June 30, 2008

Obama Flip-Flops On Patriotism Attacks

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?

|| Greg, 03:47 PM || Permalink || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Little Bit Of History

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.

|| Greg, 03:39 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (253) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

No Indictment For Joe Horn

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.

|| Greg, 01:37 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Bobby Jindal Does The Right Thing

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

|| Greg, 11:44 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Arrest The Business Owners/Managers, Too

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.

|| Greg, 10:48 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Is It McCain-Romney?

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.

|| Greg, 10:26 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Restoring Rights To Felons

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.

|| Greg, 10:07 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Sex Discrimination In Obama's Senate Office?

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?

|| Greg, 09:55 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Wesley Clark Denigrates McCain's Service -- UPDATED AND BUMPED

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,, 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.

|| Greg, 09:27 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (8) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Work-Related Hearing Loss?

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 persons 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 workmans compensation process.

|| Greg, 08:42 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Post

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:

VotesCouncil link
2  2/3South Africa's Neville Chamberlain
The Razor
2The Whole Shebaa-ng
Soccer Dad
1  2/3More Quincy
Done With Mirrors
1  1/3Dick Morris Gets One Right
Hillbilly White Trash
1  1/3Warped
2/3My ANWR Photo Gallery
Cheat Seeking Missiles
1/3Left Continues Denigration of McCain's Military Service, POW Heroism
Rhymes With Right
1/3Gay Pride Week
Bookworm Room
1/3And on the Seventh Day, He Rested
Wolf Howling

VotesNon-council link
2Why You Should Apologize -- Ineffectively and Dishonestly -- For What You Didn't Do
Classical Values
1  2/3The Unconscious Roots of Media Bias
1  1/3Big Gains in Iraq?
Abu Muqawama
1  1/3Obama's Lack of Ordinary Modesty
American Thinker
1An Almost Unfathomable Ignorance of History
Brits At Their Best
1The Card
Stop the ACLU
1Alcoholism Progression
Dean's World
1Is There A Pattern Here? If So, Is There A Name For It?
1/3"Declaring Independence from a 'Broken System' By Breaking a Promise..." [UPDATED]
1/3Building Walls
Shira bat Sarah

|| Greg, 08:26 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 29, 2008

Where Was The Outrage?

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

|| Greg, 08:27 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Not That There Is A Bias

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.

|| Greg, 08:13 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 28, 2008

Cindy McCain Tax Story -- Less Than Meets The Eye

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

|| Greg, 10:20 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Cult-Like Behavior From Obamabots

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, 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 OMaley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as D. Hussein OMaley. 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.

|| Greg, 09:04 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obamabot Plot To Silence NObama Bloggers?

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:

New Location:

Locked Out:

Old Location:

New location:

Locked Out: (no alternate blog listed as yet)

Locked Out:

Old Location:

This blogger has moved to her own domain at Hillary Or

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

Locked Out:

Old Site:

New Site:

Locked Out:

Old Site:

New Site:

Locked out:

Old Site:

New Site:

Locked Out:

Old Site:

New Site:

|| Greg, 08:29 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Gates Leaves Microsoft

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.

|| Greg, 11:43 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

I Agree With Bill Clinton

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

|| Greg, 11:20 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 27, 2008

Obama Winning Clinton Supporters?

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.

|| Greg, 10:24 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

McCain Rules On National Security Issues

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 Obamas 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

|| Greg, 09:55 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Noriega Flops On Energy Policy

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!


|| Greg, 09:12 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama Cover-Up

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.

|| Greg, 08:09 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 26, 2008

The Heller Decision

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 Amendments application to the States: 23 With respect to Cruikshanks 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.

Hmmm... a selective incorporation question. Could it be that the decision would have gone the other way if the law had been enacted by a state rather than the District of Columbia government, which is merely a creation of Congress? Eugene Volokh suggests that is not the case, noting that Cruikshank was later partially overturned as taking too restrictive a view on selective incorporation (with regard to the First Amendment) and that the other nineteenth century cases may therefore be similarly flawed as precedent because of their reliance on Cruikshank, which is seen by many as a monumentally bad decision.

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.


As of 10:46 am Central time, no other commenter has objected. I've emailed the FBI and Secret Service about the matter -- hope David has fun in federal prison.

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

|| Greg, 12:15 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

One More Reason To Love Sarah Palin -- UPDATED & BUMPED

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 dont we just liberate, and decontrol, and deregulate the whole bloody energy business whether its oil, gas, shale, nuclear, coal, natural gas, as well as wind and solar why dont 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 isnt anybody talking about that in this race? Thats the natural, Reaganesque thing to do. Isnt it?

Palin: Yeah absolutely! Youre hitting the nail right on the head. Thats what so many of us normal Americans are asking. The same thing. Why arent 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. Thats nonsense. Not when you know that we have the supplies here. You have the supplies in your sister state called Alaska, where were ready, willing and were able to pump these supplies of energy, flow them into hungry markets across the U.S. We want it to happen. Its Congress holding us back.

A real plan for American energy independence. Go Sarah!


|| Greg, 11:33 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Bravo McGraw!

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?

|| Greg, 08:07 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Jindal Signs Law Castrating Child Rapists

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.

|| Greg, 07:47 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dr. No -- Starring Barack Obama!

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.

|| Greg, 07:29 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

It's Really Only Bipartisan When Republicans Vote Liberally

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.

|| Greg, 06:33 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 25, 2008

Impeach Anthony Kennedy

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 Courts 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.

Continue to be enlightened while reading "Impeach Anthony Kennedy" »

|| Greg, 02:26 PM || Permalink || TrackBacks (0) ||

Is Barack Obama Mentally Competent To Be President?

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

|| Greg, 12:53 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Challenge To Texas Dem Delegation

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 Committees 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.

|| Greg, 12:12 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

When Senators Collide!

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.

I suppose that explains this picture from today's New York Post.


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.


"Greeted by a large group of female interns."

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

|| Greg, 11:09 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

White Liberal Complains Obama Acting White

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

|| Greg, 10:39 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Get Out Your Veto Pen, Bobby

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 Louisianas 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 Legislatures 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

|| Greg, 09:27 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 24, 2008

Suit On Teacher Background Check Information

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.

|| Greg, 12:53 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

More On Corrupt California Dem Congresswoman

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.

|| Greg, 12:20 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

McCain's New Ad

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.

|| Greg, 12:06 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Playing The Race Card In Odessa

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.

|| Greg, 11:39 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 23, 2008

Give Me An "H"!

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 opponents 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?


|| Greg, 01:21 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Modest Proposal

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.

|| Greg, 11:09 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Kristol Blasts MoveOn.Org Ad

I've actually ignored'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 were 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 wont be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.

But thats 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 doesnt 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 thats not how it works. People like 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. Someones son, somewhere. This commercial makes me angry. What she is saying is that she is not willing to do her part. Shell 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. Thats 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 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 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

|| Greg, 10:45 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Will The Left Freak Over Obama Book?

My guess -- yeah, they will.

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

But the books subtitle makes clear its perspective: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Medias Favorite Candidate.

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

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

I think its critically important that the country gets a clear and honest view of who is running and what they stand forwarts 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?

|| Greg, 09:15 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

NBC Makes The Right Choice

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 NBCs 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."

NBCs plans for a successor to Russert, who died two weeks ago after collapsing at the networks Washington bureau, have been the subject of hot speculation. The interim plan gives network executives time to figure out how to preserve the shows 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.

|| Greg, 08:58 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 22, 2008

Tyrants And Terrorists For Obama

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 Koreas 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 Administrations giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clintons 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

|| Greg, 02:58 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 21, 2008

For Those Who Doubt

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.

|| Greg, 05:05 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Barack To Hillary Supporters: Get Over It

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.

Dont 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

|| Greg, 01:47 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Houston Hero In Iraq


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.

|| Greg, 08:55 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

California Activists Seek To Muzzle The People

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.

|| Greg, 08:35 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Congress Plummets To New Lows

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 Bushs 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.

|| Greg, 08:25 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

New FISA Bill Passes House -- Will Likely Pass Senate

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.

obamachangewecantbelieve in.JPG

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!

|| Greg, 08:17 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

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:

VotesCouncil link
3Judicial Activism Run Amok
Wolf Howling
2  2/3Admitting Defeat in the Rhetoric War
Cheat Seeking Missiles
1  1/3What the Free World Would Do Well To Emulate
The Colossus of Rhodey
1  1/3Say It Loud, Say It Proud: I Am a Racist! *UPDATED*
Bookworm Room
1A Rose By Any Other Name -- Tiptoeing Around Jihad
2/3R. Kelly: I Believe He's a Platinum Predator
Rhymes With Right
1/3My Mother-in-Law The Democrat
The Razor
1/3The End of Guilt?
The Glittering Eye
1/3Metaphorically Shooting
Soccer Dad

VotesNon-council link
3  2/3After the Charge
Miserable Donuts
1  1/3Obama and Taxes: An Unchanged Liberal Agenda
Lone Star Times
1The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists"
1Why Irish Voters Rejected the Lisbon Treaty
The Brussels Journal
1Serlo the Mercer and Magna Carta
Brits At Their Best
2/3They Never Change
Confederate Yankee
2/3The Future of Russo-American Relations (Guest Voice)
The Moderate Voice
1/3Obama Finds Bitter Voter Man
Pondering Penguin
1/3Supreme Court: Supreme Overreach
1/3Who's To Blame For High Gas Prices? Look in the Mirror, America
Right Wing Nut House
1/3Let's Get Something Straight
Balloon Juice
1/3The Willful Blindness of Barack Obama
Hugh Hewitt

|| Greg, 04:42 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 20, 2008

Lampson Supports Higher Gas Prices For Americans

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.

|| Greg, 06:01 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

John McCain And Love Of Country

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 didnt 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 didnt 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 didnt 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

|| Greg, 05:31 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Chocolate City Redux?

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


Thats gonna change, thoughgonna be a real Chocolate City!

* * *

When [film critic Lisa] Kennedy began a question with the phrase, If Obamas gonna become president, Lee interrupted. There is no if! It changes everythingits gonna be Before Obama, and After Obama. And Im 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

|| Greg, 10:40 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Objective Media?

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

|| Greg, 09:13 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Lampson Debate Dodge

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

|| Greg, 08:57 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama Announcement: "I'm A Shameless Liar And Hypocrite"

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?

obamachangewecantbelieve in.JPG

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 whove become masters at gaming this broken system, Mr. Obama said. John McCains campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And weve already seen that hes 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 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.

|| Greg, 05:21 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Rocketmail Resurrection

One of the venerable names in the free email business will be coming back -- and will be joined by a new domain, -- 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.

|| Greg, 04:51 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Is That A Lobster In Your Pants

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.

|| Greg, 04:30 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Well, I'm Back

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.

|| Greg, 04:26 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 18, 2008

Blogging May Be Light

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.

|| Greg, 06:40 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 17, 2008

Separated At Birth?

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.

|| Greg, 04:39 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Texas Officials Promise To "Listen To" Governor's Mansion Arsonist

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.

|| Greg, 10:14 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Left Continues Denigration Of McCain's Military Service, POW Heroism

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.

|| Greg, 09:02 AM || Permalink || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 16, 2008

If Democrats Have A Problem With Rape Jokes...

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 essayists 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 Lesleys passed out, I take her to the closet and rape her. Or `Thats 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

|| Greg, 06:55 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

After Boumediene

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 peoples courts as a weapon to compel the American peoples commander-in-chief to justify his actions during a war overwhelmingly authorized by the American peoples 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.

|| Greg, 01:50 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

The Obama-McCain Tie

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.

|| Greg, 07:50 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

VP Candidates Coy

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?

Continue to be enlightened while reading "VP Candidates Coy" »

|| Greg, 07:38 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 15, 2008

Satire We Can Believe In

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.


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.

|| Greg, 09:40 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Bio-Fuel Program Worth Looking At

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

Ten years ago I could never have imagined Id 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, its 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?

|| Greg, 10:16 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Ship Gore To China!

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.


|| Greg, 10:11 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Post Convention Commentary -- Looking Towards 2010

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.

|| Greg, 09:17 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (17) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Barack Obama Needs A History Lesson

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.

|| Greg, 07:56 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

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:

VotesCouncil link
3The Chicken or the Egg?
2Dear Pakistan
Wolf Howling
2For Once, It Really Is About the Children
Bookworm Room
1  2/3Caring Is Not Enough
The Glittering Eye
1  1/3The Global Warming Cult
The Razor
1I'm a Fuel, Fuel, Fuel for You
Soccer Dad
2/3Omaha Beach
Done With Mirrors
1/3Quote of the Day: Gas Wars Edition
Cheat Seeking Missiles

VotesNon-council link
2  2/3What Kind of War Crimes Trials Does Obama Plan? (Updated)
American Thinker
2  1/3Wake Up and Smell the Soup!
Melanie Phillips
1  2/3Obama and Khalidi -- What We Know So Far
Daled Amos
1  1/3Have You No Shame, Sir?
Winds of Change
1When Worlds Collide
The Weekly Standard
2/3Jimmy Obama, Meet Barack Carter
Big Lizards
1/3Shooting Down the Enemies of Progress
1/3Noted Imbecile Mark Morford: Obama Is a "Lightworker," an "Enlightened Being"
Hot Air
1/3Air Is Free
Eternity Road
1/3Arson Supected at Texas Governor's Mansion

|| Greg, 05:38 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 14, 2008

Gore Vidal Denies McCain's Heroism, Time As POW

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: "Thats what he tells us."

Excuse me?




"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.

|| Greg, 07:37 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Barack Threatens Gun Violence Against Republicans

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).

Ive always thought that speech applied very well to the war on terror. I would expect Obama to disagree with me therebut its interesting that he does seem to think that the Chicago Way applies to domestic politics. I suppose a pupil of Tony Rezkos 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

|| Greg, 11:37 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Sick And Disgusting Political Commentary -- Protected by The First Amendment

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 Obamas 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.

|| Greg, 04:43 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

UN Body Interferes In UK Internal Affairs

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

|| Greg, 04:25 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dems Think Obama Terrorist-Connected?

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

|| Greg, 04:15 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dem Convention Shortfall Shows Campaign Finance Flaw

It looks like the host committee for the August's Democrat Convention in Denver is short of cash to the tune of $15 million.

The host committee for the Democratic National Convention faces a possible shortfall of $15 million, complicating logistics for the August event and forcing it to abruptly postpone a media walkthrough of the site scheduled for next week.

The Democratic National Committee has asked the cash-strapped panel to raise $40.6 million by Monday to finance the event. Last month, the committee said it had just $25 million in cash, and it has failed to meet each of several fundraising deadlines since signing a contract with the DNC last year.

Host committee members consistently have refused public comment on their fundraising efforts. Committee spokesman Chris Lopez could not immediately be reached by telephone Friday.

Now there is an obvious solution to the problem. The Barack Obama campaign is positively awash in cash, having raised prodigious amounts of money for months -- so much that the candidate is breaking his promise to the American people to take government funding for his campaign and abide by spending limits that go with that money. Why can't he just order his campaign to cut a check to pay for his coronation?

In a rational, constitutionally-limited system, he could. unfortunately, federal campaign finance laws are such that making that sort of transfer of cash to pay for a convention is an illegal expenditure, even if it is done in a public, totally above board fashion. So as a result, the Democrats will have to scale back plans and run a second-rate convention (perhaps appropriate, since they are giving America a second-rate candidate) instead of doing things up right. That once again demonstrates that what is legal under federal election law does not always coincide with what is ethical and what makes sense.

|| Greg, 03:56 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 13, 2008

R. Kelly: I Believe He's A Platinum Predator

I believe that he committed all 14 offenses with which he is charged.

However, the ability to delay the case for six years and influence the victim and her family made it possible for him to create something that the jurors felt constituted "reasonable doubt".

Grammy-award winning rhythm and blues superstar R. Kelly broke down and wept Friday as a jury cleared him of 14 charges of child pornography.

The hugely successful Chicago-based star had consistently denied the charges since his arrested in 2002 after an incriminating video tape was sent to the Chicago Sun-Times.

"There wasn't enough evidence," jubilant defense lawyer Edward Genson told a press conference saying they were "ecstatic" that Robert Kelly was cleared of all the charges against him after the jury deliberated for less than a day.

"What happened today when those verdicts started (was) you got to see the real Robert Kelly. He sat there and he was contrite. He sat there and he was crying," said another defense lawyer Sam Adam.

"He sat there and was thanking God. All I heard the entire time those 14 verdicts were being read was thank you Jesus," Adam said, adding: "He is a deeply religious man."

Sorry, you pedophile bastard, Jesus didn't have anything to do with your skating on these charges. It was your money and a different spiritual powerhouse -- Satan.

And I can't help but notice that one of kelly's lawyers sort of gave away his client's guilt in that passage above -- "He was contrite."

Let's consider what "contrition" actually is. It is a sadness and remorse for having done wrong -- often understood as carrying with it a sense that one is facing eternal damnation. R. Kelly could not be contrite today unless he was also guilty of the acts in question.

And let's be honest -- this isn't the first time he has used an underage girl as his sexual plaything. Can we say Aaliyah?


Remember, they lied about her age (she was really 15) to get married and the marriage was later annulled for that reason.

Of course, there is also the issue of the videotape. Either Kelly and his young victim on the tape, or someone somehow just happened to get a dead ringer (in appearance and voice) for Kelly AND a relatively unknown child who R. Kelly just happened to have access to. I'm no math whiz, but I can't help but believe that the odds of this collusion of circumstance is so small as to defy reasonable belief.

In a court of law, R. Kelly may be not guilty. However, in the court of common sense the verdict must be something else.

And I hope that the twelve jurors who let this platinum predator go will recognize their guilt WHEN R. Kelly sexually abuses his next victim -- and there will undoubtedly be a next victim.

And may I point to this article which talks about the biggest scandal that this case highlights?

It wasnt that they couldnt believe that Kelly, a grown man, had engaged in sex with a girl who may have been no older than 14. They just didnt see a problem. For an apparently large number of Americans, adult men having sex with young teen girls is no big deal.

The numbers dont lie: Almost 66 percent of nearly 280,000 babies born to teen mothers in 2005 were fathered by men who were 20 or older, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Most of those men were 20 to 24 years old.

Whats going on here? Some, pathetically, blame the young girls. It takes two to tango, they say. But a 14-year-old girl is not psychologically or emotionally equal to a manipulative, preying older man.

And if this is the case, why are we as a society so willing to allow our daughters, nieces and sisters to be sexually exploited in this fashion?

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.

|| Greg, 08:21 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Tim Russert Dies

Shocking and sad.


Tim Russert, NBC News Washington bureau chief and the moderator of Meet the Press, died Friday after a sudden heart attack at the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58.

Russert was recording voiceovers for Sundays Meet the Press program when he collapsed, the network said. No details were immediately available.

Let's be real honest here -- Russert generally tried to be fair. And regardless, it is impossible to see his death as anything other than tragic, given his relatively young age. Let our prayers go out to his family, friends, and co-workers, in particular to his wife, Maureen Orth (of Vanity Fair magazine) and son, Luke -- as well as his father, "Big Russ".

UPDATE: Tom Brokaw announces the death of Tim Russert.

|| Greg, 01:54 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Quiet Morning At Texas GOP Convention

Our senatorial district convention got off to a tardy start (trying to seat a couple hundred delegates and then seat alternates takes time) -- but once we got started things went fairly smoothly.

It was a bad day for the RonBats who disrupted yesterday's First General Session with dilatory motions that delayed the day's business by close to three hours.

Oddly enough, they tried the same thing today in SD11 -- only to find that their call to "follow the rules" meant that we actually had to follow the rules. Thus, when their male candidate lost the SD nomination for Party Chair, they tried to have the SD endorse him anyway on the argument that even though the rules state we can only nominate one candidate for Party Chair we must nominate two -- one of each gender. Then, having had the clear language thrown in their face after the nomination of Tina Benkiser, they objected to the fact that the rules then required us to nominate a man for Vice Chair. I guess that "follow the rules" doesn't really mean "follow the rules.

Also, the RonBat lawsuit against the party was thrown out by an appellate court this morning -- with the RonBats ordered to pay the legal expenses for the Texas GOP based upon the frivolous nature of the lawsuit.

|| Greg, 11:59 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

The Exorcist

Some on the Left want to make this story into a bad thing. After all, while they are willing to use religion as a crutch to support their otherwise indefensible policy proposals, they don't actually BELIEVE in any of that spiritual stuff. So to find out that a conservative politician actually believes in the tenets of his religion and practices them is somewhat scandalous to them.

Which brings us to this story.

Strangely, I found myself repeating the Hail Mary until it became a chant. Being a recent convert to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary and considered any form of Marian devotion to be idolatry. Though I had never before prayed a Hail Mary in my life, I suddenly found myself incapable of any other form of prayer. Somehow, Mary's intercessions allowed me to find peace during that long night; I knew that I had survived the worst and that I would exit with my faith intact. It terrified me to recall how close I came to turning away from Christ out of fear.

The crucifix had a calming effect on Susan, and her sister was soon brave enough to bring a Bible to her face. At first, Susan responded to biblical passages with curses and profanities. Mixed in with her vile attacks were short and desperate pleas for help. In the same breath that she attacked Christ, the Bible's authenticity, and everyone assembled in prayer, Susan would suddenly urge us to rescue her. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.

While Alice and Louise held Susan, her sister continued holding the Bible to her face. Almost taunting the evil spirit that had almost beaten us minutes before, the students dared Susan to read biblical passages. She choked on certain passages and could not finish the sentence "Jesus is Lord." Over and over, she repeated "Jesus is L..L..LL," often ending in profanities. In between her futile attempts, Susan pleaded with us to continue trying and often smiled between the grimaces that accompanied her readings of Scripture. Just as suddenly as she went into the trance, Susan suddenly reappeared and claimed "Jesus is Lord."

With an almost comical smile, Susan then looked up as if awakening from a deep sleep and asked, "Has something happened?" She did not remember any of the past few hours and was startled to find her friends breaking out in cheers and laughter, overwhelmed by sudden joy and relief.

This story chills me to the bone -- mainly because I participated in something similar to this twenty years ago, praying over a friend who was clearly afflicted with some malign spiritual presence. Based upon my studies during my seminary career, I'd call what we each witnessed to be cases of demonic oppression rather than full-blown possession. But regardless, the events described (and those in which I participated) were clearly REAL -- and the underlying reality of a greater spiritual battle between good and evil is real as well.

But since the Left wants to make a joke out of this, I'd like to offer photographic support for my nomination of a candidate for Jindal's next exorcism.

Continue to be enlightened while reading "The Exorcist" »

|| Greg, 06:09 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Surrender On The Border

Why are we withdrawing needed support from our porous southern border?

Members of Congress are split on whether the National Guard should end its deployment along the U.S.-Mexico border in July, as planned.

On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff predicted the border would not be secured until 2011.

* * *

The final withdrawal for the National Guard working in Operation Jump Start is planned for July 15.

The National Guard's Noller said that Operation Jump Start is winding down because of a presidential directive. As in all military operations, he said, about 150 guardsmen will remain for administrative duties after the mission ends.

As of June 11, 2,284 Guard members were on active duty at the border.

Git that? The border will be unsecured for three more years -- but we are pulling a couple of thousand bodies away from the task of securing it.

This is one of those things that leaves so many of us so pissed off at the Bush Administration -- its utter fecklessness when it comes to immigration and border policy. Even when the Administration has conceded a need to do more, it does so in such a half-hearted way as to be utterly useless.

And the notion that the Guard should remain deployed has bipartisan support.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch recommended keeping the troops along the border for another year or so.

"We can get a long way between now and 2011," Lynch said. "Make an assessment in 2009 or 2010 and see where we are, and if we can afford to move them off our border, then we can do that."

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) was also in favor of waiting.

"My advice would be to favor their continued deployment until the border's judged as secure," he said.

Mr. Bush -- don't undercut the enforcement efforts along our nation's southern border.

|| Greg, 05:50 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Well, This Explains The Timing

Ron Paul finally dropped out of the presidential race yesterday evening.

Republican Ron Paul ended his rebel campaign last night and announced a new effort to help elect libertarian-leaning Republicans to public office around the country.

"With the primary season now over, the presidential campaign is at an end. But the larger campaign for freedom is just getting started," Paul told supporters in a letter posted on the website of the new group, Campaign for Liberty.

"We will be a permanent presence on the American political landscape," added Paul, who announced his move during a rally coinciding with the Texas GOP State Convention in Houston. "That I promise you. We're not about to let all this good work die. To the contrary, with your help we're going to make it grow - by leaps and bounds."

The 72-year-old Texas congressman won 24 delegates during the Republican primaries, but was the last remaining challenger to John McCain, the party's presumptive nominee.

Doing so at 9:00 last night was probably a good move -- it came right as he was prpearing to host a reception for delegates at the Texas GOP convention.

However, many of them were not happy over this little angle of his withdrawal.

Paul has said he won't endorse McCain, but in an interview with CNN earlier yesterday, Paul had nice things to say about Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who is the Libertarian Party's nominee. Barr "talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message," Paul said.

I think I speak for the bulk of delegates at the Texas Republican Convention when I say the following. Ron Paul needs to decide if he is a Republican of a Libertarian. If he is a Republican, he ought to endorse John McCain and campaign for him vigorously. If he is a Libertarian, he needs to have the integrity to get the Hell out of our party and go back to that party.

|| Greg, 05:36 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 12, 2008

State Senator Dan Patrick

WHat happens when a talk radio host decides to run for state senate? He wins a multi-candidate primary with over 2/3 of the vote -- that's what happens.

That is the Dan Patrick story -- from televison news sports guy to restaurant owner to radio host/station owner to state senator -- and maybe even further.

Dan Patrick met with bloggers at the Blogger's Row.

He noted that this is an interesting year for Republicans with a lot at stake. Unity is important, but it is also important that elected officials inspire the voters by bringing about the reforms that have been promised over the years. This includes controlling the border.. he also talked about the essential need to limit property tax and property appraisal caps to make sure that homeowners can afford to stay in their homes. In addition, the margins tax needs to be repealed. Patrick also noted that several billion dollars could be saved with a five percent reduction of the state budget. In the end, it is visionaries like Reagan who are needed to bring out the voters to make the GOP successful. Ultimately, we must return to our conservative roots to make the US and Texas strong by getting real conservatives in charge.

Patrick noted that his conservative radio format educates, entertains, and informs the people -- and that as a state senator it allows him to explain why things are happening in Austin and the implications of state policies. He particularly mentioned the need to eliminate the margins tax and the "blocker bill". His stations potentially reach 50% of primary voters in the state. In addition, he noted the influence of the blogosphere -- and mentioned his involvement in founding (note: I was one of the original bloggers for LST).

Patrick also spoke about the importance of transparency in government. This has been something in which Texas has led. "There shouldn't be anything which isn't transparent in government." The big difficulty is that many voters don't have time to follow what goes on in government -- it is therefore important to elect folks you can trust to carry out what they say they will do.

When I asked Senator Patrick about possible plans to run for Governor, he indicated that he loves being in the state senate because of his ability to influence policy. Rather than seek higher office, his interest is to support good conservatives for office. "I'm not planning to kick any doors down." In other words, don't expect a Dan Patrick gubernatorial run in 2010.

|| Greg, 02:41 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Attorney General Greg Abbott

Attorney General Greg Abbott met with folks at the Bloggers Row this afternoon. He was warm and engaging, which is a major reason that so many of us see us as a future governor of the state, or US Senator.

He began by noting the importance of the grassroots to the election of Republicans to all 29 statewide offices here in Texas.

He then turned to child protection, in particular the cybercrime unit that he has created in his office in a very effective effort to track down and arrest youngsters -- the unit has arrested more than 100 sexual predators across the state of Texas. He sees this as his most important accomplishment as Attorney General.

His also dealt with the importance of the protecting senior citizens from abuse and neglect and identity theft, which has become a significantly more serious problem in recent years with the expansion of the internet -- but which is still primarily a crime that is committed by taking mail and other "hard copy" documents.

What is the biggest challenge? Border security, which must be addressed in several ways due to the different aspects of the problem. On one level is the criminal issue, especially with regard to drug trafficking. But of key importance is the need for the federal government to step up and protect the border.

Speaking of the Heller case on the Second Amendment, Abbot expressed his concern that a negative decision could be used to undercut the rights of Texans to carry arms subject to Texas laws. He is eagerly anticipating the decision, with concern that a wrong decision might erode the right to keep and bear arms.

Addressing the FDLS child custody case, Abbott expressed his concern that there are still possible criminal charges possible if there is evidence of child abuse. He also pointed out that there is still the possibility of future removals of children from the compound. "No child should be subject to ongoing rape at the hands of their captors."

Abbott also spoke of the importance of making use of the blogosphere for getting the conservative message out to the world.

|| Greg, 02:05 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Blogging From The Texas GOP Convention

All quiet so far. The fireworks, if any, will come later in the Senatorial District conventions.

The most touching moment so far? Governor Perry's comments on the Governor's Mansion, burned in an arson attack over the weekend. It can and will be rebuilt.

I'm particularly appreciative of the fine folks from Right and Americans for Prosperity for providing their own little blogger's row and a series of interviews of elected officials.

Ragnar from The Jawa Report is also here and blogging -- I hope we can hook up.

H/T Michelle Malkin

|| Greg, 01:45 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Supreme Court Screws The Pooch

Today the US Supreme Court created an entirely new principle under the United States Constitution -- that it applies to enemy combatants captured on the field of battle by the US military, who are not either citizens or residents of the US, and who have not even entered the United States!

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Now here's the problem with the decision.

Never, ever, in the history of the United States have those captured by the military during the course of combat operations been entitled to habeas corpus. Not even during the War of 1812 (when the bulk of the combat took place on US territory) and the Civil War (when those captured were, by the logic of the Union position on the right of states to secede, American citizens) have we allowed such individuals access to civilian courts. Indeed, at the height of WWII the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants captured on US territory had no habeas rights in Ex Parte Quirin. Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy soldiers are not entitled to access to the civilian courts, and indeed may not be tried by a civilian court -- but the Supreme Court has miraculously ruled that those who violate the laws of war are entitled to greater protection than those who follow it!

Over at Patterico's Pontifications, we get a wonderful view of the the dissent by Justice Scalia, who positively disassembles the logic of the majority in this case. Most notably, Scalia refused to use the traditional phrase "I respectfully dissent" at the end of his opinion, choosing instead to indicate his profound disagreement with the majority by using the much less collegial "I dissent". The most important line of the dissent, however, is this: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

Read the opinions here.

H/T Malkin, Hot Air, Flopping Aces

|| Greg, 11:06 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Tear Down This Wall!

I was blessed to come of age during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest men to occupy that Oval Office -- indeed, the greatest to occupy it during my lifetime.

Twenty-one years ago today, President Reagan gave one of the great speeches against tyranny and oppression. In it, he offered one of the great calls for freedom -- "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I'd thought to post the speech in its entirety -- but as a student and teacher of history, this video so moved me that I decided to share it instead.

Two-and-a-half years later, the gates were open and the wall began to fall.

Let freedom ring.

More at Grand Old Partisan, Soccer Dad

|| Greg, 06:12 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Earliest Christian Place Of Worship Found?

If this can be corroborated, it takes us all the way back to the first century, and therefore to those who were contemporaries of Peter and Paul.

Archaeologists in Jordan have discovered a cave underneath one of the world's oldest churches and say it may have been an even more ancient site of Christian worship. But outside experts expressed caution about the claim.

Archaeologist Abdel-Qader al-Housan, head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies, said this week that the cave was unearthed in the northern Jordanian city of Rihab after three months of excavation and shows evidence of early Christian rituals.

The cave is under St. George's Church, which some believe was built in the year 230, though the date is widely disputed. That would make it one of the oldest churches in the world, along with one unearthed in the Jordanian southern port of Aqaba in 1998 and another in Israel discovered in 2005.

Al-Housan said there was evidence that the underground cave was used as a church by 70 disciples of Jesus in the first century after Christ's death, which would make it the oldest Christian site of worship in the world.

He described a circular worship area with stone seats separated from a living area that had a long tunnel leading to a source of water. He said the early Christians hid there from persecution.

A mosaic inscription on the floor of the later church of St. George above refers to "the 70 beloved by God and the divine" who founded the worship there.

There are those who doubt this find -- and I am not ready to support the claim myself. It is virtually inconceivable that the mosaics would date to the first century (the 70 likely would have been a group fleeing from either the persecution of early Christians described in Acts or the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD -- not individuals with the wealth and/or skills to create the mosaics), and so it is more likely that the inscription refers to a legend in the community about the historical use of the cave. Absent some more solid archaeological evidence, I think it is impossible to sustain the claim it makes as fact.

|| Greg, 05:56 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Didn't The Dems Say Voter Fraud Isn't A Problem?

Well, maybe it isn't for them, because the fraudulent votes seem to always benefit them.

But to patriotic Americans who believe in honest elections that exclude necro-Americans and other fake voters, this sort of stuff is outrageous.

Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said Tuesday he will meet today with a Democrat-affiliated group responsible for a voter registration effort that is inundating East Baton Rouge and other parish registrars with bogus and incomplete applications.

Dardenne said his investigators are trying to determine if any state election laws have been violated as thousands of voter registration cards have been dumped on registrars offices through the efforts of VIP.

We have some very real concerns about the data we are getting from them, Dardenne said.

VIP is a Washington, D.C., group hired by national Democrats to register some 70,000 new voters in advance of the presidential and other federal elections this fall.

"If any state election laws have been violated"? That is certainly a polite way of putting it.


After all, dead people and those serving time for felonies have been registered. In one parish, the folks in the voter registrar's office were surprised to get a new registration card in the name of their boss turned in by the company. And let's not forget the two Shreveport registration cards turned in for George W. Bush, with the address listed as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Frankly, there needs to be a federal investigation here -- VIP is based in Washington, DC and is clearly operating interstate to engage in election fraud.

UPDATE: It appears the group, hired by the Democrats, is an arm of the Muslim American Society, which is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood!

H/T Hot Air

|| Greg, 05:29 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Owning Up To Racism

Last week, one of the Chicago area's minor newspapers insinuated that those of us voting against Barack Obama are doing so based upon race. Now Catholic priest and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Andrew Greeley has said the same. Indeed, Greeley goes so far as to imply that even the expression of otherwise reasonable objections to Barack Obama -- objections that would be legitimate if raised regarding a white candidate -- are really just a cover for a latent desire to pull on a white sheet, set a cross alight and proclaim "Ain't no BLACK man gonna live in the WHITE House."

Others have gone to great length to delegitimize opposition to Barack Obama as rooted in racism as well, as noted by fellow bloggers.

So I would like to associate myself with the forthright confession of my dear friend and fellow Watcher's Council member Bookworm.

When I vote against Obama on November 4, 2008:

  • It wont be because Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq, which I think will weaken Americas interests beyond repair, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama thinks that a nuclear Iran is no threat to the Western World, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because I think its an incredibly stupid idea for the most powerful nation in the world to approach evil totalitarian dictators as a supplicant, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because I hate the idea of a President who will subordinate Americas interests to the UN (as he inevitably will), it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama has the thinnest resume ever in the history of Presidential candidates, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because I think Obamas Leftist connections (Ayres, Dohrn, Soros, Pfleger, Wright, etc.) show him to be either stupid about or complicit with an agenda antithetical to basic American values, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama consistently chooses as advisers people who have opted for the wrong side in the completely binary debate about Israels right to exist, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama wants to socialize American medicine, which I believe will destroy the high quality of medical care available to most Americans, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama wants to gut the military and reduce us to a nation with a big target painted on our collective backside, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama wants to gut the Second Amendment and destroy Americans Constitutional right to protect themselves from foreign and domestic enemies, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama has already announced loud and clear that he will support activist judges who place their feelings above the law, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama supports judicial decisions creating a right to gay marriage, when I think that decision is one for the voters, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas announced that he will dramatically increase taxes, putting the slow, inflexible, ill-informed government in charge of what should be a quick-reacting, knowledgeable marketplace, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas record in the Senate (albeit short and undistinguished) has been so liberal he makes Teddy Kennedy look like a reactionary, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas an open-borders kind of guy, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama has shown himself to be a scarily slow thinker and speaker when released from the teleprompter (which really doesnt bode well for those cozy private chats with Ahmadinejad, Jong-Il, and Assad), it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas wife clearly loathes America and everything it stands for, despite the fact that shes done pretty well out of it, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama was affiliated for more than 20 years with a church that preached white hatred and began to care only when it looked as if it would affect his campaign, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obama was good buddies with Tony Rezko, and other sleazy characters (showing again that Obama was complicit or a singularly bad judgment of character), it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas a compulsive liar who clearly thinks we in the public are too stupid to catch up with his lies, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas campaign has proven to be fly-paper for every two bit troofer and anti-Semite in America, it will be because Im a racist.
  • It wont be because Obamas promised already to start down the totalitarian path of purging his predecessors through criminal prosecutions, it will be because Im a racist.

And might I add that even though I am a life-long Republican and have never knowingly voted for a Democrat for any position higher than county clerk (and then only when the GOP incumbent was under indictment for official misconduct), when I proudly cast my vote for a real American hero with a lifetime of distinguished service to this country rather than Barack Obama it will be because Im a racist.

After all, that is what the liberal intelligentsia in the media have proclaimed. And it isn't like they would sling around false accusations of racism against innocent victims because it fits with their political agenda, would it?

|| Greg, 05:03 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 11, 2008

If The Democrats Want The Card Check

I'm not a fan of the mis-named "Employee Free Choice Act", which would strip workers of the right to a secret ballot vote on whether or not to unionize. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem bound and determined to have it.

So let's offer them a compromise that offers employees REAL freedom to choose.

In light of the Democrat's obvious commitment to "Employee Free Choice", I'd like to make an offer in two parts:

  1. Bring back Card Check legislation, which allows a Union to be created immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards in support of unionization.
  2. But make it real employee free choice by allowing a Union to be decertified immediately when a majority of employees submit signed cards opposing an existing Union.
  3. For bonus points, let's also stipulate that an Employee Free Choice Act should give each employee a free choice about membership in a Union, and no employee can be forced to join (or leave) a Union against his will.

It's a good deal.  It's a fair deal.  It's the workplace democracy that Democrats tell us they really want.  What's not to like about it?   I think we can come to a deal.**

What say you, Democrats?

**...unless, of course, Democrats decide that reciprocity isn't they had in mind, and the Employee Free Choice Act suddenly includes a bit too much employee freedom.

All I would add to that suggestion is an addition to the last of the three points -- extend that prohibition to include a prohibition on agency shop fees, which force an employee to still pay the bulk of union dues even if they choose not to be a member of the union.

What objection could there possibly be to providing workers with REAL freedom of choice regarding membership and financial support of unions? Unless, of course, the point is not freedom for workers but welfare for unions.

|| Greg, 08:23 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Don't Do This On A Plane!



But it is still funny in a sick, twisted sort of way.

Thanks for sharing this on your site, T.F.!

And I thought Richard Sutton was such a nice man; can't believe he sent me this...

If you are sitting next to someone on a plane who irritates you follow these simple instructions:

1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case.
2. Remove your laptop.
3. Start up.
4. Make sure the guy who is annoying you, can see the screen.
5. Close your eyes, tilt your head up to the sky & move your lips as if praying.
6. Then hit this link

Like I said, though, don't do this -- you really don't want to risk the jail sentence that might follow.

|| Greg, 07:42 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

The Brown Note?

I've been ignoring this silliness for some days now, but since it continues to get traction in the press, I'm finally going to give in.

Political activists planning protest rallies at the upcoming Democratic Convention in Denver have their stomachs in knots over a rumor about a crowd control weapon - known as the crap cannon - that might be unleashed against them.

Also called Brown Note, it is believed to be an infrasound frequency that debilitates a person by making them defecate involuntarily.

Mark Cohen, co-founder of Re-create 68, an alliance of local activists working for the protection of first amendment rights, said he believes this could be deployed at the convention in August to subdue crowds.

We know this weapon and weapons like it have been used at other large protests before, he said.

Cohen, who described Brown Note as a sonic weapon used to disrupt peoples equilibrium, cited eyewitness accounts of its use during free-trade agreement protests in Miami in 2003.

I think these weapons were mostly intended for military use and so their use for dealing with innocent protesters seems highly inappropriate, he said. The idea that they might be field testing them on people who are doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights is disturbing.

Of course, scientific researchers say that the "brown note" doesn't actually exist -- and since there is no actual evidence other than loony ramblings of these aging hippies and '60's wannabes, I'm inclined to believe the researchers.

Maybe the real problem that the Recreate 68 folks have is that radicals like them are have simply become so full of crap that it is waiting to burst out in all its glory.

|| Greg, 06:59 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dem Congressman: Obama Too Liberal

And this is coming from Obama's side of the aisle, not from ours.

obamachangewecantbelieve in.JPG

Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.

* * *

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

Boren, a self-described centrist, is seeking a third term this year in a mostly rural district that stretches across eastern Oklahoma.

"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them." He called Obama "the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate."

But absurdly enough, this superdelegate will cast his vote for Obama at the Democrat Convention, and will vote for Obama in the fall, so this move is purely symbolic and completely without substance. It proves that Boren talks a good game, but will still care in to the demands of the party leadership when pushed.

Voters of Oklahoma, recognize what you have in Dan Boren and do your duty -- vote him out of office for his fecklessness.

|| Greg, 06:50 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Jordan Strips Christian Convert Of legal Rights, Annuls Marriage


Last week, Jordan indicted a group of Danish publishers and cartoonists for daring to publish the Muhammad Cartoons -- claiming international jurisdiction over any act of alleged blasphemy against Islam. Now the Jordanians are actively stripping human and civil rights from their own citizens who turn away from Islam and embrace the truth that Jesus is the Savior.

The North Amman Sharia Court in April dissolved the marriage of Mohammad Abbad, on trial for apostasy, or leaving Islam. The 40-year-old convert fled Jordan with his wife and two young children in March after another Christian converts relatives attacked Abbads family in their home and his father demanded custody of Abbads children. Marriage depends on the creed [religion], and the apostate has no creed, a May 22 court document stated, detailing reasons for the April 22 annulment. According to the document, Judge Faysal Khreisat had proven the veracity of [Abbads] apostasy.

Jordans penal code does not outlaw apostasy, and the countrys constitution guarantees freedom of religion, as does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that was given force of law in the country in June 2006. But Islam, Jordans official religion, forbids conversion to another faith. Jordanian sharia (Islamic law) courts that rule on family law have convicted converts of apostasy, stripping them of all legal rights.

I cant win this case as long as I insist that I converted to Christianity, Abbad wrote after arriving in a European country where he has applied for asylum. Abbad and his 10-year-old son were violently attacked in their home on March 23, when relatives of another convert, staying with Abbad, stormed the house. Abbad suffered injuries to his head and chest and bleeding in his right eye, according to medical reports from Jordan University Hospital. When Abbad went to the police station the same day to file a complaint he found his father there, demanding custody of Abbads son and 11-year-old daughter.

By allowing the religious courts to take on civil jurisdiction, Jordan has placed itself in defiance of international human rights norms again, even as Kin Abdullah attempts to present his country as a moderate, modern nation that honors human rights. In the end, however, the reality shows that Jordan is still mired in the seventh century when Abdullah's ancestor, the false prophet Muhammad, first preached Islam.

|| Greg, 06:29 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (8) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Another Hasselhoff Music Video Atrocity

"The odds are you won't live to see tomorrow."

We can only hope so after this video.

Why does anyone let this man into a recording studio, or in front of a camera?

|| Greg, 05:55 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 10, 2008

Jon Stewart's Anti-Semitic Humor

Hebe-Land? Elders of Zion? What next -- resurrecting Leni Riefenstahl to produce his show?

Contact Comedy Central to protest this anti-Semitic humor.


|| Greg, 03:25 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (3) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Democrat Admits: My Party Raising Taxes On Middle Class, Poor

Bravo to Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL 14) for his honessty about the budgetary priorities of his own party!

I cant support a budget, from either party, that raises taxes on the middle class. This bill hurts families all across the 14th District by eliminating the 10-percent bracket for lower-income taxpayers, reinstating the marriage penalty and increasing taxes on small businesses and investments."

So for those of you folks who think that electing Democrats means higher taxes for the rich and cutting your taxes, think again -- the Democrats are already out to raise your taxes RIGHT NOW. It isn't "soak the rich" -- it is "soak the middle class".

H/T Blogs for Victory

|| Greg, 07:31 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Polar Bears Threaten Energy Independence

One more example of how environmentalism run wild is a threat to human needs.

Two conservation groups plan to sue to protect polar bears from petroleum exploration and drilling off Alaska's coast.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Environment gave the federal government formal notice Monday that they will sue under the Endangered Species Act to protect the bears, which were listed as threatened last month by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

Polar bears are threatened -- likely to become endangered -- because their sea ice habitat has melted dramatically and computer models predict further losses, Kempthorne said. Polar bears use sea ice for mating, denning and hunting.

Kempthorne said the best scientific judgments did not conclude that polar bears were threatened by oil and gas development.

The conservation groups do not agree.

Of course, there is no real threat to the polar bears, whose population has been expanding. But the willingness of the Bush Administration to make the faulty classification of the bears as threatened now threatens America's energy independence and national security.

After all, one group recently indicated its intent to start challenging projects it considers "global warming threats" ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY as threatening the polar bear's habitat in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Two things need to happen here.

First, the Bush Administration needs to admit its error and remove the polar bear from the threatened list.

Second, the Endangered Species Act needs to be amended to put human needs first -- or better yet, it needs to be repealed completely.

|| Greg, 07:21 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Everyday Heroism

This is one of those stories that takes on a different hue because it is not just a national in scope, but also local -- after all Galveston is just a few miles down the road from where I type this post.

And so it is with sadness and admiration that I note the passing of Roger Stone, who saved two fellow sailors at the cost of his own life on a boat owned by Texas A&M at Galveston.

A college student who survived a boat sinking with four others said Monday that a safety officer who died on their boat was a hero for staying behind and pushing him out.

Steven Guy, a Texas A&M University sailor, said Roger Stone saved him and another sailor by helping them to safety.

"He is my hero," Guy said. "He saved me. If it wasn't for him, I would not be here."

The group never saw Stone after he pushed the two men out of a hatch in the boat, the mariners said. Stone, the boat's second safety officer, was found dead by the Coast Guard on Sunday afternoon.

The two men said they spent a day in open water after their vessel sank in the Gulf of Mexico.

The survivors -- four university students and a safety officer -- told the Coast Guard they were forced off their sailboat after it took on water and capsized early Saturday.

The five survivors were found and airlifted to land around 2 a.m. Sunday, the Coast Guard said.

Stone sacrificed himself so that the other sailors, students from the university, might live. But on a day to day basis, his job was to safeguard those others. By all accounts he did it well -- and in the end, without regard for his own life. May he rest in peace.

|| Greg, 06:44 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 09, 2008

Cornyn Trouncing Noriega

Democrats have been sounding off about their candidate for Senate, Slick Rick Noriega. They keep telling us over and over again how he will soundly defeat the incumbent, Senator John Cornyn.

What do the polls say?

United States Senator John Cornyn has opened a seventeen percentage point lead in his bid for re-election. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state find Cornyn leading Democratic state legislator Rick Noriega 52% to 35%. Thats a significant improvement for the incumbent from a month ago when his lead dwindled to four percentage points.

Cornyn is supported by 86% of Republicans and has a two-to-one edge among unaffiliated voters. Last month, his lead among the unaffiliateds was just four percentage points. Noreiga attracts 72% of Democrats, down from 81% a month ago.

The Democrat leads among voters under 30, reflecting a nationwide trend. He is competitive among those who earn less than $40,000 a year. However, Cornyn has the advantage among adults over 30 and those with annual incomes topping $40,000.

Yeah, Noreiga was pulling close a month ago -- but I think this poll makes it pretty clear that the previous result was an outlier, one of those occasional results that does not present a true picture of the real world. After all, this result matches well with what other polls are showing.

|| Greg, 04:31 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Sex(ually Transmitted Disease) And The City

One in four New Yorkers has herpes!

A city Health Department study finds that more than a fourth of adult New Yorkers are infected with the virus that causes genital herpes.

The study, released Monday, says about 26 percent of New York City adults have genital herpes, compared to about 19 percent nationwide.

The department says genital herpes can double a person's risk for contracting HIV.

Herpes can cause painful sores, but most people have no recognizable symptoms.

Among New Yorkers, the herpes rate is higher among women, black people and gay men.

You know what? There are some good reasons to engage in monogamous relationships with partners you know are not infected. Anyone familiar with the rates of multiple sex partners among the groups with the highest rates of infection? And want to bet we would find a correlation?

|| Greg, 01:40 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Pakistan Demands Blasphemy Exception To Western Laws On Free Speech


Here's hoping the EU and the rest of the civilized world tell the Pakistanis to bugger off!

Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday.

They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression.

The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said.

They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out.

Notice that little threat at the end -- "Dhimmify or face more terrorism with our approval!"

We in the West cannot accept such demands -- or the threat that goes with them. If I want to mock the false prophet Muhammad (May He Burn In Hell For All Eternity) then I have an absolute right to do so, both based upon freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For a government to seek to restrict that right goes against the entire thrust of Western Civilization since the Enlightenment -- and violates provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

H/T American Thinker, Ezra Levant

|| Greg, 09:00 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Poll Workers Wanted -- Nationwide

Now here's something I know a lot about -- the need for more poll workers at election time.

States and counties are putting out "help wanted" signs five months before Election Day in hopes of finding hundreds of thousands of younger, tech-savvy poll workers needed to handle an expected record turnout.

In many cases, workers don't even have to be old enough to vote.

With a one-day workforce of nearly 2 million poll workers wanted by November, election officials are busily recruiting at high schools, colleges and businesses. They're looking for people who can speak foreign languages or help voters with disabilities. They're making training more convenient and splitting long workdays in half.

"The first challenge is just in the sheer numbers," says Dean Logan, acting clerk of Los Angeles County, which needs 25,000 poll workers in the nation's most populous voting jurisdiction.

More than 122 million Americans voted in 2004, up from 105 million in 2000. The number is expected to jump again because of high interest in the White House contest, which drew near-record primary turnout on a percentage basis.

What are the requirements down here in Texas? You have to be a registered voter in the county where you are working the polls. That's it. Contact your county clerk (the top election official in the county) and let them know you are interested -- they will in all likelihood be thrilled to hear from you. Or contact the county GOP or Democrat headquarters -- they know precincts that are chronically short-handed on election day and may offer suggestions of election judges to call. For that matter, if you are in the southeast corner of Harris County, send me an email and I may have a spot for you on election day.

|| Greg, 08:29 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||


I'm with Kevin Drum -- too many down sides for her, and not enough up.

But I have a different question: what makes anyone think that Hillary wants to be Obama's VP? I just don't see it. On a social level, it's hard to picture someone of Hillary's age, experience, and temperament being willing to play second fiddle to a young guy like Obama. On a political level, she has more clout in the Senate than she would as vice president. On a personal level, Obama and Clinton (and their respective teams) just don't seem to like each other much.

Now, maybe she wants the VP slot anyway. Who knows? But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate, have way more freedom of movement, have more career opportunities, and would do more for the party by helping to hold down a second branch of government than she would by being Obama's shadow. Anyone disagree?

I'll take it a step further. Should the Obama campaign implode, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be anywhere around it. After all, serving as the vice presidential candidate will make it her failure, too -- which would be another blot on her record in 2012. Similarly, does she want to be Walter Mondale to Obama's Jimmy Carter?

No, the Senate is where she needs to stay -- unless she decides to run for Governor of New York (or relocate into NYC to run for Mayor in 2010) in order to get some executive experience. And then there is always that speculation about Justice Hillary Clinton...

|| Greg, 08:10 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Rockefeller Report Proves Bush Didn't Lie

Not that it has kept many liberals from claiming differently. But today's Washington Post carries an important piece that points out that time and again George W. Bush and members of Congress were following the guidance of the overwhelming majority of the intelligence community in this country and abroad.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

In other words, no lies. What you have instead is the responsible reliance on intelligence provided to the Executive and Legislative branches. Indeed, in 2002 it was Senator Rockefeller himself who said:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Did Rockefeller lie? Or did he draw the same conclusion as the President did based upon the same data? Anyone who reasonably considers the issue has to accept that it is the latter -- and that the Rockefeller of 2002 is significantly more honest than the Rockefeller of 2008 who implied Bush lied during his press conference about the report.

WaPo's Fred Hiatt then ends with a point that I have made here and in other places any number of times -- that national security decisions must be made based upon the best evidence you have at the time, and that making the right choice relying in good faith upon what later turns out to be questionable data is not "lying us into war". Indeed, it isn't even incompetence -- it is merely tragedy.

|| Greg, 07:59 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (6) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 08, 2008

Hatemonger Aravosis Attacks McCain Over Military Disability Pay

I'd like to say I cannot believe that John Aravosis would ask such a question -- but his lack of shame knows no bounds, nor does the lack of shame of many of his commenters.

First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.

Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?

Aravosis then has the audacity to complain about the so-called "Swiftboating" of John Kerry, in which members of his own unit questioned his accounts of his service AND his fitness for the presidency. Contrast that with the response of the bulk of John McCain's fellow POWs to his candidacy.

And let's not forget that Aravosis still is angry about the fact that Republicans raised questions about Max Cleland's policy positions and votes on defense -- Cleland's injuries supposedly made him untouchable on any defense-related issue, but Aravosis starts his post out by attacking McCain on just such an issue.

So Aravosis now has the gall to raise questions about John McCain?

Why is John McCain getting the disability pay, John? Here's a little reminder for you, you spineless scumbag.

Continue to be enlightened while reading "Hatemonger Aravosis Attacks McCain Over Military Disability Pay" »

|| Greg, 02:56 PM || Permalink || TrackBacks (0) ||

Windfall Profits Tax Deja Vu

It's Jimmy Carter all over again!

Also aboard the windfall-profits bandwagon are presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. "We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging," proclaims Obama. "We've got to go after windfall profits."

* * *

We've been down this road before. Under a windfall tax signed into law by Jimmy Carter, domestic oil production plummeted by an estimated 795 million barrels, while imports of foreign oil surged. Congress had anticipated windfall tax revenues of $393 billion. The actual take: just $80 billion. Like so much else associated with the Carter era, the windfall-profits tax was a counterproductive flop. Do Democrats really believe a new dose of Carternomics is going to make today's economy stronger?

If you want to see a real windfall, take a look at what Big Oil pays in taxes. The 27 largest US energy companies forked over $48 billion in income taxes in 2004, $67 billion in 2005, and more than $90 billion in 2006 - an 87 percent increase. Since 1981, the Tax Foundation calculates, the oil industry has earned a cumulative $1.12 trillion in profits - but it paid a cumulative $1.65 trillion in taxes (add another half-trillion to account for taxes paid to foreign governments).

So let's be clear on this -- the Democrats are out to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, all in the name of getting more gold from the goose. We know what happens when these "solutions" are tried -- because they did it three decades ago, and they failed.

And all because the oil companies make 8.1 cents for every dollar in sales -- a modest rate of profit, by any standard that allows for profit.

Be sure to click on the links in Jeff Jacoby's columns -- they'll show you just how much the oil companies are paying in taxes already.

|| Greg, 01:37 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Anti-Semites For Obama!

If something like this showed up on a conservative or Republican website, each and every one of us would be depicted as goose-stepping Nazis.

But this is hosted on the Obamessiah's official campaign website -- and as of the time of my posting about it, is still there.


This is from the Socialists for Obama community blog that is a part of the official campaign site of Barack Obama.

Socialists for Obama? Yeah -- National Socialists, quite obviously. It seems like every freak and weirdo that didn't gravitate to Ron Paul is now a part of the Obamanation -- drawn by the incredible lightness of Obama and his record of accomplishments.


Maybe this is the reason that Barack is the favored candidate Hamas -- and why he backtracked so quickly from his seemingly pro-Israel speech at AIPAC. After all, he's got to keep the anti-Semites firmly in his corner.

UPDATE: The page is purged from the site -- but don't worry, there is plenty more anti-Semitic crap all about "the Jewish Lobby" that they haven't gotten rid of.

UPDATE 2: LGF spots another one by the same poster that survived the memory hole -- but not for long. Whatever would Obamessiah's webmasters do without conservative blogger to point out all the anti-Semitism that was acceptable the first time the Obama staff saw it?

H/T LGF, Doug Ross, Israel Matzav

|| Greg, 12:15 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (4) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Another "Poor Victimized Illegal immigrant" Story

Now they can't travel freely because their identification might be checked, leading to their deportation.

Pedro Perez has not left Orcas Island in more than four months. Not for weekend trips with his family, not for cheaper groceries on the mainland, not for medical carenot for anything.

He is afraid border agents will stop him and send him back to Mexico, wrecking the quiet life he has built on one of Washington's remote San Juan Islands.

"I had my eyes on this place for my kids to grow up in," Perez, who is married with two young children, said in Spanish. "There's no gangs here, no crime. It's the kids who suffer."

Perezwho does odd jobs, mostly landscapingis one of perhaps dozens of illegal immigrants on the islands who have been essentially trapped since February, when the U.S. Border Patrol began checking IDs on ferry runs from the islands to the mainland.

Boo-frickin'-hoo! You are in this country in violation of the law. You ought to be afraid -- very afraid. Indeed, you ought to be so afraid that you go back home and wait in line to enter this country legally.

But there is some good news.

Others have taken the risk and paid the price: As of late May, 49 people had been arrested by the Border Patrol and face deportation. All but one were Latin American.

It is really very simple -- we don't need to deport all the illegal aliens in this country. We simply need to turn the heat up enough that they leave on their own.

|| Greg, 08:29 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Government Medical Care: We Won't Treat You, But We Will Kill You

Just one more example of the sort of compassionate medical care we can expect from a government-run health care system of the sort the Democrats propose.

An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.

Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan, said the letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.

I think its messed up, Wagner said. She said she was particularly upset because the letter said doctor-assisted suicide would be covered.

To say to someone, well pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, its cruel, she said. I get angry. Who do they think they are?

Got that -- the state is saying that they won't bother trying to cure cancer patients, but they will pay to kill them.

Fortunately, Wagener's physician appealed to the drug company for help, and they are supplying the drug to her for at least a year.

And the state? it will continue to offer cancer patients the option of being killed immediately or dying a slow painful death -- something which is out of step with what the minimum standard of care set by oncologists nationwide.

But remember -- "We're from the government and we're here to help you!"

H/T Blogs for Victory

|| Greg, 08:23 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Texas Governor's Mansion Burns -- UPDATE: ARSON!


No details yet, but what we do know is that the pre-Civil War structure was reported burning this morning around 1:45 AM Central Time and that it apparently has suffered "extraordinary, bordering on catastrophic," damage.

An early morning, four-alarm fire caused extensive damage to the Governor's Mansion today. But no one was in the building, which has been closed several months for renovation.

Gov. Rick Perry and his wife, Anita, are in Stockholm, Sweden, finishing up a weeklong, trade-related trip to Europe.

Damage to the 150-year-old historic structure is "extraordinary, bordering on catastrophic," including a partially collapsed roof, said Perry spokesman Robert Black.

Security officers staying on the grounds in a carriage house discovered the fire, and when the first firefighters arrived about 1:45 a.m., the fire already had spread to the second floor and the ceiling.

About 100 firefighters responded; none were injured, Black said.

The state Fire Marshal's office has begun an investigation, he said.


The building is in the midst of a $10 million renovation project, which raises the question of whether the fire is somehow related to the work in progress.

And the irony of it all.

Ironically, one of the purposes of the renovation project was to install a sprinkler system in the building, which had none. Before work began, the mansion had a fire alarm system on the first floor but none on the second floor, where the governor and his family lived.

UPDATE: Eyewitness report from YouTube.

Also, let me respond to a private email about this sad event: No, I don't think that delegates to the Texas Democrat Convention in Austin this weekend burned the Governor's Mansion -- even though I agree with the assessment that they are unlikely to have a member of their party win that office anytime in the next decade.

UPDATE 2: Now they say it is arson. Maybe that emailer was on to something after all.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, A NEWT ONE- NATIONAL EMERGENCY, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 07:50 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Watcher's Council Results

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are Memorial Day by Done With Mirrors, and John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account by US News and World Report.

Here's where you can find the full results of the vote:

VotesCouncil link
2  2/3Memorial Day
Done With Mirrors
2  1/3The Costs of Withdrawing from Iraq
The Glittering Eye
1  2/3The Media Furor Over McClellan's Book Leads to Whoppers
The Colossus of Rhodey
1  1/3Slouching Towards Statism
Cheat Seeking Missiles
1  1/3Choice and Honor
The Razor
1Much Lizardly Ado About... A Little Something
Wolf Howling
2/3Worst. President. Ever?
2/3Brave? Yes. Unique? No.
Bookworm Room
1/3Leveraging -- Reloaded
Soccer Dad

VotesNon-council link
2  2/3John McCain, Prisoner of War: A First-Person Account
US News and World Report
1  2/3Why Spain Lectures Other Countries on Immigration
The Brussels Journal
1  1/3Iraqi Army Interdicting Iranian Operations in the South
The Long War Journal
1  1/3Neocon Nation: Neoconservatism, c. 1776
World Affairs Journal
1The Gaza 'Siege' Is Not an Answer To Terror
Israel Matzav
1Obamanomics 101
Big Lizards
2/3Reagan Democrats
Power and Control
2/3Obama, Manliness, and the Notion of Black Privilege
Villainous Company
2/3Conservatives and "Liberal Guilt"
The Atlantic
1/3Where Is John McCain?
Right Wing Nut House
1/3Shut Up and Do What Andy Says
Stop the ACLU
1/3Hillary, the VP Ppot, and That Bucket of Warm Whatever

|| Greg, 05:25 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 07, 2008

Mugabe Seeks To Strong-Arm His Way To Victory

And if that means imprisoning his opponent and banning all election activity by the opposition party, that is how it has to be. Oh, and he is requiring all food distribution to go through government programs -- where he can have government employees sing his praises to the poor and deny assistance to opposition supporters.

With only three weeks to go before Zimbabwes presidential runoff, the police briefly detained the oppositions standard-bearer, Morgan Tsvangirai, on Friday for the second time this week and directed his party to cancel political rallies, effectively preventing him from addressing voters.

At the same time, the Zimbabwean governments requirement that all nongovernmental organizations suspend their aid operations, which grew out of the authorities allegations that some were supporting the opposition, was condemned Friday by officials in the United States and Europe, as well as the United Nations.

Relief agencies said the order, issued this week, would deprive millions of desperately poor Zimbabweans of food aid and other basic assistance. Unicef, for example, depends on 25 nongovernmental organizations to provide education, health care and food to 185,000 orphans in Zimbabwe.

Its a horrible situation, said James Elder, Unicefs spokesman in Zimbabwe. The children and their families continue to find stoic means of surviving, but this is a profoundly disturbing blow to them. We cant reach these children today.

I don't know which disturbs me more -- this attempt to starve those who might vote for the opposition, or the campaign of outright murder that has gone on since the first round of the election that Mugabe's thugs tampered with to give him a second shot at winning.

|| Greg, 06:34 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Antitrust Case To Bust Intel?

If AMD has its way, it just might.

A.M.D. has accused Intel of systematically giving its customers the worlds leading personal computer makers large discounts, at times below Intels own manufacturing costs, in exchange for commitments not to do business with competitors. Intel has responded that its discounts were legitimate incentives, not offered below cost, and benefiting customers who can buy computers at lower prices.

Intel has also maintained that A.M.D. tried to make up in the courts for its failures in the marketplace.

While Intel has denied the allegations, A.M.D. executives are hoping the case will present an easy opportunity for the next administration to take a noticeably more aggressive approach to competition issues. Technically independent of the White House, the trade commission is led by appointees of the president.

The charges, if true, would be indicative of a major violation of antitrust law. The possible result? Think about what was done to Ma Bell in the 198os..

|| Greg, 06:29 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 06, 2008

Remembering The Heroes

D-Day -- June 6, 1944
A general speaks to his troops before the greatest battle of the war.

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.

In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Supreme Commander
Allied Expeditionary Force

A President informs a nation -- and offers a prayer for the troops in the field.

O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment -- let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt
President of the United States

And forty years later, another president paid tribute to those who fought and died -- and to those who fought and lived as well. It remains the most beautiful of spoken tributes to the heroes of Operation Overlord.

Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

Ronald Wilson Reagan
President of the United States

Today, sixty-four years later, our troops are again in the field in another Great Crusade against another unholy enemy, an enemy no less opposed to the freedom that marks our nation and our civilization out from theirs than were the forces of totalitarianism which bathed Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific in blood. American troops again come not as conquerors, but seekers of liberty for the oppressed and security for a free world. May they be inspired by the example of the men who braved the fire in landing craft as they stormed the beaches of Normandy, and by those who parachuted behind enemy lines. And may the American people recover that sense of purpose that led our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents on the home front to support the efforts of those troops with prayer and sacrifice.

Other Remembrances At Done With Mirrors, Flopping Aces, Dave in Texas, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, A NEWT ONE- NATIONAL EMERGENCY, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 11:59 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Why The Unemployment Jump?

Could it be due to government actions that made hiring workers more expensive?

Especially since the number of jobs lost is relatively modest -- too modest to account for the jump in unemployment. It has to be because of the influx of new workers that happens in late spring and early summer each year, as teens and college students seek jobs.

Why have these new job seekers found it difficult to get jobs? One reason is that Congress made jobs costlier just in time for this economic slowdown. Congress raised the minimum wage last year by seventy cents an hour, from $5.15 to $5.85. It will rise again in July to $6.55 an hour, and next year will hit $7.25 per hour. That makes entry-level labor as much as 27% more expensive this summer, when consumers have already slowed down their spending. The natural loss of work from the slowdown amplifies the effect of the minimum-wage increase, because businesses now cannot afford to raise prices to maintain their entry-level positions.

When the minimum wage increase was under debate last year, many of us warned that it would have precisely this effect. Now we see it unfolding before our eyes. Will the Democrats acknowledge the error and take the blame for hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to their economic meddling or will they try to shift the blame to the Bush administration for no good reason at all? (via Power Line)

I know I pointed this out in mid-February of last year.

Think about it -- increasing wages by 27%. Why wouldn't we have a decrease in low-wage entry-level jobs as a result? And how can anyone call the increase in unemployment that resulted an unforefeen consequence of the wage increase.

But don't worry -- the additional wage increases coming next summer is sure to make the situation much better. Won't it?

UPDATE: A great real-world example of the impact of the minimum wage increase on a real business over at Patterico's Pontifications-- one operated by the blogger's parents.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, A NEWT ONE- NATIONAL EMERGENCY, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, , and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 12:28 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Another Olbermann Tax Cut For The Wealthy

Looks like there is a FIFTH tax warrant out against Emperor Keithius Smallpenius of the Olbermann Broadcast Empire.


Olbermann Watch has confirmed that the New York State Department of Labor filed an Industrial Commission Warrant against Olbermann Broadcasting Empire on April 1, 2008 for $1,039.15 with the New York County Clerk's office.

An Industrial Commission warrant is a remedy available to the Labor Department after all administrative procedures have been exhausted - the employer had been given notice of the claim, had an opportunity to contest it, and the time for all appeals has lapsed. It creates a lien on all property of the corporation within the county and gives the county sheriff the right to execute the warrant by, among other things, attaching and selling the employer's property within the county. There are various procedures that the sheriff has to go through before selling the property.

And if you don't like the source on that story, we can always give you the AP's confirmation of the initial report.

Here's my original post on the subject.

|| Greg, 08:20 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama Denies Michelle "Whitey" Tape

So now he is on the record saying that his wife never said such a thing.

Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday batted down rumors circulating on the Internet and mentioned on some cable news shows of the existence of a video of his wife using a derogatory term for white people, and criticized a reporter for asking him about the rumor, which has not a shred of evidence to support it.

We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it, Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

Frankly, my hope is people dont play this game, Obama said. It is a destructive aspect of our politics. Simply because something appears in an e-mail, that should lend it no more credence than if you heard it on the corner. Presumably the job of the press is to not to go around and spread scurrilous rumors like this until there is actually anything, an iota, of substance or evidence that would substantiate it.

The problem is that this tape has been rumored for so long, with folks even offering quotes and paraphrases from it, that one has to wonder if it is true. After all, this isn't JUST Valerie Plame's ex-boyfriend, Larry Johnson, offering up suggestions that the tape exists. It has been "in the air" for several weeks now, from a variety of sources.

But I wonder how things will play out if there actually is such a tape. Will we be getting a statement that "This isn't the Michelle Obama I know and have been married to for sixteen years." as he throws her under the bus?


|| Greg, 07:56 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

That's Mighty Big Of Her

Some news headlines sound so dumb.

Clinton Says Running Mate Choice Is Obamas

Well -- DUH!

Unless, of course, you want to launch a floor fight against Obama's selection -- or Obama shows a decided lack of leadership and decides to let the convention choose his VP for him, something that hasn't happened in over half a century.

|| Greg, 07:40 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Obama Is Good News For McCain

Th NY Times offers this explanation of how the newly anointed Democrat nominee is weaker against John McCain than his defeated rival is.

In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. Kerrys states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.

In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clintons column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.

In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

In other words, Democrats, we of the GOP would like to thank you for putting ideological purity ahead of electability in the selection of your party's candidate. So while a lot of us may not have been initially enthused by the selection of one of a nominee who is a moderate conservative rather than a movement conservative, we will be quite happy to do the thing that political parties are created to do -- win elections so as to set policy and control the operation of government.

|| Greg, 07:36 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Another Obama Flip-Flop

Because after all, when confronted with a conflict between America's staunchest ally and the terrorist horde they are daily fighting for survival, it wouldn't do to anger the terrorists by supporting the ally.

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

* * *

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

Of course, Obama's new position isn't any worse that that of the last two administrations. But the fact that in a matter of days he is backtracking from what he said in a major policy speech because the jumped-up terrorists of the West bank and Gaza is one more sign of his foreign policy weakness.

But then again, America should never have deviated from the most correct position on the Holy Land -- Jerusalem should always be one city, undivided, in the hands of Israel, and the Palestinians have no claim upon any state not currently named Jordan.

|| Greg, 07:24 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 05, 2008

An Assassination Remembered

Forty years ago today, triumph was cut short by a bullet.

Bobby Kennedy, perhaps the most accomplished and competent of the Kennedy brothers, was laid down by a man who today can only be described as a Palestinian terrorist.

Let us not forget the day.

|| Greg, 11:04 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Youngest WWII Medal Of Honor Recipient Dies

I've been remiss in not reporting on recent events honoring recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. But this little story today caught my eye, and I wish to reach back over sixty years to share the heroism of a Marine who at age 17 years and 6 days engaged in actions deemed so heroic as to merit the nations highest military award.

JACKSON, Miss. Jack Lucas, who at 14 lied his way into military service during World War II and became the youngest Marine to receive the Medal of Honor, died Thursday in a Hattiesburg, Miss., hospital. He was 80.

Ponda Lee at Moore Funeral Service said the funeral home was notified that Lucas had died during the pre-dawn hours at Forrest General Hospital. He had been battling cancer. Lee said funeral arrangements were incomplete.

Lucas was just six days past his 17th birthday in February 1945 when his heroism at Iwo Jima earned him the nation's highest military honor.

Let me share with you the citation.


Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, 1st Battalion, 26th Marines, 5th Marine Division.

Place and date: Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 20 February 1945.

Entered service at: Norfolk, Va.

Born: 14 February 1928, Plymouth, N.C.

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with the 1st Battalion, 26th Marines, 5th Marine Division, during action against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 20 February 1945. While creeping through a treacherous, twisting ravine which ran in close proximity to a fluid and uncertain frontline on D-plus-1 day, Pfc. Lucas and 3 other men were suddenly ambushed by a hostile patrol which savagely attacked with rifle fire and grenades. Quick to act when the lives of the small group were endangered by 2 grenades which landed directly in front of them, Pfc. Lucas unhesitatingly hurled himself over his comrades upon 1 grenade and pulled the other under him, absorbing the whole blasting forces of the explosions in his own body in order to shield his companions from the concussion and murderous flying fragments. By his inspiring action and valiant spirit of self-sacrifice, he not only protected his comrades from certain injury or possible death but also enabled them to rout the Japanese patrol and continue the advance. His exceptionally courageous initiative and loyalty reflect the highest credit upon Pfc. Lucas and the U.S. Naval Service.

May God welcome this hero home into the company of his comrades.

|| Greg, 11:00 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Why Ted Kennedy Should Thank God We Don't Have Universal Health Care

Simply put -- he'd probably be dead before he would have ever gotten treatment for his brain tumor if required to rely on a government-run universal health care scheme.

Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.

Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.

Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.

Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.

That's the UK.

Things aren't any better in Canada.

Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.

And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.

Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.

His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.

Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.

But then again, maybe Ted Kennedy would have gotten the best treatment -- after all, the bootlegger's son has lot's of cash, so he would be able to pay for whatever he needed (if the government didn't make it illegal to go outside the system, like Hillary Clinton proposed 15 years ago). That would mean he would get the sort of medical care that average Americans would not be able to get under the sort of health care scheme he and his party are pushing -- medical care that is standard today in the United States.

And the rest of us would simply have to die for the collective good. Sounds like the old Soviet Union to me -- the elite get the best care, and the people suffer.

Don Surber also comments.

|| Greg, 07:36 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (2) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Joradan Seeks World Censorship Powers

At least as regards perceived slights against the false prophet Muhammad.


Eleven Danes have been summoned to appear before the Jordanian pubic prosecutor to answer charges of blasphemy and threatening the national peace. They include the cartoonist who drew one of the Mohammed cartoons and editors from 10 of the 17 newspapers that reprinted them.

The group behind the announcement is called The Prophet Unites Us, a union of Jordanian media organisations, organisations and private individuals.

'The public prosecutor decided to summon the Danes for a series of criminal offences. Now the Danes have to meet in Jordan,' said Zakaria al-Sheikh, the group's general secretary, to Politiken newspaper.

He explained that the public prosecutor will ask the Danish embassy for help in contacting Danish officials to arrange the meeting of the editors.

Osama al-Bettar, the group's lawyer, said that if the Danes do not appear, the next step will be to inform Interpol and seek their arrest.

The public prosecutor confirmed to Politiken that the editors have been summoned.

The Danish government has made it clear that the actions of the eleven is not criminal in Denmark, and that they will not be deported to the realm of the Islamo-censors as a result.

Somebody needs to inform King Abdullah of Jordan that there is no basis for prosecution for printing the cartoons because doing so is merely the exercise of fundamental human rights recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also, I have repeatedly published the cartoons on my site and expressed my contemptuous opinion of the 43rd generation ancestor of King Abdullah, the Christ-blaspheming false prophet Muhammad. I therefore demand an indictment by the Jordanian government!


H/T Jawa Report, Edge of Reason

|| Greg, 07:19 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Dead Folks Voting

I know that liberals insist it doesn't happen -- but it does.

Jane Drury voted last year in an election in Stonington, Conn. The only problem is, she died eight years ago.

Her daughter Jane Gumpel thought someone must have goofed.

I was surprised because this is not possible, she said.

But it did happen. The town clerks record clearly shows Drurys vote, marked by a horizontal line poll workers put next to her name. And it turns out, Drury isnt the only voter to apparently cast a ballot from the grave.

The issue of dead voters showing up on ballot records continues to be a problem for election administrators across the country.

Journalism professor Marcel Dufresne, at the University of Connecticut, led a class investigation into dead voters and said his group of 11 students discovered 8,558 deceased people who were still registered on Connecticuts voter rolls. They discovered more than 300 of them appeared somehow to have cast ballots after they died.

We have one person who appeared to have voted 17 times since he died, Dufresne said.

No I realize that Necro-Americans are a key Democrat constituency, but I believe it is important that they be disenfranchised immediately. Pruge them from the voter rolls. Require that voters show identification before voting. Drive a stake through the heart of the undead when they arrive to vote. Only the living should be permitted to vote.

MORE AT Don Surber

|| Greg, 06:34 AM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Another Corruptocrat For Obama

Even as Barack Obama's fundraising BFF Tony Rezko was convicted of corrupting Illinois government officials and Obama found it necessary to throw him under the bus using the same argument he did with Jeremiah Wright, the apparent Democrat nominee has picked up another member of the Caucus of Corruption as a supporter.

On a day that Sen. Barack Obama moved closer to clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, embattled Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, Tuesday became the first of Louisiana's four Democratic congressional members to back his candidacy.

You remember William Jefferson, don't you? The guy with $90K in his freezer, on tape taking bribe money from FBI informants? The guy who diverted Katrina evacuation resources to remove evidence from his home after the storm. Yeah, that corrupt Democrat who Peklosi wanted to give a key seat on a committee dealing with national security.

Well, now he is the first Louisiana congressman to endorse Obama. What a coup!

I wonder, can he bring along his newly indicted family members as Obama supporters, too? Seems to me that Barack Obama's first day in office will involve signing a lot of pardons for friends and supporters.

|| Greg, 06:29 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (1) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

June 04, 2008

Barack BFF Found Guilty

Racists. Terrorists. Crooked businessmen. Those are the folks that Barack Obama counts among his friends. This one will be looking for a pardon if Obama wins the election.


Tony Rezko the high-flying developer and fast-food magnate who was once a major campaign fund-raiser for Gov. Blagojevich and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama and one of the governors closest advisers is now a convicted felon.

A federal jury in Chicago convicted Rezko this afternoon on 16 of 24 charges he faced in a political corruption trial that cast a harsh light on the Blagojevich administration.


Now remember -- this is the one who made a sweetheart deal with the Obamas to enable them to buy a property adjoining their residence that they otherwise couldn't have afforded. This is a guy who was a big fundraiser for Obama until he got indicted. I guess the day after he becomes Mr. Inevitable, Barack Obama has to now explain away a fishy relationship with a convicted felon. This should be fun.

|| Greg, 03:24 PM || Permalink || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Assassination Double Standard

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers.

In New York today, an art exhibit was shut down.


This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama, in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.

By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape. The gallery is across the street from the southern entrance to The New York Times building.

The police officers declined to answer any questions, and at first would not permit reporters to speak with Mr. Arboleda, who was wearing a black T-shirt and making cellphone calls from inside the makeshift gallery.

Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: Its art. Its not supposed to be harmful. Its about character assassination about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media. He added, Its about the media.

Mr. Arboleda said the exhibition was to open on Thursday and run all day.

Now let's say it -- the title of the exhibit was overly provocative. There was, however, no need to shut the exhibit down or require the promotional sign to be covered.

Why not? How about because of this from 2006.

The Republican Party in Texas has said it is "shocking" and "disturbing" that a TV drama is to depict the assassination of US President Bush.

Death of a President uses archive footage, actors and computer effects to portray the president being shot dead.

UK broadcaster Channel 4, who made the mock documentary, said it explored the effects of the War on Terror on the US.

But Gretchen Essell, a spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Texas, called for it not to be screened.

"I cannot support a video that would dramatise the assassination of our president, real or imagined," she told the Press Association news agency.

"The greater reality is that terrorism still exists in our world. It is obvious that the war on terror is not over.

"I find this shocking, I find it disturbing. I don't know if there are many people in America who would want to watch something like that."

How disturbing are the images? I'll let you decide, with this YouTube clip that you can view right now.

An American company will be releasing the film in this country on January 20, 2009. I somehow doubt we will see any effort by the Secret Service or local law enforcement to prevent the release of the film, the showing of the film in a theater, or any of the film's advertising. After all, you've just seen the depiction of the murder of a sitting president hosted on YouTube!

Not to mention threats by Air America Radio.

Why are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton treated any different, especially when it is clear that the exhibit in question is a critique of the media coverage of the just-concluded race for the Democrat presidential nomination? Could it be that Assassination Chic is only cool if the target is a Republican?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Maggie's Notebook, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pet's Garden Blog, The American Nationalist News Service, third world county, Faultline USA, McCain Blogs, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D'ITALIA, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

|| Greg, 12:20 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (116) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

West Virginia Inbreeding?

Yeah, Dick Cheney made a stupid joke on the subject. But Slate asks the question of how West Virginia got its reputation for such things -- and then tries to answer it.

Exaggeration-prone outsiders. In the 1880s and 1890s, writers such as Mary Noailles Murfree and John Fox Jr. traveled across Appalachia, looking for "local color," and overstated the degree to which mountain populations lived in isolation. During the same time period, missionaries reported pervasive ignorance and poverty, with large families living together in ramshackle cabins. The notion of widespread inbreeding was at least in part the result of crude assumptions about how these isolated forest people might have been perpetuating their communities.

* * *

Stereotypes about West Virginian breeding practices have long been linked to the state's poverty. When Eleanor Roosevelt visited West Virginia mining towns in the 1930s, national newspapers ran pictures of rundown shacks and barefoot kids in rags, which left a lasting impression of the state as a backwater. West Virginians became the prototypical "hillbillies," and incest served as a crude "scientific" explanation for their downtrodden social condition.

Personally, I have a different explanation for that stereotype.


|| Greg, 09:54 AM || Permalink