it is clearly of much greater concern and of much more importance.

So let's offer a compromise deal -- McCain will forgo the money raised by Williams and avoid campaigning within 50 miles of Midland, Texas in return for the Democrats forcing Al Franken off the ballot and endorsing Norm Coleman for reelection. After all, the Jackass party did set the bar on this one.

H/T Hot Air

I still stand by my assessment from last week, that the majority in the Boumediene case screwed the pooch in holding that detained illegal combatants have habeas corpus rights in American civilian courts. National Review's Andrew McCarthy, in an article that must be read by everyone who wonders where we go from here (impeachment of the five justice majority not being practical), also makes a pointed observation as to why the decision is fundamentally nonsensical.

Now the Court has decided that the combatants have constitutional habeas rights. If you can follow this, the bloc of liberal justices reasons that the framers designed our fundamental law to empower enemies of the American people to use the American people’s courts as a weapon to compel the American people’s commander-in-chief to justify his actions during a war overwhelmingly authorized by the American people’s elected representatives . . . even as those enemies continue killing Americans.

In other words, despite the clear establishment of a Constitutional framework in which Congress authorizes military action and the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the judicial branch (delegated no role in the war-making function of government) is now somehow on top of the heap when it comes to such matters AND a powerful weapon in the hands of America's enemies, giving that enemy the power to manipulate the constitutional system of checks-and-balances to its own military and political advantage.

I heartily endorse the suggestions made by Andrew McCarthy in the article -- and add to it the suggestion that Congress exercise its authority under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction in any and all cases related to the war powers and detention of enemy combatants.

When the difference is two percentage points in a national poll, and the margin of error is 2%, that means that you have a statistical tie.

Voters are closely divided between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking conducted June 12-14, with 44% of national registered voters favoring Obama for president and 42% backing McCain.

What does this really mean?

1) This race will be close through the end of the campaign, barring some serious misstep by one of the candidates.
2) For all the claims that Barack Obama is the "candidate of destiny", the numbers don't bear that out.
3) Given the jump in the number of respondents who are committed to neither candidate that has occurred since Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, there exists a serious possibility that McCain could win the popular vote by appealing to disaffected Democrats, provided he can do so without losing the GOP base.

And let's not forget -- these national numbers don't mean much. It all comes down to the vote in the Electoral College, so it is really a case of contesting 51 separate elections at once.

Well, going out and proclaiming in the press that you WANT to be Vice President is generally a pretty good way of not getting the job.

Two former senators and one sitting governor thought to be possible candidates for vice president on Sunday expressed minimal interest in the job but didn't remove themselves from consideration.

Been there, done that, said one.

Another is focused on being Louisiana's governor.

The third said it was presumptuous to reject something not yet offered.

That was in contrast to former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner's statement Saturday removing himself from consideration as a possible running mate for Democrat Barack Obama.

Let's be honest here -- there are only two votes that count regarding the vice presidency -- those of John McCain and Barack Obama. They will pick who they want to pick. And even if Warner -- and former Senator Fred Thompson -- say no right now, they will almost certainly come around in the event that their party's nominee asks them. That also explains why the rest of the diverse group of individuals mentioned in the article said what they said -- they know that all the displays of interest in the world can't help and might hurt -- and that it is all irrelevant until lightning strikes and they are asked to be the running mate.

Besides -- who was the last losing vice presidential candidate to get his party's nomination AND win the presidency when nominated?

ANSWER: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Nominee for Vice President -- 1920
President of the United States, 1933-1945

« All done with "VP Candidates Coy"?

For those of you who have never visited it, The People's Cube will be a real treat.

Take these snippets of fun from one recent satirical look at the news.

World's Evilest Thugs Shocked as GOP Takes Hell Hot Spot

(Dante's Inferno, 7th Level) - Senator Dick Durbin's (D-IL) comment "The hottest ring in Hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents' families" made to NBC's Norah O'Donnell has sent shockwaves to evil thugs around the world, who thought they were a shoe-in for the top hot spot in the eternal pit of damnation and hellfire. An assortment of Nazis, Communists, terrorists, and other violent and sadistic figures were found consoling each other shortly after Durbin's official announcement.

[SNIP QUOTES FROM NAZI AND COMMUNIST MURDERS]

Dick Durbin said he didn't believe combining the positions of a Hell's spokesperson and a Democrat Senator presented a conflict of interest.

And best of all -- everything on the site lives up to the same high standards as the above post.

H/T Good Lt.

Take agricultural and other organic waste and convert it to petroleum!

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to – especially the ones coming out of business school – this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. “All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency,” Mr Pal says.

Think about it -- stuff which goes to waste now will go into your gas tank. Heck, imagine if we could just get these critters to excrete the stuff already refined.

But one has to ask -- will the environmental scaremongers seek to block this method of petroleum creation with scare-stories about genetic engineering?

And then revoke his passport.

Maybe he can harangue the Red Chinese dictators for being the biggest emitters of so-called "greenhouse gases" in the world!

China has now clearly overtaken the United States as the world's leading emitter of climate-warming gases, a new study has found. The increasing emissions from China - up 8 percent in the past year - accounted for two-thirds of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, the study found.

The report, released Friday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, is an annual study. Last year, for the first time, the researchers found that China had edged ahead of the United States as the world's leading emitter.

I suppose the only problem with my plan is that the rulers of Red China are even less tolerant of dissent than Gore is. I can only imagine their response to his efforts. It might look something like this.

Well, Saturday's sessions of the Texas GOP convention ended without much of significance to report. The one potential area of conflict -- a challenge for national committeewoman -- came to naught when challenger Borah Van Dormolen chose to withdraw in favor of incumbent Cathie Adams rather than push for a floor fight after being nominated for the position by 1/3 of the Congressional districts.

But that leads me to look towards 2010, and the real decisions facing Texas Republicans. The statewide races will point us in a new direction, given the desire of many Republicans to evict Rick Perry from the Governor's office -- with a shuffle of other elected officials coming in the scramble to fill any resulting vacancies.

And make no mistake -- I have no interest in supporting Rick Perry in 2010. A commentary in today's Houston Chronicle by Dr. Steve Hotze (whose opinions and endorsements rarely sway me) sums up my feelings on the matter quite well.

In August 2007, after he was safely re-elected to what I am sure he thought was his final term as our governor, you may recall how Rick Perry took the opportunity he had before the foreign media in Mexico City to criticize what were mostly Republicans in Congress who opposed passing an immigration amnesty bill that would legalize millions of workers.

Perry also told his Mexican hosts he supported a system that would temporarily legalize foreign workers. According to the Chronicle, Perry said such a system would allow for a "free flow of individuals between these countries who want to work, who want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico."

Of course, there might be nothing wrong with this statement had Rick Perry not made getting tough on immigration one of the central planks of his re-election campaign leading up to November 2006. Quite the contrary, he featured tough border security as a TV ad and publicly endorsed a concept to empower Web users worldwide to watch Texas' border with Mexico and phone the authorities if they spot any apparently illegal crossings.

Bait and switch. He fooled us once.

Remember, too, how in February 2007 within days of taking office for his second full term Rick Perry tried to end-run our state Legislature and mandate that our sixth-grade girls, who are 11 and 12 years old, must receive questionable vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. He did this not only without saying a word about it on the 2006 campaign trail, but also without permitting any public testimony on such a delicate matter from such disinterested parties as, say, parents.

Bait and switch. He fooled us twice.

But perhaps most objectionable of all is what goes into effect this month: the Rick Perry business tax. The Perry Business Tax, passed by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature during the special session in May 2006, was revised and further complicated during the 2007 regular legislative session. It is the largest tax increase in the history of Texas. The average small business will pay 10 percent of its income in new state taxes, while large corporations were given loopholes by the governor in exchange for their support.

Add to that the Trans Texas Corridor mess and I see four very good reasons for opposing Perry's renomination for the office, much less his reelection to it in the fall of 2010.

Friday morning I unexpectedly had the opportunity to speak with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison at her booth in the near-deserted Exhibition Hall before any of the caucuses or sessions began (showing up 45 minutes before the sessions start helps one avoid the crowds), and I told her that I look forward to supporting her in her as-yet-unofficial gubernatorial race. I've hinted around this before, but I am now willing to state my position definitively -- especially after getting it straight from the horse's mouth that Dan Patrick is not running for governor. Rumor has it, though, that Lt. Governor David Dewhurst will also throw his hat in the ring for the office, so expect a real donnybrook.

If this happens, it will mean that Dewhurst's position will be up for grabs -- and there is even some discussion of the possibility that Attorney General Greg Abbott will be running for Lt. Governor even if Dewhurst does not enter the gubernatorial fray. Abbott is popular and has been effective -- and Dewhurst has not always been seen as an ally by party activists. Frankly, I'd be really supportive of Greg Abbott's bid for the position, which is traditionally and constitutionally the most powerful office in the state.

What this means, though, is that we are going to have change taking place in Texas in 2010. My only hope is that it is conservative Republican change, not a shift towards the Democrats.

In searching my archives for something else last night, I came across this post from November 4, 2006. Even though the election in question is over, the message behind it is still strong and bears repeating.

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

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

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

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

Let's give this man a quick history lesson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are The Chicken or the Egg? by Joshuapundit, and What Kind of War Crimes Trials Does Obama Plan? (Updated) by American Thinker.  Here's your link to the full results of the vote:

When conservatives questioned certain inconsistencies in John Kerry's narrative about his military service and his military service record (which to this day has never been fully released), the Democrats cried foul and invented the term Swiftboating to describe it -- even though the Swift Boat vets were actually members of the same unit as John Kerry and many of them served with him.

Will any of those Democrats raise their voices in condemnation of this little attack on John McCain by author and Al Gore relative Gore Vidal?

Asked what he thinks of McCain, Vidal calls him a "disaster," then tells Deborah Solomon, "Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?"

Solomon replies: "Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam." To which Vidal responds: "That’s what he tells us."

Excuse me?

"Rumor"?

"Aside from himself?"

"That's what he tells us"?

McCain's flight suit and gear,
"Hanoi Hilton" Museum

Well, why don't we see what someone else has to say about the matter.

Is that enough for you yet, Mr. Vidal?

I wonder -- John McCain asked that the Swift Boat Vets stop their truthful attacks on John Kerry because he considered them unseemly. Will Kerry return the favor and condemn this false attack upon the well-documented heroism of John McCain during his time as a prisoner of war?

Will the media report on this false claim about McCain by a debauched celebrity with the same degree of vitriolic contempt that they displayed for the truthful words of decorated veterans that served with Kerry?

Will we hear from Al Gore about the disgusting aspersions cast by his cousin?

And I ask again -- will Obama's "new kind of politics" include speaking out against the sort of dripping hatred that Vidal displayed in this interview?

As an aside, Vidal also stated in another recent interview that the United States is a dictatorship with a fascist government. It seems pretty clear, however, that he demonstrates his words to be false by their very utterance -- if America were really a fascist state he would not have made these scurrilous comments for fear that he would be imprisoned or executed.

H/T LGF, JammieWearingFool, Ed Driscoll, QandO

UPDATE -- 6/15/2008: Other bloggers are beginning to chime in on this one at Hot Air, Commentary's Contentions

Here's hoping the sainted William F. Buckley will be granted the privilege of waiting outside the Pearly Gates to carry out this promise before Saint Peter directs Vidal to his infernal reward.

More really needs to be made of Vidal's undeniably evil words.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hey -- if mentioning a historical event like the Bobby Kennedy assassination is an incitement to murder, what on earth do you call this quote by Barack Obama?

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

Now tell me, what would the reaction be if a Republican candidate or official, much less John McCain, had made that sort of statement? I think we all know that answer. We would be hearing about how that Republican -- and Republicans in general -- were violent extremists who want to see Barack Obama dead (indeed, certain nutroots bloggers are already claiming we conservatives will start a civil war and probably murder Obama).

Will anyone (other than me) hold the Obamessiah to that same standard?

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit asks some pointed questions.

Since Obama insists on his website that he only supports the use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting, does Senator McCain fall into the category of "big game" or "clay pigeon"?

Finally, does this mean that the candidate of hope and change is bitter?... Since he's now "clinging to his gun or religion and has antipathy to people who aren't like him?"

See-Dubya (blogging at Michelle Malkin) notes that while Obama is apparently willing to use this sort of disproportionate response against his opponents, he is apparently unwilling to do so against terrorists who threaten our national interests (and rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, too).

I’ve always thought that speech applied very well to the war on terror. I would expect Obama to disagree with me there–but it’s interesting that he does seem to think that “the Chicago Way” applies to domestic politics. I suppose a pupil of Tony Rezko’s would have to think like that.

It makes sense, if you think Republicans are the real enemy, and that the terrorists are just a distraction from the progressive agenda.

H/T Ace of Spades HQ, Hot Air, Protein Wisdom

I'd like to condemn this disgusting piece of crap for his virulent expression of unAmerican racism.

And I'd like to thank God and the US Constitution that his right to do so is fully protected in this country.

Neighbors say a sign posted by a Houston-area man is causing tension and fear.

They say the sign is offensive. It makes a derogatory and profane reference to Sen. Barack Obama’s bid to become president.

“Whoever did this is a racist,” neighbor Laz Socarras said.

“They hatin’ on Obama,” neighbor Jarmaine Calvin said.

Hey -- I'm accused of "hatin' on Obama" when I tell the truth about his record, statements, and lack of qualifications for the presidency. This is something much more offensive, being that it is a raw, unadulterated expression of racism.

But it is protected by our Constitution. The scumbag makes no threats against anyone, and is displaying it on his own property, so he can say any damn thing he wants. God bless America -- because it means we are still a free people and that even the most disgusting among us still have the right to speak publicly without fear of the heel of government crushing us for unapproved speech. After all -- we are not Canada yet.

Interestingly enough, this is within a few blocks of where I have taught school for the last 11 years. I'm surprised that the sign has stayed up as long as it has.

H/T Lone Star Times

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The toothless, symbolic British monarchy violates the human rights of the British and should be abolished? This would be some sort of joke were it not a something that the UN Human Rights Council has recommended.

The UN Human Rights Council said the UK must "consider holding a referendum on the desirability or otherwise of a written constitution, preferably republican".

The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka.

It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy.

The resulting report said Britain should have a referendum on the monarchy and the need for a written constitution with a bill of rights.

Now let's consider some of the hypocritical complaints put forward.

The UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan.

Syrian representatives accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.

Hold on -- Iran is complaining about sex discrimination? That complaint from Burqa-ville should have been laughed out of the hearing room.

But then again, consider the human rights records of the participating nations. What the heck is Saudi Arabia doing recommending a constitution and the abolition of a monarchy? And what is Cuba doing on any body that is tasked with judging human rights?

US out of UN -- UN out of US

Yeah, that's right -- Democrat officials, not Republican bloggers.

Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee member Fred Hobbs tells The City newspaper in Nashville, "I don't exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for — and I'm not sure we know enough about him. He's got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."

Hobbs was giving an interview to the paper about fellow Tennessee Congressman and Democratic superdelegate Lincoln Davis, who has not yet declared his support for Obama.

Reacting to Hobbs, Davis' Chief of Staff Beecher Frasier says he does not know for sure if Obama is terrorist connected, but he assumes he is not.

And talk about weak statements -- the Davis camp "assumes he is not" terrorist connected? If Democrat leaders -- superdelegates, no less -- aren't certain that Barack Obama is not connected to terrorists, why on earth is the party willing to take a chance nominating him?

I don't know of any Republicans making the accusation that Barack Obama is a terrorist -- merely that he is unqualified and incompetent. Maybe a few blogospheric fringeoids do, but I haven't encountered it. So what do the Democrats know that the rest of us don't?

H/T Gateway Pundit, Jawa Report