Octaviano Juarez-Corro

Octaviano Juarez-Corro

This is really bad PR for the illegal immigration movement.


According to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The search has gone national for a man suspected of shooting five people -- killing two of them -- in South Shore Park on Memorial Day, Milwaukee police said.

Octaviano Juarez-Corro, 33, is suspected of killing a man, 31, and boy, 17, and injuring three others -- all people police say he knew. Juarez-Corro was in the U.S. illegally and has ties to Mexico, prompting Milwaukee detectives to notify border officers to watch for him. A temporary warrant has been issued and sent out to all law enforcement in the U.S.

I guess not all illegal immigrants come to this country to work hard and be productive citizens.



I think that sign should read, "Some of us are not criminals."

Like all illegals, Juarez-Corro has no respect for the immigration laws of the United States.

Juarez-Corro also showed that he has no respect for life.

His "path to citizenship" will lead to prison.

Making Haditha My Lai

The Washington Post's editorial, "What Happened in Haditha," is another example of a trial by media and an agenda-driven construction of a reality.

Witness the delight that the Left takes in the Haditha story.

PRESIDENT BUSH said last week that "the biggest mistake" the United States had made in Iraq was the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, adding, "We've been paying for that for a long period of time." Now another case of American misconduct may add greatly to that cost. The day after Mr. Bush spoke, The Post and other newspapers reported that some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged with murder, among other offenses, for the slaying of up to 24 Iraqis, including women and small children, in the town of Haditha in November. Other Marines may be culpable in trying to cover up the crime.

Accounts provided to The Post and other news organizations -- including Time magazine, which first reported on the incident in March -- describe a horrific and shameful episode. After a roadside bomb exploded near a Marine convoy, killing a corporal, a number of members of a Marine company allegedly went on a rampage, entering houses and methodically gunning down the families they found inside.

The "allegedly" gets lost in the shuffle.

If Marines killed innocents "in cold blood," as John Murtha loves to put it, they must be tried and held accountable for the atrocities they committed.

Gunning down families is horrific. No justification can be made for it, just as no justification can be made for the 9/11 attacks or other acts of terrorism.

It is worth noting that the individuals condemning the Marines are likely the same ones who called for Americans to understand why we're so hated by the Arab World and others. What is it that we did to bring the 9/11 attacks on ourselves?

Look at the flip side.

Has anyone told the Iraqis to make an effort to understand the allegedly guilty Marines, like Americans were told after 9/11 to examine why we deserved to be attacked? What is it that those Iraqi men, women, and children did to bring the killings on themselves? Why do the Marines hate them so much?

That's pretty twisted, isn't it?

I wouldn't expect that from the Iraqis. There's nothing to understand. There's no excuse for intentionally slaughtering innocents, ever. Accordingly, there was no excuse for murdering 3000 men, women, and children on September 11, 2001. There's nothing to understand about the events of that horrible day other than that the perpetrators were killers.

...Though we don't yet know the details of the Marine investigation, there is no way to mitigate or excuse such despicable acts if they occurred, and hardly any way to alleviate the tremendous damage that will be done to U.S. honor in Iraq and around the world. The only remediation can come through a thorough investigation, the full disclosure of all misconduct and accountability for all those responsible. In that respect, the Marines began poorly: Serious investigation of the events in Haditha began only after Time shared its findings with the Pentagon. Reports that some senior officers may have been following the events in Haditha or were aware that an unusual number of civilians had been killed raise troubling questions about whether crimes were deliberately overlooked.

"WE DON'T YET KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE MARINE INVESTIGATION."

That's important to keep in mind. There must be full disclosure and punishment for any wrongdoing by all parties involved.

That said, it's wrong for opportunists to make political hay out of Haditha and exploit the matter to advance an agenda. That endangers our troops, and undermines their mission.

The alleged crimes of a few cannot be allowed to taint those serving with bravery and honor.

Let the investigation play out. The details will be revealed when it's completed.

If the allegations are true, that some Marines killed indiscriminately and others covered up for them, then that is a reflection on those individuals only -- not the Marines, not the mission, not the United States.

I have a real problem with so many shameless politicians and the Old Media taking pleasure in the possibility that Marines murdered Iraqi civilians, and their implications that such behavior is the norm.

They don't hesitate to disparage our troops, in order to move their anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war agenda forward.

______________________________

Do you want propaganda or do you want to know the truth?

If you've already determined the guilt of the Marines, you'll enjoy this account from Aljazeera.

John Murtha is depicted as a hero, and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is praised for its efforts to oppose the "U.S. 'government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.'"

The Aljazeera report includes this press release from UFPJ, "Haditha Massacre is Iraq's My Lai."

19 May 2006, New York, New York--Appearing on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) confirmed that, in an incident occurring in Haditha, Iraq, last November, Marines killed 23 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, "in cold blood" as revenge for the death of a Marine from an IED. Asked by Matthews, whether by "in cold blood" he meant that the killings were like those in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, Murtha said they were. Military sources consulted by other media outlets have confirmed those claims.

At a press conference on Thursday, May 18, Congressperson John Murtha (D-OH) said, "It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

"The massacre of up to 500 Vietnamese civilians in the village of My Lai was the tip of an iceberg of atrocities," said Rahul Mahajan, a United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) spokesperson. "The same is true of the Haditha massacre. Although it is the largest documented example of the deliberate mass murder of civilians (there are smaller ones), it joins a series of actions that, while short of this degree of cold-blooded brutality, involve neglect and indifference so pervasive and deep that it amounts to depraved indifference to Iraqi life."

Reports of the massacre include shooting people and leaving them to bleed to death on house raids, checkpoint killings, and indiscriminate return fire in crowded civilian neighborhoods.

Larger-scale offensives like the two assaults on Fallujah in 2004 and, to a lesser extent, operations in Tall Afar and other northern cities last summer and fall also caused massive civilian fatalities. In the April 2004 assault on Fallujah, the lesser of the two, it is estimated that 1000 people were killed, at least 600 of whom were civilians.

The Marines involved in the massacre originally tried to cover it up, claiming that the unarmed men they killed were insurgents and that the women and children killed were "collateral damage." Those claims were only challenged because they were contradicted by video evidence (of the corpses in the morgue). This raises serious questions about how often incidents like this occur and are successfully covered up.

According to British officers serving in Iraq, most recently Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster in an article in Military Review, U.S. troops show a widespread pattern of institutionalized racism toward Iraqis. This is part of the explanation of the atrocity. On top of that, the Iraq occupation, like the Vietnam War, repeatedly leads to "atrocity-producing situations," where crimes like the Haditha or My Lai massacres become almost inevitable. Marines who are guilty of murder should be severely punished, but the policy-makers should not be let off the hook. As long as the occupation continues, crimes like the Haditha massacre will as well.

UFPJ claims that our troops "show a widespread pattern of institutionalized racism toward Iraqis."

This is not a condemnation of ALLEGED atrocities committed by a few. This is an assault on all of our troops.

That's wrong.

That's aiding and abetting the enemy.

Let's Talk about Solutions

What's a mayor to do when there are 28 shootings in his city over the Memorial Day weekend and the national media picks up on it?

He goes to the local media to get the word out that it's not his fault.

Mayor Tom Barrett was interviewed live by Mike Gousha on TMJ4's 10 p.m. newscast to talk solutions. Actually, it was more about political damage control.

The mayor's comments were light on solutions and heavy on excuses.

His message: "I need help from the community."

In other words, Barrett won't let the buck stop with him.

It goes without saying that stopping violence requires the cooperation of the community. Of course, Barrett can't single-handedly solve the city's problems.

All citizens need to take responsibility for their actions, but Barrett's plea for help seems more like the cry of a drowning man than the rallying cry of a leader.


He definitely went on defense, defending his record, claiming to have worked to curb gun violence and crime prior to the deadly weekend.

Barrett said he would be putting more into overtime for officers on Friday and Saturday nights, and he called for more sheriff patrols in the parks particularly on holiday weekends.

He cited the heat as a factor in the city's problems. (I guess there's reason to thank God that summer in Wisconsin is as short as it is.)

Barrett noted how much he has been doing to keep violence under control in the city.

For example, there's his meeting tomorrow on the Safe Summer Initiative, an effort directed at kids.

He also said, "I've contacted ministers prior to this incident this weekend to get them involved.

"Today I had a conversation with a local gun dealer to see what he can do to be helpful to make sure that these guns don't end up in the hands of criminals.

It's not just one single thing that we're going to do, but we're going to fight it on every single front because, quite honestly, I'm outraged."

Quite honestly, I think this is just the same old, same old.

The plan is to do more of the same. Of course, "the same" isn't working.

What good will having a conversation with a local gun dealer accomplish?

When asked about Milwaukee's image, Barrett insisted, "The vast majority of neighborhoods in the city of Milwaukee are safe. They are very safe neighborhoods. Our homicide rate is actually lower than last year. We are five below where we were last year."

Barrett failed to mention the decrease is probably due to the fact that last year's homicide rate was way up.

He said, "We have to get through to people that you don't solve problems with guns."

And how is that going to happen? Wishful thinking?

Barrett concluded, "There are too many guns, in particular illegal guns, on the street. I need every person in this community to help me on this. This is not something the mayor can do alone, the media can do alone. We need a commitment from this community. ...I need this community to come together on this issue."

That's incredibly vague.

What does he expect "every person" to do?

How, specifically, is "every person" supposed to help him?

Who knows?

Barrett was smart to address the issue quickly, but he had little of substance to offer.

Empty rhetoric is not a solution.

Like Barrett, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board also addressed the violent weekend, with similar shallowness.

In "Heading off a bad summer," the board shifted blame for the violence from the perpetrators to the "powerful gun lobby."

The board prefers to demonize law-abiding gun owners rather than confront the difficult truth that people want to kill each other and that they succeed in doing so. The board's mindset enables responsibility for gun violence to be transferred from the criminal to an inanimate object.

The board acknowledges that "the community must address the issue of males in their teens and 20s, when they are most likely to be crime-prone or crime's victims."

The board doesn't say how to address this issue, just that it needs to be addressed.

Then comes the usual response from the Left whenever gun violence becomes an issue.

But the shootings also demonstrate a well-known truth with which this community has yet to adequately grapple - the proliferation of guns. Yes, it can more forcefully hold accountable - in court - those who use guns, but government can also do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

One way to keep idle young hands away from guns and out of mischief is to keep them busy with work. Unfortunately, jobs are in short supply, so businesses must search their souls and their budgets to find a way to hire young people, particularly from the inner city. (Suburban young people, typically with more connections than their inner city peers, have an easier time finding jobs as a rule.)

To avoid a violent summer, community leaders - ministers, block leaders, agency heads - must redouble their efforts to engage young people in worthwhile activities, such as sports, clubs and community service. And parents must guide their children onto the right path.

That's it! The lack of worthwhile activities for young people leads to violence.

What a load!

Millions of dollars have been spent on programs and facilities, yet the violence doesn't ebb.

The board's call for parents to "guide their children onto the right path" is crazy.

It's so simple. Parents should take care of their children. The problem with that obvious strategy is that they don't. THEY AREN'T THERE.

It's a mistake for the board to excuse the violent behavior of inner city youth because they have less connections than their suburban counterparts.

Well-connected or not, being unemployed doesn't cause one to shoot others.

...Police must also strictly enforce gun laws, jailing people who illegally possess firearms.

Unfortunately, the powerful gun lobby ties the hands of cops by blocking laws to keep guns away from outlaws. Among these are measures to limit bulk purchases of guns and to impose background checks on every gun purchase. Foes of gun violence in Milwaukee must push such measures.

An individual who is so morally bankrupt that he or she intentionally shoots another human being is not going to be stopped by laws.

Short of a complete ban on all firearms in the U.S., people who want to kill will manage to get their hands on a gun.

Remember, these are murderers. They don't respect life. Why would they respect the law?

To believe otherwise is incredibly naïve.

The Fourth Dixie Chick

Hulk Hogan wannabe

Al Gore has been hopping around the globe promoting his global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

He's also been attacking his nemesis, George W. Bush.

At the Hay Festival in Wales, Gore seemed to be auditioning to be the fourth Dixie Chick.

He gave an interview to The Guardian that makes Natalie Maines seem like a Bush supporter.

The Dixie Chicks have been speaking out against Bush again to drum up sales for their latest album. TIME obliged by putting them on the cover last week.

Similar to the Chicks' style of promotion, Gore is slamming Bush while whoring for his new movie.

Al Gore has made his sharpest attack yet on the George Bush presidency, describing the current US administration as "a renegade band of rightwing extremists".

In an interview with the Guardian today, the former vice-president calls himself a "recovering politician", but launches into the political fray more explicitly than he has previously done during his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming.

Taking a cue from ABC producer John Green and his infamous anti-Bush rant:

"Al Gore makes me sick. If he uses the 'recovering politican' line one more time, I'm going to puke."

Everywhere he goes, he uses that same "recovering politician" laugh line, and the media repeat it constantly.

Denying that his politics have shifted to the left since he lost the court battle for the 2000 election, Mr Gore says: "If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right."

I believe that Gore's politics haven't shifted to the left. I think he just feels freer to express himself.

He's always been a lunatic.

Mr Gore, who appeared at the Guardian Hay literary festival over the bank holiday weekend, is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary and book detailing the climate change crisis that he warns "could literally end civilisation".

Gore's "sky is falling" approach makes him appear to be a tad off balance, which is completely in balance with being a flaming lib.

The new levels of attention he is receiving have led some Democrats to call on him to run again for president, while others have responded with anger that Mr Gore did not show the same level of passion in the 2000 campaign.

He has since acknowledged that he followed too closely the advice of his consultants during that campaign, and - before he started to scoff at the idea of running again - swore that if he ever did so, he would speak his mind.

In my dreams, Gore would run and speak his mind. Nothing could be better for the conservative movement.

I do think it's weird that he admits that he was too spineless to follow his own beliefs when he ran for president. He acknowledges that he allowed his handlers to package him like a pop idol -- the Jessica Simpson of presidential politics.

Are Americans to believe that Gore has developed a backbone since 2000?

Once an invertebrate, always an invertebrate.

In the years since, he has been a steady critic of specific Bush administration policies. He opposed the war on Iraq at a time when most prominent Democrats were supporting it, and more recently spoke out against what he called "a gross and excessive power grab" by the administration over phone tapping.

Gore could oppose the war at the time because he wasn't trying to get elected like the pretend tough on terror Dems.

Moreover, his power grab comments are no different than a typical Russ Feingold "King George" tirade.

...In the US, Mr Gore's environmental campaign has sparked a backlash from some on the right who accuse him of scaremongering. A series of television advertisements, launched by a thinktank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue that carbon dioxide emissions are a sign of American productivity and progress.

I don't accuse him of scaremongering. I accuse him of being a missionary of bad science.

...At the weekend, Time magazine reported that he was telling key fundraisers they should feel free to sign on with other potential candidates. The magazine quoted unnamed Democratic sources as saying that the former vice-president had also been asking the fundraisers to "tell everybody I'm not running".

...It is significant, however, that Mr Gore refuses to go beyond saying that he has no "plans" for such a campaign. "I haven't made a Shermanesque statement because it just seems odd to do so," he has said - a reference to the famous announcement by the civil war general William Sherman, who unequivocally refused to stand in the election of 1884. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve," General Sherman said.

Oh.

When Gore said "Shermanesque," I thought he was referring to Sherman of Peabody's Improbable History fame.

Gore is wallowing in all the attention he's been getting like a pig wallows in newly formed mud from a melting glacier in Argentina.

I think he loves playing these games. Frank Rich of The New York Times is among Gore's liberal elite enablers, devoting his most recent Sunday column to the dream of a Gore candidacy.

I, for one, sincerely wish Gore would run in 2008.

Gore and Kerry.

Yeah, that's the ticket, with promises of cabinet positions for the Dixie Chicks.

Alfonzo Glover

Milwaukee DA E. Michael McCann did something this morning that he rarely does.

He actually charged someone. A year after the incident, he charged a cop with murder.



Alfonzo Glover

This morning:

A Milwaukee police officer who fatally shot 25-year-old Wilbert Javier Prado in March 2005 was charged this morning with first-degree intentional homicide and six counts of perjury for lying to the inquest jury that examined the case.

Alfonzo Glover, 35, was off duty when he fired at Prado near S. 9th St. and W. Ohio Ave.

Prado, who was unarmed and intoxicated, was shot eight times, mostly from behind. The inquest jury in May 2005 found the shooting justified, but the verdict is only advisory.

"I do not expect it will be easy. It will be a difficult and challenging case," District Attorney E. Michael McCann said at a news conference. Glover was being taken into custody this morning.

According to AP, "McCann says it's only the second time in his 38 years as prosecutor that he's charged an officer."

As it turns out, McCann will not be taking the case to trial.

This afternoon:

A Milwaukee police officer, who was charged with homicide and perjury this morning, killed himself at his home this afternoon, Chief Nannette Hegerty said.

Alfonzo Glover, 35, a five-year veteran of the force, was pronounced dead at his home on the south side. Earlier in the day, he appeared in court on the charges.

Glover was released from the jail at 1 p.m. after posting $25,000 cash bail. He was charged with first-degree intentional homicide in the March 2005 death of Wilbert Javier Prado, 25, who was not armed, near S. 9th St. and W. Ohio Ave.

Glover has been on administrative duty since the off-duty shooting, which was ruled justified by an inquest jury in May 2005. He was suspended May 15 of this year.

Does Glover's suicide indicate that he was guilty?

Does it indicate that he was despondent after being charged with murder, when an inquest jury ruled that the shooting was justified in May of 2005?

Perhaps he couldn't face the ordeal.

Unless Glover left a note explaining why he chose to take his life, we won't know.

We do know that McCann doesn't have to worry about taking on this "difficult and challenging case."

This one is over.

One has to wonder what really went into McCann's decision to file charges.

Was it the facts of this case that caused him to act?

An AP report says that "Robert Wozniak, a mechanical engineer and accident reconstruction specialist hired by McCann's office," brought new information to McCann's attention.

[T]he extent of damage to the van and the parked vehicle demonstrated that Glover's account is "not true"...

The van must have been traveling between 22 and 27 miles per hour at the time of impact, which could not have happened if the driver came to a complete stop as Glover testified, the report said.

The inquest jury didn't have that crucial information, McCann said.

McCann is justifying his decision to charge Glover on Wozniak's report.

Was there more to it than that?

Was McCann using Glover as a scapegoat?

Was McCann trying to counter his image as the impotent DA?

So many questions.

So many will be left unanswered now that Glover has killed himself.

Guns, Bay View, and Barrett

It's summer in Milwaukee -- City of Festivals. Every weekend is a celebration.

One of the oldest Milwaukee summer festivals is the South Shore Water Frolics, a weekend of fun, including a parade, craft fair, food, music, and spectacular fireworks.

This annual event takes place in Bay View, a unique lakefront neighborhood with a proud history and proud residents committed to their community's future.

Read about Historic Bay View.

Read about Bay View: Today.

Now, read about what happened in Bay View on Memorial Day.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Two people were killed and three others injured when a man opened fire on picnickers in a crowded Bay View park Monday evening, capping off what police called one of Milwaukee's most violent Memorial Day weekends in recent memory.

...Peter Quinones was sitting under a tree on a hill nearby, and he heard at least six shots but said the gunfire didn't catch his attention until the second or third shot.

Quinones said he turned to see a man wearing a white shirt and armed with a handgun methodically circling the tables where a group of about 10 people had been seated.

"At point-blank range, he was shooting," Quinones said. "We stayed for about five or six shots, and we got out of there."

Quinones said the man looked determined to cause damage.

Quinones said, "He was so concentrated on that table, it looked like he wanted to wipe out that whole group of people."

Quinones' brother-in-law Eduardo Perez saw one of the shooting victims fall down only to have the assailant fire at him again as he lay on the ground.

"He shot the guy when he was down. He wanted to make sure he was dead. This is wrong," Perez said.

...Monday's shooting raised the number of weekend shootings to 28, [Anne E. Schwartz, Milwaukee Police Department spokeswoman] said, four of them fatal.

Someone at South Shore Park at the time of the shootings described the scene, "This is a massacre here. It is a massacre."

But according to Schwartz, not to worry.

She basically told Bay View residents that there's no problem.

"We have a good idea who we're looking for, so the people in this neighborhood can rest easy," she said.

The shooting wasn't random.

So what?

Five people shot at a park, two of them murdered, shouldn't be reassuring to anyone.

I doubt that Bay View residents, people who've invested a great deal of money and effort into maintaining their homes and reviving businesses in their community, will take comfort in the fact that the victims of the shootings were targeted.

My guess is the Bay View Neighborhood Association, a group that "exists to maximize the quality of life for individuals and families, and to promote economic development in Bay View through activities that facilitate an attractive, safe and diverse neighborhood," won't be satisfied with Schwartz's reassurances.

Random or not, shootings in a crowded park cannot be tolerated by anyone under any circumstances.

"Don't worry, citizens. You're safe. Bring your children to the park to play."

That's insane.

Accepting Monday's violence, failing to respond with dramatic measures, is akin to condoning it.

That is how a neighborhood dies. And when neighborhoods die, the city dies.

When the NRA held its convention in Milwaukee ten days ago, Mayor Tom Barrett, Governor Jim Doyle, and The Journal Sentinel editorial board were sharply critical of the group.

Tom Barrett's icy "welcome" to the 60,000 visitors to his city included a letter to NRA President Sandra Froman and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Barrett wrote:

"Parents should not have to worry about their children being hit by stray bullets while policy-makers and interest groups argue over ideology. It's time to have some fruitful discussions that will lead to safer streets and saved lives."

Guess what?

Law-abiding citizens did not commit the 28 shootings in Milwaukee over the long weekend.

Members of the NRA are not the problem, nor are they responsible for crime and murder.

It's so convenient for Barrett, Doyle, and lib editorialists to blame law-abiding gun owners for the gun violence. It's also completely fruitless.

They aren't the problem.

Barrett is right when he says that "[p]arents should not have to worry about their children being hit by stray bullets."

The reality is that parents do have to worry about that; not because there are guns, but because there are people who want to use them to kill other people.

He's the mayor of a city where children are not safe playing in a park at the lakefront.

What's he going to do about it?

Write a letter to the NRA?
________________________________

Update from AP

Reid is Definitely "In the Mix"

Well, looky here...

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

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

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

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

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts _ particularly on multiple occasions _ when they might be connected to efforts to influence official actions.

...Reid broadly defended his actions, stating he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former-staffer-turned-lobbyist.

"People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in. I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose," he said.

Asked if he would have done anything differently, the Senate Democratic leader said his only concern was "the willingness of the press ... to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them."

Oh, poor baby.

The press has a "willingness" to make a big deal out of bribes and that concerns Reid.

Was he concerned about ABC targeting Dennis Hastert?

Reid shouldn't be worried about the Old Media. They'll cover for him.

Several ethics experts said they believed Reid should have paid for the boxing tickets to avoid violating Senate ethics rules.

I don't think you need to be an ethics expert to figure out that Reid should not have accepted a gift that looks like a bribe.

...Marc Ratner, executive director of the Nevada Athletic Commission when Reid took the free tickets, said one of his desires was to convince Reid and McCain that there was no need for the federal government to usurp the state commission's authority. At the time, McCain and Reid were pushing legislation to create a federal boxing commission.

"I invited him because I was talking with his staff" about the legislation, Ratner said. "This was a chance for all of my commissioners, who are politically appointed, to interact with them. It was important for them to see how we in Nevada did things.

"I am a states rights activist and I didn't want any federal bill that would take away our state rights to regulate fights," he said, adding that he hoped McCain and Reid, at the very least, would be persuaded to model any federal commission after Nevada's body.

Reid said he remembered talking to Ratner briefly at the fights and knew Ratner was working with his Senate staff on the federal legislation.

Calling Brian Ross...

There's an irresistible "Culture of Corruption" story that is just perfect for him.

Actually, it's not perfect for Ross. It's almost perfect.

The story has all the elements that should prompt Ross to start salivating and blasting away at Reid.

The problem for Ross: Reid is a Dem.

In other words, don't look for any breathless report from ABC about Senate MINORITY leader Reid.

Don't expect any "sources" to give up information about Reid being under investigation or "in the mix."

On Parade

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett walks the Memorial Day Parade route. The parade goers manage to curb their enthusiasm.





Starred and striped Congresswoman Gwen Moore rides in a car bedecked with the Stars and Stripes.

Status of tires: NOT slashed.

May 30

MEMORIAL DAY

"The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart ... should swell into a mighty chorus of remembrance, gratitude and rededication on this solemn occasion."

--ABRAHAM LINCOLN

REMEMBER

A Loss for a Brother, a Son, a Wife, a Father, a Nation

By David Zucchino
Times Staff Writer

August 12, 2005

MENTOR, Ohio — Eric Montgomery always pictured himself coming home from war in triumph, arm-in-arm with his big brother, fellow Marine Lance Cpl. Brian Montgomery. Brian was his idol, his boyhood protector and his barracks mate in the desert of western Iraq.

The two did fly home together last week, but it was the worst journey of Eric's young life. The plane that carried him also carried the body of his brother, who died Aug. 1 at age 26 during an ambush that killed all six members of Brian's sniper patrol.

It was left to Eric, at age 21, to define his brother's life and legacy. As he stood stiffly in his Marine dress blue uniform here Wednesday, he saluted Brian's flag-draped coffin and delivered a passionate eulogy to more than 600 mourners.

"Thank you, Brian, for bringing me home," he said at a church funeral service; his brother's year-old son, Alexander, sat in his mother's lap, wearing his own tiny Marine uniform. "That's all that mattered to you."

Lance Cpl. Eric Montgomery shares a heavy burden with dozens of grieving families in Ohio and across the country this month. As the casualty rate escalates in Iraq, Americans like the Montgomerys are struggling to hold their lives together while honoring the sacrifice of their fallen loved ones in uniform.

In the space of just six days, Brian Montgomery and 15 other Marines from an Ohio reserve battalion died in Iraq. Since the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment — known in northern Ohio as the "Three Twenty-Five" — arrived in Iraq in March, it has lost 47 men in combat.

The war in Iraq is unlike any in American history. Citizen-soldiers from the reserves and National Guard have been plunged into combat in numbers unseen since World War II and make up 43% of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Of the 1,840 American military deaths, about a quarter were those of reservists or guardsmen. Of the 45 Americans killed this month, 35 belonged to the reserves or Guard.

Reports of American deaths have seemed especially relentless of late. Less than a week after the Ohio deaths, seven National Guardsmen from Pennsylvania died in Iraq in three days.

When the time came to bury Brian Paul Montgomery, it was not just family and friends who honored his memory. Thousands in Mentor and two adjoining towns where Brian grew up and worked lined the funeral route. They stood in the punishing midday sun for more than an hour, saluting, waving flags and wiping away tears as the procession rolled past.

Firefighters lined up in dress uniforms outside firehouses. Workers at car dealerships and pharmacies left their air-conditioned posts and crammed the sidewalks. Retirement home residents rolled their wheelchairs to the curb. Veterans in scraps of old uniforms saluted.

Postal workers and police officers halted during their shifts and stood at attention. Swimming pools emptied as mothers in bathing suits stood with dripping children, hands over their hearts. Sunburned construction workers tied a flag to a backhoe and stood, drenched in sweat, their hard hats over their hearts.

High school football players, retirees and homeowners unfurled the red-and-yellow Marine Corps colors and hundreds of American flags. They held handmade posters that read "Thank you, Brian" and "God Bless Brian" and "A True American Hero — Brian Montgomery."

At the church service, Brian's father, Paul, broke down as he tried to describe how his son had always put others before himself. He told how Brian had been suspended in high school for fighting after he defended a girl who had been slapped by a boy. He described how the shock of the Sept. 11 attacks prompted his oldest son to join the Marine Corps Reserves.

"Brian had a deep conviction that he needed to protect his country," his father said.

Some families of reservists killed in action have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war. But Paul Montgomery said he did not, nor had Brian. "We both believe it's the right war at the right time," he said.

When he telephoned Brian in Iraq, his son always assured him that he was on "light duty," far from combat.

"Don't worry, Dad, I'm coming home," Brian would say.

Actually, Brian — a mortar man by training — had volunteered for dangerous sniper duty near Haditha, an insurgent stronghold in violent Anbar province.

His father knew the truth.

"I'd say: 'Keep lying to me, Brian. We can talk about it when you get home,' " he said.

As he spoke, the father was overcome. He sobbed. Finally, he managed to choke out, "I know Brian's in heaven because he died in hell."

Brian's widow, Pam, did not weep as she spoke.

In a clear, strong voice, she described how she knew she would marry Brian the day she met him. "You never believe in love at first sight until it happens to you," she told the mourners.

She spoke of Brian's habit of showing off his Marine tattoos in bars.

She spoke of his devotion to their son, whose first birthday came just two days after his father's death.

She recited a prayer she wrote to honor her husband and every Marine serving in Iraq.

"In order for me to get through this," she said finally, "honor all our service members every day. If you see one, salute them. Or stop in the recruiting office, or the VFW, and thank them."

Brian's family honored him with a montage of photos mounted at a funeral home in nearby Willoughby, where the Montgomery home is marked with two blue stars for the two brothers.

On display was a faded blue Cleveland hospital card announcing the birth of a baby boy, Brian Paul, on June 8, 1979. There was a studio photo of Brian and Eric, two grinning grade-schoolers, and a shot of Paul walking young Brian to grade school. More snapshots traced the arc of Brian's life, from toothless infant to young soccer player to bespectacled adolescent to tall, powerfully built recruit with a high-and-tight Marine haircut.

With the photos were handwritten tributes: "Hero," "Marine," "Father," "Husband," "Brave," "Big Heart."

There were pictures from Iraq: Brian goofing with his Marine buddies, Brian in the desert, Brian posing with his automatic rifle, looking strong and indomitable in his tan battle-dress uniform.

It was the sight of Brian in his Marine dress blues that inspired Eric to follow him into the reserves. Eric had always looked up to his brother. Brian had fought all his battles for him in high school, Eric said, and Brian committed himself to protecting his younger brother while the two served with Weapons Company of the 3/25.

At the church service, Eric quoted his brother:

" 'I have a responsibility to Mom and Dad to get you home. I know you'll take care of my wife and son if I don't make it, so I have to get you home.' "

At their base camp outside Haditha, the brothers had long talks about family and country and service. Brian believed he was fighting to protect his family and fellow citizens. He once told his father that no American should have to board an airliner wondering whether it would arrive safely at its destination.

Eric quoted his brother again:

" 'Eric, if I fall, make sure my boy gets my dog tags and he knows what I was all about. And take care of my wife.' "

Eric feared that his brother had been killed in action on March 25 when members of Brian's sniper team ran up to him and asked, "Did you hear about Brian?" In fact, Brian had scored the battalion's first combat kills — shooting three insurgents who had attempted to plant roadside bombs, Eric said.

"He sent all three of those guys to hell, where they belonged," Eric said.

Now home consoling his sister-in-law and his parents, Eric said he was ordered not to return to Iraq because the unit was scheduled to return home next month. It is an order that has left him conflicted.

"I wish I was still with them, fighting the good fight," he said. "I know my brother feels the same way."

Before leaving Iraq, Eric made his buddies promise that they would track and kill the insurgents who took his brother from him. Last week, he said, the mother of a squad member called him to relay a message from Iraq: " 'We got [them].' "

"That meant the world to me, hearing that," Eric said.

Someone asked him this week if his brother's death was worth the sacrifice. "And I answered: He thought it was worth the sacrifice," Eric said.

To honor his brother, Eric said, he will have himself tattooed with a message Brian had always intended to tattoo on his own body: "Never Left. Never Forgotten."

And when he wakes up every morning, Eric said, "I thank my brother for getting me home."

As he finished his eulogy, his face slick with sweat above his stiff Marine collar, Eric mentioned that he wanted to provide his brother in death with something he had never received in life: a standing ovation.

Everyone inside the church, in the central pews and in the cramped balcony above, rose and applauded for two full minutes. When it was over and the church echoed with soft sobs, Eric looked up and said, "Semper fi to an always faithful Marine."

As the mourners filed outside into brilliant August sunshine, Lt. Col. Kevin Rush, the battalion's rear commander in Ohio, stood beside a hearse. "That's the finest eulogy I've ever heard in my life," he said.

The colonel spotted the father, Paul Montgomery, and went over to shake his hand. "Brian will always be a hero," he told him.

An hour later, the funeral procession snaked into a cemetery. Among the six uniformed pallbearers of the Marine Color Guard was Eric Montgomery, a tall, slender figure with a narrow face and strong jaw beneath a white dress cap. The Montgomery family was presented with a Purple Heart and a ritually folded American flag.

At the gravesite of Lance Cpl. Brian Montgomery, the last hand to lower his casket into the rich earth of Ohio was that of the brother he had brought safely home.
____________________________________

A Proclamation by President Bush

Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day 2006

...At this important time in the history of freedom, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our liberty. These men and women carry on the legacy of our Nation's fallen heroes and demonstrate that the United States Armed Forces remain the greatest force for freedom in human history.

Those who lost their lives in the defense of freedom helped protect our citizens and lay the foundation of peace for people everywhere. On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation pays tribute to their personal courage, love of country, and dedication to duty.

In respect for their devotion to America, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 158), has requested the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 29, 2006, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day. I encourage the media to participate in these observances. I also request the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half staff until noon on this Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels throughout the United States, and in all areas under its jurisdiction and control. I also request the people of the United States to display the flag at half staff from their homes for the customary forenoon period.

The Shame of Kilo Company

An hour into Memorial Day 2006, I read an article from this week's TIME magazine, "The Shame of Kilo Company."

Michael Duffy writes:

The outfit known as Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, wasn't new to Iraq last year when it moved into Haditha, a Euphrates River farming town about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad. Several members of the unit were on their second tour of Iraq; one was on his third. The men in Kilo Company were veterans of ferocious house-to-house fighting in Fallujah. Their combat experience seemed to prepare them for the ordeal of serving in an insurgent stronghold like Haditha, the kind of place where the enemy attacks U.S. troops from the cover of mosques, schools and homes and uses civilians as shields, complicating Marine engagement rules to shoot only when threatened. In Haditha, says a Marine who has been there twice, "you can't tell a bad guy until he shoots you."

But one morning last November, some members of Kilo Company apparently didn't attempt to distinguish between enemies and innocents. Instead, they seem to have gone on the worst rampage by U.S. service members in the Iraq war, killing as many as 24 civilians in cold blood. The details of what happened in Haditha were first disclosed in March by TIME's Tim McGirk and Aparisim Ghosh, and their reporting prompted the military to launch an inquiry into the civilian deaths. The darkest suspicions about the killings were confirmed last week, when members of Congress who were briefed on the two ongoing military investigations disclosed that at least some members of a Marine unit may soon be charged in connection with the deaths of the Iraqis--and that the charges may include murder, which carries the death penalty. "This was a small number of Marines who fired directly on civilians and killed them," said Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and former Marine who was briefed two weeks ago by Marine Corps officials. "This is going to be an ugly story."

With the U.S. struggling to hold on to public support for the war and no end to the insurgency in sight, the prospect of possible indictments has induced an aching dread among military and government officials. As the military launched another probe--into the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian by Marines--General Michael Hagee, commandant of the Marine Corps, headed to Iraq to address Marines on the growing crisis. Marine Corps public-affairs director Brigadier General Mary Ann Krusa-Dossin says the allegations "have caused serious concern at the highest levels" of the corps.

A military source in Iraq told TIME that investigators have obtained two sets of photos from Haditha. The first is after-action photos taken by the military as part of the routine procedure that follows any such event. Submitted in the official report on the fighting, the photos do not show any bodies. Investigators have also discovered a second, more damning set of photos, taken by Marines of the Kilo Company immediately after the shootings. The source says it isn't clear if these photos were held back from the after-action report or were personal snapshots taken by the Marines. The source says a Marine e-mailed at least one photo to a friend in the U.S.

Almost as damaging as the alleged massacre may be evidence that the unit's members and their superiors conspired to cover it up. "There's no doubt that the Marines allegedly involved in doing this--they lied about it," says Kline. "They certainly tried to cover it up." Three Marine officers, including the company commander and battalion commander, have been relieved of duty in part for actions related to the deaths in Haditha. A lawmaker who has been briefed on the matter says the investigations may implicate other senior officers.

In hindsight, it seems remarkable that the Marines were able to conceal such a horrific event for so long.

...So why did some men in Kilo Company apparently snap? Perhaps because of the stress of fighting a violent and unpopular war--or because their commanders failed them. Military psychiatrists who have studied what makes a soldier's moral compass go haywire in battle look first for a weak chain of command. That was a factor in the March 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, when U.S. soldiers, including members of an Army platoon led by Lieut. William Calley, killed some 500 Vietnamese. Says a retired Army Green Beret colonel who fought in Vietnam: "Somebody has failed to say, 'No, that's not right.'" No one, apparently, was delivering that message last November in Haditha.

The article, as usual, is based on information from shadowy sources.

"A military source in Iraq told TIME..."

"A lawmaker who has been briefed on the matter..."

"Military sources told TIME..."

"Pentagon officials say..."

Also, it appears that Duffy is convinced that the Marines slaughtered innocent civilians in cold blood.

Why bother conducting a criminal investigation? Duffy and the "military sources," "lawmaker," and "Pentagon officials" he spoke to have labeled the Marines of Kilo Company guilty.

"Lawmaker."

Hmmm. I wonder. Which lawmaker has been running around blabbing about the murdering Marines?

I don't know Duffy's sources, but I do know that John Murtha won't shut up about Haditha.

From The Washington Post:

"There has to have been a coverup of this thing," Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, charged in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "No question about it."

...[John Murtha] said, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened," adding that there is "no question in my mind about it." He reiterated a previous statement that shootings of women and children occurred "in cold blood" and that there was no firefight in which civilians were killed in a crossfire, as some Marines asserted after the event.

"This is worse than Abu Ghraib," he said, referring to the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at a prison west of Baghdad that, when revealed in spring 2004, became a major setback for the U.S. effort in Iraq.

Murtha was most emphatic in discussing his belief that senior Marine officers acted to prevent the facts of the case from emerging. "The problem is, who covered up? And why did they cover it up?" he asked. He said an investigation should have been conducted immediately after the incident, with the facts disclosed to the public at that time.

..."We don't know how far it goes," Murtha said of the alleged coverup. "The Marines knew about it all this time. Somebody in the chain of command decided not to allow this to happen. How far up it went, I don't know."

Murtha really needs to get a grip. AND, the leakers, those unnamed sources, need to get a conscience.

No question, the investigation into what happened at Haditha needs to be completed.

As with Abu Ghraib, those responsible for abuses at Haditha, if they did occur, will be held accountable.

UNTIL THEN, it is utterly irresponsible for Murtha and the leakers to be determining guilt.

What is so aggravating to me is that the military IS investigating. The appropriate measures ARE being taken.

All the inflammatory stuff, and Murtha's "guilty until proven innocent" approach unfairly disparages the integrity of U.S. forces in general. Such negative propaganda inflames the enemy and can lead to deadly consequences for our troops.

Let the investigation proceed.

In the meantime, former Marine Murtha should conduct himself in a manner befitting the Marines. I think Murtha has forgotten the motto, "Semper Fi." Rather than remaining "always faithful," Murtha is putting the Marines currently in harm's way at greater risk.

There are appropriate channels for Murtha and the leakers to express their concerns and hold individual Marines accountable for alleged wrongdoing without excessively fanning the flames of hatred for U.S. troops en masse.

Murtha's ego-stroking practice of taking his gripes to Sunday morning TV is a disgusting, self-serving exercise. That's not the proper place to air his criticism.

Media whore Murtha is incredibly selfish.

I really don't think our troops get their due, certainly not by the Old Media. The overwhelming majority of our military personnel are serving with bravery, honor, and distinction; AND they are not under investigation for killing innocents.

I understand the need for an investigation into what happened at Haditha, just as I fully supported getting to the truth of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I am asking for some balance. I want to hear the positive news from Iraq, not only the negative. I want to see the images of progress there, not only the setbacks.

On Memorial Day, it would be nice for all Americans, including TIME reporter Michael Duffy and John Murtha, to pay tribute to the fallen and acknowledge their tremendous sacrifices.

Just for this one day, can't we put politics and mud-slinging aside?

Can't we come together as Americans, united in our gratitude and support of the past and present military men and women who've served our country so honorably on our behalf?

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Game of Shadows

Pope Benedict Visits Poland

"No Problem Seeing Pope, if You Have Cash"

That's the headline for an AP article on The Washington Post's website. It's part of its coverage of Pope Benedict's visit to Poland.

Similar headlines can be found on other sites.

Maybe I'm just sensitive to Catholic-bashing, but I think it is deceptive and slams the Church.

Unless one reads the article, one is left with the impression that it's about some shameless money-grabbing scheme reminscent of the Clinton coffees or Lincoln Bedroom cash cows.

Instead, it's about some Poles selling binoculars and cardboard periscopes during the Pope's visit.

Misleading? I think so.

KRAKOW, Poland (AP) -- Have trouble seeing the pope from the back row of a crowd of approximately 900,000 people?

Well, the Poles' burgeoning capitalist spirit has you covered.

For a mere 150 zloty _ the equivalent of $50 _ pilgrims could buy high-powered binoculars to get a peek of the pope over the bobbing heads and flapping flags of Polish faithful.

But if it's too much work to wiggle through hundreds of thousands of believers to get a better view of Benedict XVI, don't forget to pick up a cardboard periscope for 5 zloty _ $1.60 _ to see over the tall man in front of you.

One vendor said he sold more than 200 of the yellow-and-white contraptions _ using the colors of the Vatican flag _ which did not appear to be a unique innovation for Benedict's visit.

Technically, the headline fits.

However, if a reader is just scanning headlines, I see a problem. I think it sends a message of corruption, as if the Pope can be bought like a sleazy politician.

From another AP account:

KRAKOW, Poland (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI urged 900,000 singing, clapping Poles gathered in a rain-soaked field Sunday to share their faith with other countries in mostly secular Europe, saying it was the best way to honor their beloved John Paul II.

The enormous, exuberant crowd chanted “Benedetto! Benedetto!” and sang “Sto Lat,” or “A Hundred Years,” wishing him a long life.

“I ask you, finally, to share with the other peoples of Europe and the world the treasure of your faith, not least as a way of honoring the memory of your countryman, who, as the successor of St. Peter, did this with extraordinary power and effectiveness,” Benedict said as he concluded his homily during the Mass in the Blonia meadow.

“I ask you to stand firm in your faith! Stand firm in your hope! Stand firm in your love! Amen!” he concluded, speaking in Polish on the last day of his trip.

...Benedict, 79, has reached out to Poles by delivering parts of his speeches and homilies in Polish and by retracing beloved native son John Paul II's steps. He visited John Paul's birthplace, Wadowice, and Sunday's Mass was held on the same spot where John Paul also drew large crowds on his return trips to Krakow, where he served as archbishop.

More than 300,000 people attended a Mass in Warsaw on Thursday, the first day of Pope Benedict's visit to Poland.

In total, well over a million people have turned out to see the Pope in Poland. That's legitimate news.

Some cheap attempt by AP to make it appear that the Pope's attention can be bought is not.


Blonia Park

After Sunday's Mass, Pope Benedict visited Auschwitz.

OSWIECIM, Poland (AP) -- German-born Pope Benedict XVI, walking solemnly with his hands clasped, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp Sunday, passing alone under its infamous gate — a solitary figure in white.

Benedict's black-clad entourage kept its distance as he walked under the gate's notorious words: "Arbeit Macht Frei," or "Work Sets You Free."





Other than a brief greeting to the local bishop, Benedict kept silent, his lips moving in prayer and the wind tossing his white hair as he stopped for a full minute before the Wall of Death, where the Nazis killed thousands of prisoners.

Then he was handed a lighted candle, which he placed before the wall.

Benedict then moved to the monument at the neighboring Birkenau camp, praying under a light rain before plaques in the languages of the different nationalities who died there. As he prayed, a light rain stopped and a brilliant rainbow arched over the camp.

(CBC News) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited Auschwitz on Sunday, walking through the gates in the footsteps of more than a million Jews, Poles, Roma, gays and others who were killed at the Nazi concentration camp.

The German-born Pope — who was on the fourth and last day of a visit to Poland — walked alone and in silence.

But later, he spoke up. "To speak in this place of horror, in this place where unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible — and it is particularly difficult and troubling for a Christian, for a pope from Germany," he said.

"In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can be only a dread silence, a silence which itself is a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?"

Note that Pope Benedict brings his message of love and faith to Auschwitz, to Poland, and to the world.

Juxtapose the Pope's prayers at Auschwitz with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's frequent calls for the destruction of Israel and his denials of the Holocaust.

Compare the Pope's solemn visit to the death camp with the claims of Arthur Butz, associate professor of Northwestern University.

"I congratulate [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] on becoming the first head of state to speak out clearly on [the Holocaust being a deliberately contrived falsehood] and regret only that it was not a Western head of state."

Now think of how misdirected and hateful the campaigners against the Catholic Church can be.

Apologist for a Hot-head

In his column "McGee is controversial, and here's why he's necessary," Eugene Kane writes about the two Michael McGees.

He prefers one McGee more than the other, but Kane acts as an apologist for both.

Surprise, surprise.

It's no surprise to me there are two Mike McGees.

I've known that for a while.

One of them is the McGee guy in the headlines the past few weeks for everything from a scandalous hearing about his personal life and an arrest that landed him in jail overnight to a surprising petition for a name change.

The other McGee I know has been one of the most impressive - and controversial - young African-American politicians I've covered in the past 20 years. Between the two, I like the latter McGee much better.

Kane then goes on to list what he considers to be McGee's commendable "achievements" as a public servant, even though most of the McGee proposals that Kane cites never were enacted.

Kane blames the unreasonable Common Council for standing in McGee's way rather than admitting that his proposals were misguided.

...As I have followed McGee's career in City Hall since he roundly defeated veteran Ald. Marlene Johnson-Odom in 2004, he has evolved into the rare politician who regularly attempts to bring his vision of grass-roots politics to the mainstream.

He does it in the typical McGee fashion: in your face and without giving a hoot what his detractors think

While I think it's admirable to be guided by higher principles rather than acting solely to win the approval of others, that's not McGee's style.

Kane considers McGee's in your face approach to be courageous. It's not. It's childish and ineffective.

...The younger McGee was the driving force behind a historic Milwaukee slavery ordinance that requires any company that does business with the city to disclose ties to slavery under penalty of losing its contract.

For some, it was nothing but a symbolic move. But for socially conscious African-Americans, it was a triumph in terms of bringing a specific black issue to public policy.

There are thousands of black nationalists across the country pushing various slave reparations bills in their respective communities. McGee got it done during his first term in office.

Wow! How great for the city of Milwaukee residents!

Thanks to McGee, the city won't do business with companies that had ties to slavery.

So what? For the most part, the issue is moot. How many companies are 140 years old?

That's why I can't offer much satisfaction for white readers who flooded my mailbox during a recent vacation demanding: "You have to say something about Mike McGee!"

What they meant was, of course, something negative.

When readers write to Kane, do they all inform him of their racial background?

How does he know that his mailbox is flooded with demands from "white readers"?

Some readers may specify their race when they write to Kane, but it seems that he may be making assumptions here. He assumes that he knows the color of the readers' skin and that he knows they want him to speak negatively about McGee.

I'm sure some may be daring Kane to be critical of McGee, but he can't conclude that the flood in his mailbox is from white people anxious to read an anti-McGee rant.

With his recent admission of an extramarital affair and sincere-sounding apology to his constituents, I think it's time to put his recent transgressions in context.

Despite the overheated rhetoric from media pundits who view McGee as some dangerous virus that needs to be excised from the body politic, I prefer to consider him a young, hot-headed black politician still finding his way.

McGee is "still finding his way"?

What kind of excuse is that?

A very lame one.

This "young, hot-headed" guy is thirty-six!

We're not talking about a kid just out of high school or even college.

He's a grown man who's seriously responsibility-challenged. I don't buy the "finding his way" stuff.

Is McGee a kid or a man? Is he fit to be a community leader?

I don't think someone so unsure of his principles is qualified to be a leader. I don't know if such an individual is even capable of being a very good follower.


Kane makes McGee sound like he should be backpacking around Europe, in search of himself, rather than sitting on the Common Council.

...The reason McGee - with all his flaws - is necessary in this city is that he is the embodiment of representative government. He stands for a group of angry young black people everybody else ignores. These are young African-Americans who have chosen to participate in the system partly because of his presence.

I don't understand this reasoning.

McGee is a disgrace. Nonetheless, Kane approves of him because he's the voice of the angry young black contingent.

Here's an idea. Find an individual committed to the needs of angry young black people who doesn't lie under oath.

Much of the front-page news about McGee in the past few weeks would be minor league stuff if he weren't an alderman named Mike McGee or Michael Imanu Jackson.

The more some voices denounce him, the more his support grows. In fact, I know some blacks who love McGee simply for the way he gets white folks so riled up.

That doesn't say much for those blacks, does it?

What sort of person supports a politician simply because he gets "white folks so riled up"?

I don't think Kane should be flaunting the fact that he knows blacks that are so petty. Instead, he should be embarrassed for them.

Kane's assessment of McGee and his behavior proves his willingness to excuse the inexcusable and his capacity to justify the unjustifiable.

Kane tries to make the case that McGee is passionate. What Kane fails to see is that passion doesn't necessarily demand recklessness and irresponsibility.

That said, I'll excuse Kane for writing such a poor column. It appears that he's angry and still finding his way.
________________________________

Also on the McGee front, the JS editorial board is troubled by McGee's behavior.

In "Lying is not a trifling matter," the board argues that McGee shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath about an affair. While McGee's many problems are worth noting, it's the lying in court that really gives the board pause.

But did McGee lie under oath? The district attorney's office said it will reach a decision on how to proceed in June. Because McGee is no longer believable, we expect the DA or the courts to set the record straight. Why? McGee is a public servant. This is serious stuff.

Lying under oath has suddently become serious.

I thought lying under oath about personal matters, such as an affair, was acceptable. Maybe it's not "acceptable," but it's understandable and certainly forgivable.

Didn't we learn anything from the Clinton-Lewinsky pairing?

Heart of a Hero

In a remarkable gesture of appreciation, Iraq war veteran and Purple Heart recipient Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey indicated just how important support from home is to the troops.

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) -- A soldier said he was only showing his gratitude when he gave his Purple Heart to a 13-year-old student being honored for winning a contest for writing letters to American troops.

"It's important what these children do for us in sending these letters," said Staff Sgt. Phillip Trackey, after giving away the medal he received for injuries in Iraq. "The letters mean so much to us. So I thought this was a big way of giving something back to them."

Trackey and a group of fellow Fort Drum soldiers were attending a ceremony Thursday at West Genesee Middle School for seventh-grader Fatima Faisal, of Camillus, who was being honored as a regional winner in the Veteran's of Foreign Wars' Letters to the Front contest.

After Faisal received her prizes, Trackey stood and held up his Purple Heart for everyone to see. Then, he pinned it on the girl's blouse.

Trackey gave away his Purple Heart, not to a cherished friend or a family member but to a complete stranger, a thirteen-year-old girl.

Why give such an honor away to someone he doesn't even know?

In a sense, I don't think Fatima was a stranger to him.

Fatima, and all the children who send letters of support to the troops, know that they are writing to real people, fellow Americans. As Trackey explained, those expressions of kindness and thanks really make a difference. They matter greatly to the troops.

What a profound way for Trackey to show Fatima and her classmates just how important those letters are!

I would imagine that a child's message of thanks would help to counter at least some of the negativity that the troops put up with from the American media.

...Faisal's letter was chosen the best out of more than 300 letters written in the age 12-18 category in the Central New York region. The national contest was to write letters to servicemen and servicewomen starting with the line, "Dear Service Member, I just wanted to say thanks for ..."

...In her letter, Faisal said, "...I give you great respect because you had a choice to join the military and because of your bravery and courage you decided to join."

For winning the contest, Faisal received a T-shirt, a certificate and a $50 savings bond.

But the Purple Heart was the top prize, Faisal said, adding she hoped to mount it in a frame to hang in her room.

"When he gave it to her, I was getting chills," said Nadia Faisal, Fatima's mother. "I told her 'Oh my gosh, Fatima. You should treasure it forever.'"

Trackey, of Glens Falls, said he received the medal for the shoulder and head wounds he suffered when a bomb went off near him in Baghdad in January 2005. Trackey said his Purple Heart was just collecting dust at home.

Trackey's gift is a beautiful symbol of the connection between the American military and the grateful American people that they so bravely serve.

I'm sure Fatima will treasure that Purple Heart forever, and Trackey will hold the gratitude of the American children deep within his heart for the rest of his life.

The White House Commission on Remembrance

Moment of Remembrance Hasn't Caught On

A tiny White House commission has spent the past five years and $1.5 million trying to bring a new American tradition to Memorial Day's barbecues, parades and sales: A moment of remembrance, a sigh, perhaps a prayer. Just a 30-second pause.

The results, so far, are mixed.

...[A] few towns, businesses and organizations have paused silently at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day.

In general, though, the commission's hyper-energetic executive director, Carmella LaSpada, has been somewhat frustrated by the lack of interest.

"We're a little disappointed," she said. "What has been the problem is that we haven't gotten the support that we would like to have from the media."

This AP story is rather critical of LaSpada and the tax dollars being allotted to the commission.

It's considered wasteful, in terms of money, in terms of time, and in terms of effort.

The White House Commission on Remembrance was "signed into law by President Clinton, and launched under President Bush," according to AP.

The Commission's Mission statement:

The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance was established by Congress as an independent government agency. The Commission encourages Americans to honor the sacrifices of America’s fallen and the families they left behind. It promotes acts of remembrance throughout the year and asks Americans to pay our debt of gratitude in memory of our fallen by giving something back to the Nation. The Commission is also tasked to unite the country in the National Moment of Remembrance at 3 p.m. on Memorial Day.

The Commission is dedicated to educating this and future generations of Americans to remember the sacrifices and costs in human life made to preserve our liberties, and to instill in them an understanding of what it means to be an American.

The Commission's logo:

The Continental Congress, in the first Flag Act, intended the stars signifying each state on the blue field of our flag represent a new Constellation. The light of this new constellation has been kept bright by the sacrifices of all our fallen, thus the star and flame are combined in the Commission on Remembrance logo.

The flame represents the light of remembrance, hope and freedom.

The media have the power to get the message out.

The entire country knew that the 2006 American Idol would be crowned on Wednesday night. Everyone seems to be aware of when the Super Bowl is played.

If they wanted to, the media could promote the Moment of Remembrance with the same vigor that they use to profit from the American Idol machine or the Super Bowl.

Frankly, it shouldn't take five years to establish the Moment of Remembrance as a Memorial Day tradition.

We know that the media are very effective at hyping an event.

If the media would cooperate, the National Moment of Remembrance would be a well-known effort by now.

I don't know which is more disgraceful --

that the power of the media isn't used to unite the country in a Moment of Remembrance "to honor the sacrifices of America’s fallen and the families they left behind"

OR

that so many Americans observe Memorial Day as summer's official kick-off rather than a time to reflect on the tremendous human cost of freedom.



At 3 p.m. on Memorial Day, say a prayer of remembrance for America's fallen and a prayer of gratitude for the gift of freedom that they gave you.



(American Cemetery) Bayeux, Normandy, France


Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.

(John 15:13)

Dragging at Prom

It's that time of year again -- Prom season.

I don't know what it is about proms, but they so often become the subject of controversy, attracting cops and lawyers.

In 2000, former Green Bay Packer Mark Chmura was accused of raping a high schooler at an after-prom party. Of course, that case was extremely serious in nature.

Issues of controversial attire are in an entirely different league from that prom night nightmare, but they do seem to arise with regularity and garner attention.

Last year, Kerry Lofy stirred things up at Lake Geneva Badger High School's prom when he arrived as Victor Anderson's date. Lofy wore an understated yet fetching form-fitting black dress with spaghetti straps.



Lofy ended up with a $249 disorderly conduct ticket, suspended, and banned from his final track meet for his prom wardrobe choice.

This year, there's Kevin Logan. Like Lofy, he wore a dress to prom.

The similarities stop there.

For one, Logan wore pink.

GARY, Ind. (AP) -- A male student who has worn women's clothes to school all year was turned away from his high school prom because he was wearing a dress.

Kevin Logan, 18, went to the West Side High School prom on Friday in a slinky fuchsia gown and heels. He believes officials discriminated against him by not allowing him inside.

"I have no formal pictures, no memories, nothing. You only have one prom," he said.

Logan, who is gay, received an $85 refund for his prom ticket Tuesday but was not satisfied. He said he is considering filing a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

Sylvester Rowan, assistant to Gary Schools Superintendent Mary Steele, said school policy bans males from wearing dresses. Excluding Logan from the prom was based on "the dress code, not the student's homosexuality. That's his personal preference."

Tyrone Hanley, the youth program coordinator for the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition in Washington, D.C., said he often sees cases like this and called it gender-based discrimination.

"Prohibiting really short skirts for everyone is a fair dress code; prohibiting them for males is not," he said.

Logan should consider himself lucky for just being refused entry. Although he's disappointed about missing out on prom, at least he didn't get ticketed for disorderly conduct or suspended or punished in some other manner.

In general, I think prom is taken far too seriously. It should be fun for all. I don't see the need for school officials to get all bent out of shape just because a kid shows up in a dress.

At these public schools, the students have been taught from day one that alternative lifestyles are completely acceptable. Some teachers act as advocates, encouraging students to embrace differences.

So why do the schools suddenly get so puritanical and stringent about the dress code for prom?

It's inconsistent. When a guy shows up at prom in a dress, school officials should consider it a victory, right?

If the school officials are to be seen as sending a consistent message, they need to practice what they teach.

Name That Identity Thief

Greg Borowski of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provides the latest installment of the soap opera, All My McGees.

Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee sought to put one controversy behind him Thursday, admitting to an extramarital affair with the woman who says he threatened to kill her last week after a court hearing.

But new questions arose after the Journal Sentinel reported Thursday that McGee had petitioned to legally change his name - to Michael I. McGee from Michael I. Jackson.

The name-change request stated that McGee, 36, had always been Michael Imanu Jackson, but now wants his last name legally switched to McGee, the name the petition says he has used his entire life.

In a statement issued late Thursday, McGee said he needs the name change to get a U.S. passport. The statement said Jackson is the name on his birth certificate because that is the birth name of his own father, the former alderman also known as Mike McGee.

Now this is news.

Mike McGee, Sr. is really Michael Jackson, Sr.

Who knew?

And, contrary to what Mike McGee, Jr. (AKA Michael Jackson, Jr.) said Wednesday night, he does have a birth certificate.

In a search of public records and commercial databases, the newspaper has found several records of a Michael I. Jackson who shares the birth date and some common addresses with the alderman, but show a different Social Security number.

Wait a minute...

This bothers me. I understand why the JS would search public records, given McGee's evasiveness when the reporter inquired about his identity on Wednesday night.

But, what kind of commercial databases have Social Security numbers available?

No legitimate simple public records search would include Social Security numbers.

If that were the case, identity theft would be rampant.

I find this really disturbing. The JS is saying that individuals' SS numbers are available to anyone looking in all the right places. That makes no sense.

You can't just tap into SS numbers. *

Questions about the Jackson-McGee name overshadowed McGee's acknowledgment Thursday that he had an extramarital affair with Kimley Rucker, 23, who claims to be pregnant with his child.

McGee was arrested after Rucker said he threatened to kill her last week after a court hearing in which a judge tossed out his request for a restraining order against Rucker, who he said has stalked him, and assaulted him March 31. He echoed those claims Thursday, stating he was trying to protect his family by seeking the order.

No charges have been filed against McGee related to his arrest or to statements he made under oath about his relationship with Rucker.

...At an initial court hearing on the restraining order, McGee denied having any romantic relationship with Rucker and any knowledge of an account from which a series of e-mails were sent to Rucker, though McGee's wife then testified it was his account. Later, in explaining his denials, McGee acknowledged having had a single sexual contact with Rucker, but said it was not romantic.

In Thursday's statement, the alderman admits "poor judgment and personal carelessness when I selfishly involved myself in an extramarital affair."

In the statement, McGee also declared: "Given my recent arrest in civil court, I believe there is less than equal protection under the law for elected officials."

At least, McGee has finally acknowledged his affair and apologized.

It's unfortunate that he spoiled that act of decency in expressing his remorse by making the stupid statement about elected officials not having equal protection under the law.

I guess he owned up to his inappropriate behavior because he realized that he needed to stop the bleeding. I guess he knew he would pay a price politically if he didn't come somewhat clean and appear somewhat level-headed.

In the statement about the name issue, McGee says he was born when his father was serving in Vietnam. According to records, the alderman was born in October 1969.

At the time, his father was using his own birth name, Michael Jackson. According to the statement, upon his return from the war, the elder McGee was adopted and "then started using 'McGee' as his last name because it is the last name of his adoptive father."

It is not clear how old the elder McGee would have been at the time, or whether he was formally adopted, or if it refers to being brought into a household and supported.

In the statement, the younger McGee says: "I was then given the McGee last name as well, and have used it ever since."

Public records show that someone has used McGee's legal name, Michael I. Jackson. State Department of Transportation records show that a Michael I. Jackson, of 1456 N. 34th St., and with McGee's birth date, was issued a driver's license in May 1995. The address is one associated with McGee in court records. Two commercial databases show several entries for Michael I. Jackson with the same birth date and with a different Social Security number than McGee's.

That sort of explains the name issue, but again what jumps out at me as odd is this claim about the SS numbers.

WHICH COMMERCIAL DATABASES REVEAL SS NUMBERS?

The article goes on to talk about Jackson being involved in a car accident, traffic violations, and failure to pay the judgments when the drivers of the two other cars sued him. Eventually, his license was revoked.

Is this Jackson the McGee Jackson? The alderman's identity is still unclear. Regarding the accident, McGee says, "I don't recall that."

Let's see. McGee has lied under oath, lied about his affair, lied about his e-mail account, and lied about his birth certificate.

Nevertheless, we're supposed to believe that he doesn't remember if he was involved in a car accident and was sued and then lost his license. That's ridiculous.

How could all of that possibly slip one's mind? I don't believe McGee. He's lying again.

Although the gist of this article is that McGee cannot be trusted to tell the truth, I'm much more concerned about the Social Security number matter.

That story, that SS numbers are so readily available, is the noteworthy revelation in this account.

Someone from the JS should do some investigative reporting on that issue.

__________________________________

* Dad29 adds that Jessica McBride noted the JS subscribes to KnowX, a search site that for a fee apparently hands over documents with Social Security numbers.

Given that access to a SS number amounts to giving someone the key to an individual's complete personal profile, I see that as aiding and abetting identity thieves.

ABC News and Guesswork

Ten minutes into ABC’s World News Tonight, after the lengthy Enron coverage, Elizabeth Vargas got around to the Brian Ross Hastert slime story.

She introduced Ross, who was in the studio with her.

He went on to supply the "new" information ABC gathered today from its shadowy "sources."

Ross' story

It was the same old trash with extra emphasis on Hastert's letter to the Secretary of the Interior about an Indian casino. A few days earlier, Jack Abramoff had hosted a fundraiser for Hastert.

Ross doesn't buy Hastert's claim that the fundraiser and the letter weren't connected.

From Brian Ross' story, "Hastert: Letter Just a Coincidence":

"'That's very unusual activity, and we believed it needed to be and needs to be investigated,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to pursuit of democracy for all Americans."

Typical to Brian Ross' style, this is extremely misleading. Democracy 21 isn't nonpartisan. It has a decidedly liberal slant.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

At the end of his report, Ross acknowledged that "it could well turn out that Hastert did nothing unlawful."

He qualified that statement by saying that the investigation is just beginning.

Is that ABC's standard? Is that their justification for sliming someone?

In other words, the investigation is in its early stages, but we'll just assume Hastert's guilty of wrong-doing in the meantime.

So, Ross and ABC report that Hastert is knee-deep in corruption without any proof.

That's not journalism. That's guesswork. That's garbage.

That's ABC.

Looking Out for the Little Guy

What happened to "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"?

In Nebraska, that's been replaced with "Do the crime, if you're short."

SIDNEY, Neb. (AP) -- A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.

"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.

But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."

With all due respect, Judge Cecava is nuts.

Sexually assaulting a child DOES make Thompson a "hunter."

Why is Cecava so concerned about this sicko's well-being in prison?

This scum of the earth should not be given a pass just because he's short. That's insane!

What sort of precedence does this set?

Any guy 5'1" and under can sexually assault children without facing prison?

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

..."I want control of you until I know you have integrated change into your life," the judge told Thompson. "I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society is not misplaced."

If Cecava really wants to control Thompson, she should lock him up. He won't have easy access to porn in prison, nor will he have access to children under 18.

In effect, this judge is saying that the prison environment would endanger poor little Thompson. He might fall victim to some big guys.

WELL, WHAT DID THOMPSON DO TO THE CHILD?

Cecava "hopes" that her "bet" on Thompson "being OK out in society" is a wise one.

IT'S NOT!

This judge is a disgrace. Justice is not being served here.

Cecava's compassion is misplaced.

Fifty-year-old Thompson sexually violated a child!

How can she be so utterly clueless?

UNBELIEVABLE.

Brian Ross Has Dan Rather Syndrome!

"I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."

-- Dan Rather on The O'Reilly Factor, May 15, 2001


ABC and Brian Ross won't back down.

The network stands by its report that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is being investigated by the Department of Justice in its congressional bribery probe, in spite of denials by the DOJ.

Drudge has the text of a letter sent by the legal counsel of an angry Hastert to ABC News President David Westin, George Stephanopolous, and Brian Ross.

The pdf of the letter is also posted on ABC's site.

David Westin
George Stephanopoulos
Brian Ross
ABC News
7 West 66th St.
New York, NY 10023

RE: False Story Regarding Justice Department Investigation

Dear Mr. Westin, Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ross:

At 7:25 p.m., the Statement of the Department of Justice confirmed:

“Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.”

At 10:21 p.m., you wrote:

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.”

This statement is false, and your republication of it after actual knowledge of its falsity constitutes libel and defamation. ABC News’ continued publication of this false information, after having actual knowledge of its falsity, evidences a specific and malicious intent to injure and damage Speaker Hastert’s reputation by continued repetition of a known falsehood.

We will take any and all actions necessary to rectify the harm ABC has caused and to hold those at ABC responsible for their conduct.

Please advise regarding who will accept service of process to remedy this intentional falsehood.

Very truly yours,
J. Randolph Evans
Stefan C. Passantino
Counsel to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert

Those are fighting words.

Hastert is not going to allow ABC to take him out.

Frankly, I'm surprised that ABC hasn't issued a half-hearted non-apology apology or some sort of clarification to make this all go away.

Brian Ross is positively defiant. That's a very bad sign. He's starting to show characteristics similar to those exhibited by the delusional Dan Rather.

If he keeps this up, I think Ross may be at risk of being attacked while walking along Park Avenue. He could be assaulted from behind and thrown to the ground. An attacker might chase Ross into a building and then kick him repeatedly in the back, all the while demanding to know, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?".

This could get really ugly.

Yes, someone (maybe an unnamed law enforcement official) needs to intervene before Ross goes completely over the edge.

A McGee by any Other Name

Michael McGee, Jr. is not the man he claims to be.

He's really Michael Jackson.

Read the latest in the McGee saga.

He filed a petition to change his name to McGee. When questioned by a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter about it, he started talking tough. He didn't say, "If you drive by my house, I'm going to kill your ass." Not that tough.

However, McGee, I mean Jackson, did threaten legal action.

Reached on his cell phone Wednesday evening, McGee said in a brief conversation that he didn't want to discuss the name-change petition but would do so after "my court date" had happened.

"It's really not as big a deal as you think it is," McGee told a reporter.

The alderman then called the reporter back and declined to explain anything about being Michael Jackson. He threatened to sue the Journal Sentinel if it printed this story because, he said, it was a matter of "speculation" as to whether he had actually filed the petition. He said he has "a lot of court dates" and denied that he had ever confirmed he filed the petition. He called into question whether he could "factually" be tied to anything with the name Michael Jackson on it, including the petition filed Wednesday.

"You're crossing the line as far as using unfactual information," McGee said of the petition's newsworthiness.

He was asked what name is on his birth certificate.

"I don't have a birth certificate," McGee said.

No birth certificate?

What a weird attempt to avoid answering a question!

McGee/Jackson doesn't think very well on his feet.

ABC in the Discredited Media Mix

ABC set off a firestorm Wednesday evening when it ran a report on World News Tonight claiming that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was "in the mix" of the Justice Department's congressional bribery investigation.

It appears that Brian Ross and ABC are going the way of Dan Rather and CBS.

Brian Ross' report

Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.

The day Abramoff was indicted, Hastert denied any unlawful connection and said he would donate to charity any campaign contribution he had received from Abramoff and his clients.

A spokesman for Speaker Hastert told ABC News, "We are not aware of this. The Speaker has a long history and a well-documented record of opposing Indian Reservation shopping for casino gaming purposes."

It's early Thursday morning and ABC is still not retracting its story, despite statements by federal officials that its report is false.

The Department of Justice issued the following statement:

STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

"Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department."

That seems very clear, very black and white.

Ron Bonjean, Hastert's Communications Director, released this statement:

"The ABC News report is absolutely untrue. As confirmed by the Justice Department, 'Speaker Hastert is not under investigation by the Justice Department.' We are demanding a full retraction of the ABC News story. The Speaker's earlier statement issued today accurately reflects the facts regarding this matter."

In response, to the denials issued by the DOJ and Hastert, ABC provides this update:

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBI investigation of corruption in Congress.

Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was "absolutely untrue" and has demanded ABC News retract its story.

Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and a number of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope of the investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’s information.

"You guys wrote the story very carefully but they are not reading it very carefully," a senior official said.

...ABC’s law enforcement sources said the Justice Department denial was meant only to deny that Hastert was a formal “target” or “subject” of the investigation.

"Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation," one federal official said tonight.

The investigation of Hastert’s relationship with Abramoff is in the early stages, according to these officials, and could eventually conclude that Abramoff’s information was unfounded.

Officials said the next logical investigative step would be for the FBI to seek a wide range of documents from the members of Congress named by Abramoff, including letters and business documents.

A spokesman for Hastert said the office had received no subpoenas or requests for documents.

What a crock!

Ross and ABC are clinging to the supposed accuracy of the story by dragging out unnamed "law enforcement sources" to prove its veracity. Rather than acknowledge the clearly misleading nature of the report and retract, Ross and ABC prefer to parse words.

That does nothing for the network's credibility. It is further evidence of the liberal bias that permeates ABC, home of executive producer John "Bush makes me sick. If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke" Green.





"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

--BILL CLINTON

What a legacy!

WOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Taylor Hicks is the winner of American Idol.

Did I watch most of the shows this season? Yes, I did.

Did I watch the two and a half hours of the Idol finale tonight? Yes, I did.

It's true. I think it's a fun show.

I don't just veg out in front of the TV when Idol is on the air. I'm multi-tasking, but I'm tuned in. Even tonight, I didn't devote my exclusive attention to the show for the entire evening. Nonetheless, I count myself as a fan of the show.

The thing that I think is interesting about it is its appeal to audiences of all ages.

Burt Bacharach and Dionne Warwick are hardly a draw for the bubble gum pop crowd. They must be in their 70s.

There were some surprises, like Meat Loaf singing with finalist Katharine McPhee.

And Clay Aiken-- He was unrecognizable with the different hair. A family member thought he gave off kind of a k.d. lang vibe. I can see that.



And Prince-- I couldn't believe that Prince, the artist too cool for a name, performed on the show.



Where else but on American Idol can you see Prince and then see David Hasselhoff crying in the audience after the winner was announced?

A few questions:

1. Why was the audience treated to a close-up of Hasselhoff? Is he starring in a new FOX show?

2. Were those tears of joy?

3. Was he dreaming that he had just been crowned the American Idol?

I don't know what the deal was, but Hasselhoff was moved. I guess he's the male version of Paula Abdul. Maybe he was auditioning to be a guest judge.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -- Gray-haired soul singer Taylor Hicks won the 2006 "American Idol" contest on Wednesday, capturing the hearts and votes of millions of viewers in the fifth edition of America's top-rated TV show.

Hicks, 29, who was told in auditions that he had the wrong image for a pop star, beat balladeer Katharine McPhee in the climax of a nationwide contest that attracted tens of thousands of wannabe performers.

Hicks and McPhee sang for the title and the winner was announced on Wednesday at the end of a star-studded finale at Hollywood's Kodak Theater. The show featured guest performances by Prince, Dionne Warwick, Mary J. Blige, Burt Bacharach, Toni Braxton and Meat Loaf.

Alabama native Hicks, beloved for his trademark manic dancing, is the oldest "American Idol" in the reality TV series that has become a ratings juggernaut for Fox TV attracting some 30 million viewers a week since January.

Harmonica playing Hicks, who spent years singing in local nightclubs trying to break into the business, wins a coveted recording contract and will release his first single "Do I Make You Proud" in the next few days.

"Thank You America! I'm living the American Dream," screamed Hicks as he sang out the show.

__________________________________

From TIME:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took time out from matters of war and peace to catch this week's finale of American Idol. Unlike many adults who claim they watch the show only because their kids commandeer the TV, Condi is an unabashed fan.

Rice was rooting for fellow Birmingham native Taylor Hicks and will soon send him a congratulatory letter, says a State Department official. The Alabama connection helps explain why she has long been glued to the show: last year's runner-up Bo Bice is also a 'Bama boy, as was the winner of the second Idol competition, Ruben Studdard. But Condi is also part of nationwide Idolmania...

All I can say is "Condi for President!"

Hillarynotnow.com

From the Vietnam War era:

"Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?"

From the War on Terror era:

"Suppose there was a 'Hillary Clinton for president' rally and nobody came?"

This is embarrassing.

From The Tennessean:

A Hillary Clinton rally drew critics of President Bush, nonpartisan voters looking for a strong leader, and people who want to elect a female president.

About 20 people attended the Tuesday event, the national kickoff for Hillarynow.com, a grass-roots group pushing to draft the New York senator and former first lady to run for president in 2008.

It appears that the national kickoff event was sparsely attended. That's being kind. It was a disaster.

This certainly is no indication of a lack of lib national support for Hillary, but I still think it's funny.

I wonder if Hillary finds it amusing.

Organizers hoped to have 200 people at the event in Nashville, a city selected to show that Democrats can win in Southern states.

They were disappointed but said they are not focused on numbers.

I don't think Hillary has a chance in Tennessee, none whatsoever. Dems can win in the South, but not Hillary.

"We can build something from this," said E. Gayle O'Hanlon, president of Enchanted Gingerbread, who cooked for and helped organize the fundraiser.

Clinton is not associated with the group. "Hillary is focused on working for the people of New York and winning re-election to the U.S. Senate," Ann Lewis, director of communications for Clinton's Senate campaign, said via e-mail.

Miami Beach-based activist Bob Kunst, the founder of Hillarynow.com, said Clinton needs the help of energized grass-roots supporters, not the Beltway consultants who tripped up the campaigns of John Kerry and Al Gore.

Yes, Hillary needs the help of ENERGIZED grass-roots supporters. Even candidates with massive campaign war chests need the "little people" to do campaigning. It's just twenty people don't look very energetic. Those numbers look very anemic.

"Out of this can come the White House, starting here in Nashville," Kunst said. "We're not afraid of the controversy, and we have to make the controversy an ally."

...Attendees got custom-baked "Hillarynow.com ginger-girl" cookies that O'Hanlon baked and chocolate chip cookies from a Clinton recipe made by Goodlettsville chef Anna Lia Notardonato-Hicks.

"Even if she doesn't run, at least we started a dialogue about having a woman president," Notardonato-Hicks said.

"Doesn't run"?

What?

Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary isn't planning on running for president, or that she needs to be drafted as the Dem nominee?

The Hillarynow.com group seems a bit confused.

At least they had cookies.

Solidarity: Down with Despotism

The Islamic Republic News Agency, official propaganda arm of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, reports on student protests in Iran:

A group of university students here Tuesday evening held a gathering in front of Tehran University dormitory to protest some university issues.

According to several eyewitnesses, a few people were injured and a number of parked vehicles near the university dormitory were damaged after stones were thrown from undetermined sources during the gathering.

Tehran Police Chief Brigadier General Morteza Talaie, who was present at the scene, told IRNA that the unrest was created by a small group of 20 to 30 people, "several of whom were probably not students."

"We cannot say that the unrest was caused by students and that all involved were students," he said.

"No student has so far been arrested by the police," he added.

He said that the police showed maximum restraint and patience in order to prevent more trouble.

Some 40 police forces were injured in the stone throwing incident, he said, adding that a number of the injured were brought to hospital.

The unruly protest ended after a few hours.

Not surprisingly, this report makes no mention of how large the protest was, preferring to stress the "small group of 20 to 30 people" that became violent.

A Reuters report gives more details:

Stone-throwing Iranian students fought police and Islamic vigilantes on Wednesday in protest against restrictions imposed by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, witnesses said.

Students who covered their faces with scarves lit fires outside dormitories through Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, photographs showed. By dawn the streets were littered with hundreds of stones they had thrown.

Deputy Tehran Governor Abdollah Roshan told the ISNA students news agency 40 policemen and four students had been injured. He said the police had arrested six people.

Senior student leader Abdollah Momeni said up to 2,000 students had gathered for the protest over the expulsion of some students and the way authorities had been handling critics.

He added 20 had been seized by Islamic vigilantes who broke into the dormitories.

"The main reason for the objections in recent days goes back to the limitations imposed on universities and political students after the new government came to power," Momeni said.

...Other student witnesses said the crowd had chanted "Down with despotism" and hurled stones at police cars outside the dormitories, breaking their windows.

Iran Focus has a report and photos of Monday's rally at the University of Tehran.

Hundreds of university students rallied on campus at the University of Tehran on Monday in protest to the increasing police brutality against student’s liberties.

The rally took place at the university’s Technical Faculty, according to a statement received from a student group that took part in the protests. Security forces were rushed to the scene to quell the unrest.

The demonstrators highlighted the recent case of a Kurdish student from the university’s social sciences faculty whose fingers had been broken with a metal baton by members of the herasat, or security agents, for distributing student papers on campus.

They also protested against the systematic crackdown on mixed-sex gatherings outside the university’s main entrance as well as university officials’ “incompetence”.

“Death to dictatorship”, the students chanted. There were also chants of “forget about becoming nuclear, think about us” and “we don’t want a fascist university”.

"FORGET ABOUT BECOMING NUCLEAR, THINK ABOUT US."

Ahmadinejad can't be happy with that. His own people are demanding that he quit playing nuclear games with world powers and deal with domestic issues.

Students aren't the only ones troubled by the actions of Ahmadinejad's regime.

On May Day, thousands of Iranian workers protested.

Thousands of Iranian workers today lambasted the growing use of short-term employment contracts in the most vociferous May Day demonstration in the Islamic state for years.

The protest came as a reminder to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that, although embroiled in an international dispute over his country’s atomic ambitions, he was elected to improve living conditions for the poorest echelons of society.

...The demonstrators, numbering some 10,000, called for labour minister Mohammad Jahromi to resign and brandished placards with bread stuck on them to symbolise their hand-to-mouth existence. Some wore headbands saying: “The short-term contract is a slavery law”. Other carried banners that read: “Labour strikes must be revived”.

The protesters spread out for more than a kilometre, beating their chests in emulation of religious mourning ceremonies. Unions exist in Iran but their power is limited. Short-term contracts were introduced by the previous administration as part of attempts to make the state-heavy economy more efficient.

Obviously, there's a significant amount of dissatisfaction in Iran under Ahmadinejad. The country's nuclear ambitions and its advances in enriching uranium aren't enough to provide contentment to the people of Iran.

Hopefully, Iranians will continue to speak out and hold Ahmadinejad and their government accountable.

The Iranian people appear to want exactly what President Bush frequently talks about, the universal human desire to live with dignity and in freedom.

Hey, You! Get Out of my Office!

Finally, an issue that has united Congress!

Unfortunately, it's not our national security, health care, education, or immigration.

It's about protecting themselves.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution.

Hastert raised concerns that the FBI’s unannounced seizure of congressional documents during a raid of Jefferson’s Rayburn office Saturday night violated the separation of powers between the two branches of government as they are defined by the Constitution.

“The Speaker spoke candidly with the president about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s raid over the weekend,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday in confirming his boss’s remarks.

Hastert told reporters yesterday that he understands the reasons for the investigation but objected to the manner in which the raid was conducted.

I don't get this.

William Jefferson is a crook. Just because he's a congressman, why should he be immune from investigation?

It makes no sense to me. Talk about being above the law!

The whole thing reminds me of how the Catholic Church handled the abusive, criminal priests, dealing with the matter internally. That made no sense to me either. The pedophile priests should have been prosecuted, not protected. If a crime has been committed, it's time for law enforcement to get involved, no immunity.

The same thing applies here.

I know there's the separation of powers, yada, yada, yada. I get that. I understand the importance of not allowing a tyrannical executive branch seize documents of the legislative branch.

Fine. But does that mean that members of Congress can consider their offices untouchable?

If that's the case, it's a sweet deal for criminal, corrupt congressmen. Potentially, they could keep all sorts of contraband in their protected territory, even a dead body. I know that's an over the top example. However, if law enforcement can't conduct searches, it can't conduct searches. Case closed.

My questions:

1. Why are congressmen's offices off limits from lawful, warranted searches?

2. Why are congressmen above the law when it comes to criminal investigations?

I realize that Republicans are outraged about the FBI's search of Jefferson's office because they want their offices to be their sanctuaries. They don't like the precedence.

But why in the world would they take the emphasis off of Jefferson's criminal activity and turn this into an issue about the executive branch's abuse of power, particularly when there was oversight by the judicial branch?

What an idiotic move!

King George and his corrupt administration is at it again!

Hastert is choosing to stand by a colleague that kept tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer, rather than stand against the corruption of a member of Congress. He should be demanding that Jefferson resign or be censured. Hastert shouldn't be getting in his corner.

There are some instances when it is appropriate for the FBI to search a congressman's office. This would be one of those instances.

Read more.
___________________________________

Update: Yesterday, Jefferson said that he would not "leave his seat on the House Ways and Means Committee."

I think Jefferson may be learning that you can't always get what you want.

He's hanging on the post; but I doubt he'll be able to do that much longer if the Dems want to be seen as corruption-free.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Embattled Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisana on Wednesday refused a request by the House's top Democrat to resign his seat on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The Justice Department is probing allegations that Jefferson solicited and accepted bribes; he has denied any wrongdoing. "In the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus, I am writing to request your immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a letter to Jefferson. Jefferson, who represents a New Orleans-area district, replied in a letter that doing so would harm constituents, who have benefited from his seat on the panel. "I will not stand for that," Jefferson wrote.

Is Pelosi calling for Jefferson's resignation from the committee just to deflect criticism about the Dems' propensity to act as enablers for corrupt members of their party?

Or, does she mean it?

If Jefferson remains in his post, it will reveal that the Dems have an undeniably corrupt culture and Pelosi is impotent as a leader.

Enemies at Home and Abroad

During a nice, friendly chat with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday night, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez expressed his support for Iran's nuclear program.

Their conversation included the topic of Iran's nuclear ambitions, which Chavez has publicly supported several times, according to the statement from [Venezuela's Communications Ministry].

Ahmadinejad thanked Chavez for endorsing Iran's right to developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and said the two countries shared many "ideals and goals" which "have formed strong bonds between our two nations."

He said that independent-minded governments could, with harmony, unity and wisdom, preserve and strengthen their natural resources.

"As part of the vindication of our inalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means, we will continue to act in the framework of legality and with civilized logic," he said.

Chavez reiterated his support for Iran's civil use of nuclear power, saying he was sure that Iran would proceed with its nuclear program with wisdom and that Iran's people would succeed in the field.

He also called for the advancement of the joint projects Iran and Venezuela were planning.

It's understandable that Chavez and Ahmadinejad are buddies. They have a lot in common.

They're both maniacal nuts bent on picking a fight with the United States.

They both despise President Bush.

They both are relentless in their harassment of other nations, relying on over the top rhetoric, threats, and saber rattling.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez dismissed U.S. concerns over democracy in Venezuela, saying President Bush is "demolishing" his own country's democracy by spying on fellow Americans and violating the rights of immigrants in the war on terror.

Speaking a day after Bush said he was "concerned about the erosion of democracy" in Venezuela and Bolivia, Chavez also accused Bush on Tuesday of posing a threat to world peace.

"Democracy and the fundamental principles of that country, which were held up by Abraham Lincoln among others, are being demolished," said Chavez, citing a domestic spying program that many Americans have criticized as a violation of civil liberties.

"We'll have to tell the U.S. president that we are very worried because his imperialist, war-mongering government is dangerously eroding the possibility of peace and life on this planet," he added.

Here's another example of a hostile entity spitting the Democrats' talking points right back at the United States.

Every quote from Chavez in this article could just as easily be attributed to Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi, or Teddy Kennedy.

So, we have Chavez, a wacko leader in our own hemisphere, getting cozy with certifiably insane Ahmadinejad, the man who threatens to give other nations "an historic slap" "if they commit the slightest aggression" toward Iran.

As if that's not troubling enough, Chavez is yapping about how Bush has eroded the civil liberties of Americans through his "domestic spying program."

What he says is completely indistinguishable from the Left's attacks on the Bush administration. Chavez could write for The New York Times.

There's no difference.

This illustrates just how poisoned the American political landscape has become. It shows how ugly the lib media have turned.

I find it extremely unsettling that a nutjob leader like Chavez sounds just like the Dems in the House and Senate and their mouthpieces in the media.

We're at war. There's no question that the country is engaged in a bitter struggle.

The Bush administration is fighting the War on Terror.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Dems, and Rinos are waging war against the Bush administration.



"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

--Abraham Lincoln, June 1858

Say a Little Prayer

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To me, it's clear that Americans have the right to freely exercise religion. That includes having the right to pray.

The First Amendment says nothing about prayer being banned from high school graduation ceremonies. Does it? I don't see it. Nope, the framers didn't include that.

The way I read it, Congress can't make a law respecting the establishment of a religion and it also can't prohibit a citizen from practicing one's religion as long as that practice doesn't violate other laws.

For instance, a religion that ritualistically tortures or murders people would run into problems. But saying a prayer, speaking words that are not inflammatory, can hardly be considered a danger to the social order, nor can it be considered an endorsement by the government.

Granted, Congress hasn't really stood in the way of citizens and their religious practices; but the Judiciary most definitely has.

A recent example--

RUSSELL SPRINGS, Ky. (AP) -- The senior class at a southern Kentucky high school gave their response Friday night to a federal judge's order banning prayer at commencement.

About 200 seniors stood during the principal's opening remarks and began reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd at the Russell County High School gymnasium.

The thunderous applause drowned out the last part of the prayer. The revival like atmosphere continued when senior Megan Chapman said in her opening remarks that God had guided her since childhood. Chapman was interrupted repeatedly by the cheering crowd as she urged her classmates to trust in God as they go through life.

"So, when you get out in the world and things get hard and you don't feel like you're going to pass that final next week in college, or you're not going to be able to pay that next bill, God's going to help you through that with your faith in him," Chapman said in her speech.

Are the Leftists cheering this instance of civil disobedience?

I doubt it.

Are the liberals that demand tolerance and social acceptance for a myriad of alternative lifestyles and unusual practices willing to show an itsy bit of tolerance for religion?

No.

...The graduation took place about 12 hours after a federal judge blocked the inclusion of prayer as part of Russell County High School's graduation ceremonies.

U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order sought by a student who didn't want prayer to be part of the graduation exercises at the south-central Kentucky school, about 110 miles southeast of Louisville.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed suit on behalf of the unidentified student on Tuesday.

ACLU attorney Lili Lutgens said she was pleased with the judge's order and "very proud of my client for standing up for the Constitution." Lutgens said prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views.

"He did not feel that he should have to sit through government-sponsored prayer just to receive his diploma," Lutgens said of the student.

This student didn't stand up for the Constitution. In fact, I think he spit on it. I think he infringed on the rights of his fellow students to freely exercise their faith.

Is this student, pawn of the ACLU, so intolerant that he can't handle listening to others recite a prayer?

How incredibly close-minded!

The student, through his attorney, had previously appealed to Russell County High principal Darren Gossage to cancel the prayer, a request Lutgens said the principal denied.

Keith Ellis, an assistant principal at Russell County High School, said the school has a long tradition of prayer at graduation, something that will change with the judge's ruling.

"It will definitely change what we've done in the past," Ellis said.

When I was in high school, I never made an appeal to the principal through my attorney.

How ridiculous!

This is yet another case of the fringe Left relying on an activisit judge to accomplish something on its extremist agenda that it can't accomplish by other means.

I don't believe that this kid couldn't handle hearing a prayer at his graduation. I just don't buy it.

Why not be tolerant rather than deny others their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs?

I really don't get why there is this attempt to rid all expressions of religion from the public square.

If a Muslim wanted to put his prayer rug down and pray during graduation, I wouldn't care.

If a Jewish prayer was recited during the ceremony, it wouldn't bother me in the least.

Why would it trouble me? I RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

Saying a Christian prayer at a public high school graduation ceremony is not establishing anything.

Instead of eliminating prayer at the event, why not include prayers to cover all the students' religions? And for those atheists, there could be a motivational message of some sort.

That seems to be a far more appropriate approach to take in terms of teaching students to respect the beliefs of others. It also prepares them for the real world. Creating this phony, sterile, godless environment doesn't help students learn to function as adults in a diverse community.

Note to the public schools: American society is not a no-religion zone.

Russell County School Superintendent Scott Pierce called himself a "person of faith" and said he was pleased with the response to the ruling by the senior class. The response of the students showed an ability to be "critical thinkers," Pierce said.

"They exhibited what we've tried to accomplish in 12 years of education, they have the ability to make these compelling decisions on their own," Pierce said.

The challenge made the graduation even better because it unified the senior class, Chapman said. "It made the whole senior class come together as one and I think that's the best way to go out," said Chapman, who plans to attend the University of the Cumberlands with her twin sister Megan.

I think the students did the right thing. Good for them.

The judge's ruling was unreasonable. By praying, they chose to defend their rights. That's honorable.

I also hope the student that sued to prevent the prayer from being included during graduation wasn't damaged for life because he was subjected to hearing the "Our Father" before receiving his diploma.

Was he traumatized, poor thing?

Hopefully, the kid managed to muddle through without experiencing severe psychological harm. God willing, any injury he may have sustained will not be permanent.

Believe it or not, the ACLU has taken up another graduation prayer case in Kentucky.

SHELBYVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- School officials in Shelby County are trying to decide whether to include a prayer during graduation.

A complaint was filed through the American Civil Liberties Union last week, asking that the prayer not be a part of the graduation ceremony.

...High school principal Gary Kidwell says the school district will decide by the end of this week what to do about prayers at the graduation ceremony and other end-of-year activities.

A federal judge in Louisville halted a prayer from being a part of graduation at Russell County High School this month.

The A-C-L-U had sued on behalf of a Russell County student.

If the school district in Shelby County backs down to appease the ACLU and avoid legal action, or if the case does go to court and prayer is prohibited, I hope the students follow the lead of the graduates of Russell County High School and stage a similar "free exercise."

Bin Laden Courts the Left

Osama bin Laden wants more ink and air time. (Does he know that it's May sweeps?)

He released yet another tape on the Internet. Again, there's no video. It's just an audiotape. Too bad Cannes is a film festival. I'm sure the tape would have been received warmly there.

Nonetheless, even absent images, it's getting attention like any message from the big guy.

It's been exactly one month since his last release on April 23.

Text of recorded message attributed to Bin Laden

PARIS (AFX) - The following is the text of the audio message attributed to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and released on the internet.

The transcript was run by the As-Sahab website, one of the outlets used by the organization, under the headline 'A Testimony to the Truth'.


'From Usama bin Muhammad bin Ladin to the American people: peace be upon he who has followed the Guidance.

'This is a brief message whose topic is my testimony on behalf of the Muslim prisoners you are holding, and in it I will talk about the truth concerning them, which is something which the Bush administration hates and is hostile to.

'I begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of Sept 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers -- Allah have mercy upon them -- with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.

'And his confession that he was assigned to participate in those raids is a false confession which no intelligent person doubts is a result of the pressure put upon him for the past four and a half years.

'And were this pressure lifted from him for him to return to his normal state, he would state the fact I mentioned. And among the things that confirm this fact is that the participants in Sept 11th were two groups: pilots and support teams for each pilot in order to control the aircraft.

'And since Zacarias Moussaoui was learning how to fly, it follows that he was not component number 20 from the teams which helped to control the airplanes, as your government previously claimed, and your government knows this fact with certainty.

'And if Moussaoui was studying aviation to become a pilot of one of the planes, then let him tell us the names of those assigned to help him control the plane.

'But he won't be able to tell us their names, for a simple reason: that in fact they don't exist. This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, the brother Moussaoui was arrested two weeks before the events, and had he known anything -- however little -- about the Sept 11th group, we would have told the brother Commander Mohamed Atta and his brothers -- Allah have mercy upon them -- to leave America immediately before their affair was exposed.

'And with this it becomes clear to even the novice investigator, not to mention the seasoned one, that there is no connection between him and the events of Sept 11th.

'And then I call to memory my brothers the prisoners in Guantanamo -- may Allah free them all -- and I state the fact, about which I also am certain, that all the prisoners of Guantanamo, who were captured in 2001 and the first half of 2002 and who number in the hundreds, have no connection whatsoever to the events of Sept 11th, and even stranger is that many of them have no connection with al-Qaida in the first place, and even more amazing is that some of them oppose al-Qaidas methodology of calling for war with America.

'And this is in addition to the arrest of those who were working in the relief agencies, like Abu Abdul Aziz al-Mutrafi, or those working in the media, like Sami al-Hajj and Taysir Alouni, who was imprisoned at the instigation of the American administration.

'So the conclusion is that all the prisoners to date have no connection with the events of Sept 11th and knew nothing about them, with the exception of two of the brothers, may Allah free them all.

'Bush and his administration are aware of this fact, but they avoid mentioning it, for reasons not hidden to the discerning. Among these reasons is that it is necessary to create justifications for the massive spending of hundreds of billions on the Defense Department and other agencies in their war against the Mujahideen.

'My mentioning of these facts isnt out of hope that Bush and his party will treat our brothers fairly in their cases, because that is something no rational person expects, but rather it is meant to expose the oppression, injustice and arbitrariness of your administration in using force and the reactions that result from that.

'This is from one perspective, and from another perspective, perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it. This is what needed to be said. And may peace be upon he who has followed the Guidance.'

Blah, blah, blah.

Bin Laden is babbling again, complaining about Guantanamo, sort of like Dick Durbin.

So what else is new?

I do find it interesting that it appears bin Laden wished he had testified in the trial of "the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui."

I wonder if Moussaoui's defense team is sorry that the tape didn't surface earlier.

Can you imagine if the lawyers had the jury listen to a tape of bin Laden exonerating Moussaoui?

Cue The Twilight Zone music.

Bin Laden's latest release really creeps me out because it addresses the American people, almost like it's an address from the Oval Office. Of course, in bin Laden's case, it's probably the Oval Cave.

The tape differs from his April 23 offering in that this one is significantly shorter and, for the most part, focuses on Moussaoui and the supposed injustices that detainees are suffering.

How do American Leftists react to bin Laden's portrayal of "the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui" and detainees as victims of the Bush administration?

They must agree, right? They say it all the time.

Obviously, bin Laden is aware of how the Dems have accused Bush of promoting the systematic torture of detainees at Gitmo and other facilities. He's echoing the "Bush lied" mantra.

I'm sure he takes great pleasure in the statements of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Murtha, etc. After all, they're doing bin Laden's bidding.

When bin Laden says that "perhaps there will one day come from the Americans someone who desires justice and fairness, and that is the path to security and safety, if you are interested in it," it sounds as if he's doing an ad for the DNC. He appeals to anti-Bush Americans and tries to convert others to bailing on the President.

Bin Laden wistfully longs for the day when Bush will be out of power.

And why would that be?

Al Gore, Rachel Carson, and an Inconvenient Truth

"Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."


Visions of Rachel Carson no doubt danced in Al Gore's head as he sauntered down the red carpet at Cannes to present his global warming horror movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

He's enamored with her.

From the 1998 PBS Frontline report, "Fooling with Mother Nature":

On the walls of the US vice president's office, you might expect to see framed photos of political giants past and present. Amidst his collection, however, Al Gore cherishes a picture of a biologist from Western Pennsylvania - Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring." Why does an unassuming scientist lay claim to this space? "For me personally," says Gore in his introduction to the 1992 edition of her book, "Silent Spring had a profound impact ... Indeed, Rachel Carson was one of the reasons that I became so conscious of the environment and so involved with environmental issues ... Carson has had as much or more effect on me than any, and perhaps than all of them together."

Yes, Gore wants to be the Rachel Carson of the new millenium, maybe more than he wanted to be President of the United States.

That's probably doubtful, but it can't be denied that Gore seems to be displaying far more passion for the environment than he was able to muster for the 2000 presidential campaign.

All the accounts that I've read of his speeches on global warming cite his passion and intensity, his desire to save the world. What a guy!

I think he wants that to be his legacy -- Al Gore, savior of the planet.

In today's New York Times, Al Gore's companion book to his documentary is reviewed.



(Excerpts)

[W]ith the emerging consensus on global warming today, Mr. Gore's passionate warnings about climate change seem increasingly prescient. He has revived the slide presentation about global warming that he first began giving in 1990 and taken that slide show on the road, and he has now turned that presentation into a book and a documentary film, both called "An Inconvenient Truth."

Yes, Gore exudes passion.

..."An Inconvenient Truth" is lucid, harrowing and bluntly effective.

...As for the volume's copious photos, they too serve to underscore important points. We see Mount Kilimanjaro in the process of losing its famous snows over three and a half decades, and Glacier National Park its glaciers in a similar period of time.

...Mr. Gore does a cogent job of explaining how global warming can disrupt delicate ecological balances, resulting in the spread of pests (like the pine beetle, whose migration used to be slowed by colder winters), increases in the range of disease vectors (including mosquitoes, ticks and fleas), and the extinction of a growing number of species.

...Mr. Gore, who once wrote an introduction to an edition of Rachel Carson's classic "Silent Spring" (the 1962 book that not only alerted readers to the dangers of pesticides, but is also credited with spurring the modern environmental movement), isn't a scientist like Carson and doesn't possess her literary gifts; he writes, rather, as a popularizer of other people's research and ideas. But in this multimedia day of shorter attention spans and high-profile authors, "An Inconvenient Truth" (the book and the movie) could play a similar role in galvanizing public opinion about a real and present danger. It could goad the public into reading more scholarly books on the subject, and it might even push awareness of global warming to a real tipping point — and beyond.

Of course, Gore's 325 page book receives a favorable write up. Still, it bugs me that Rachel Carson continues to maintain hero status among environmentalists.

The Times reviewer calls her a scientist, but fails to mention the bad science she relied on to spur the modern environmental movement.

How convenient!

So many of Carson's claims have been refuted.

Read a sampling of the debunking of Silent Spring.

Why The Insecticide DDT Should Never Have Been Banned

Killing People - The banning of DDT and radical environmentalists

Malaria Foundation International

The Lies of Rachel Carson

Bring Back DDT, and Science With It!


The latter is a 2002 piece by Marjorie Mazel Hecht. It provides a concise overview of Carson's illegitimate assertions and the consequences of the hysteria that she launched.

The 1972 U.S. ban on DDT is responsible for a genocide 10 times larger than that for which we sent Nazis to the gallows at Nuremberg. It is also responsible for a menticide which has already condemned one entire generation to a dark age of anti-science ignorance, and is now infecting a new one.

The lies and hysteria spread to defend the DDT ban are typical of the irrationalist, anti-science wave which has virtually destroyed rational forms of discourse in our society. If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda.

Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year, 200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every 30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of malaria.

...The campaign to ban DDT got its start with the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962. Carson’s popular book was a fraud. She played on people’s emotions, and to do so, she selected and falsified data from scientific studies... .

Does that sound a bit extreme?

Are you thinking that I'm citing sources that lack credibility?

Do you need a source that you can identify as enlightened, sophisticated, and acceptable to the liberal mindset?

OK.

Read "What the World Needs Now Is DDT."

It's by Tina Rosenberg and was published in The New York Times on April 11, 2004.

It appears that Rachel Carson, Al Gore's inspiration, sparked a movement that cost millions of lives.

The point is one should be wary of Gore's claims of "truth."

His passion for sounding warnings about global warming must be tempered by sound science, and his message must not be blindly accepted as gospel.

Policy decisions on the environment can't be made based on Al Gore's "documentary" at Cannes or his volume soon to be hitting bookstore shelves.

The fact is Gore's hero had a role in millions of preventable deaths from malaria.

That reveals that the environmental movement is capable of producing catastrophes rather than preventing them.

I believe that we are stewards of God's creation and must care for the earth. I believe that we are called to protect the environment and not abuse the gift that it is. However, that goal cannot take precedence over caring for human life.

I suppose one could say: Carson lied, millions died.

Perhaps Gore's next film, if there is a next film, could be on the scourge of malaria, and how an environmental movement run amok cost precious lives.

Reprise: CONAN'S U2PALOOZA

Normally, I don't like reruns, but I'm enjoying tonight's Conan O'Brien episode.

In honor of Conan's U2PALOOZA, I'm pulling this October 2005 post out of my archives.

Time for a little break from politics.
____________________________

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency that he heads won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.



ElBaradei, a 63-year-old lawyer from Egypt, has led the U.N. nuclear agency as it grappled with the crisis in Iraq and the ongoing efforts to prevent North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

"At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general."

ElBaradei said in Vienna, Austria, that the prize "sends a strong message" about the agency's disarmament efforts and will strengthen his resolve to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

No doubt, many fans of 2005 Nobel Peace Prize nominees Bono and Bob Geldof were disappointed that the Nobel Committee bestowed the award on Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, as Bono said last night, when U2 was featured for the entire hour on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, he considered it an honor just to be nominated and recognized for his work to eliminate debt and remedy poverty in poor African nations.




For any U2 fan, Conan's October 6, show was a real treat.

Click here to watch highlights.

As usual, it started off with Conan in his monologue spot. He didn't do any topical jokes, but instead introduced a brief taped segment of the fans lined up outside of 30 Rock for a chance to be a member of the audience. Some of them had been there nearly a day in advance of the taping. Although Conan's interaction with them was entertaining, it did delay what I wanted to see.



Immediately after that, U2 took to the stage and launched into "All Because of You." Bono's voice sounded a little hoarse, compared to when I saw him nearly two weeks ago. Nonetheless, it was great to see them performing on late night TV.

A fun segment followed. Conan did "The Year 2000-The Edge Edition." Edge did a great job delivering his lines. Toward the end, Bono came out from behind the curtain, dressed in the Year 2000 garb, and offered a couple of predictions before cutting to another commericial break.


Photo by Dan

Bono, Edge, Larry, and Adam were then interviewed by Conan. It was somewhat scripted, but still enjoyable, with a number of laughs.



Conan showed some photos of how U2 has changed over the years, including a real photo of Bono as a younger man and an amusing altered image documenting the band's weight gain period.





Then, they performed "Original of the Species." Again, although Bono's voice was a little shaky, that didn't detract from the performance, at least for me.



Conan also did a segment with only Bono on the set. It was at that point that they discussed the One Campaign and got into some politics.



It may be hard for some to imagine, but Bono was quite humble in discussing his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. He expressed doubt that it would be awarded to him. Still, he seemed genuinely pleased and more than satisfied with just the recognition of being nominated.

I suppose much to the chagrin of many libs out there, Bono, as has been his practice in the recent past, did not bash Bush. He praised him.

Rather than go off the deep end with anti-Bush rants, Bono understands the necessity of showing respect in order to be taken seriously and wield influence with Bush. He gets it that divisiveness and negativity will not help to make positive strides toward alleviating the poverty in Africa.

Note to Kanye West: Saying "Bush doesn't care about black people" is a counterproductive strategy.

Note to the Dems: Try Bono's approach.

U2 ended the show with two songs.

Edge and Bono did a lovely acoustic version of "Stuck in a Moment."

Then, Larry and Adam joined them for "Vertigo." Unfortunately, the broadcast ended before the song did. Too bad.

All in all, Conan's U2palooza was a very pleasant way to end the day.

Don't take this as sour grapes.

I just want to point out that although Bono didn't win the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize today, I feel confident in asserting that there is no chance that Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency will ever win a Grammy.

Good, Evil, and Madeleine Albright

Aljazeera likes Madeleine Albright.

I don't think it's her ability to leg-press 400 pounds that makes her appealing. I think it's the way she bashes President Bush that makes her a hero to extremists.

George Bush's religious absolutism is alienating Muslims worldwide and making US foreign policy difficult for many countries to accept, according to a former secretary of state.

Madeleine Albright said the president's use of Christian rhetoric and belief in the "absolute truth" was worrying.

"Some of his language is really quite over the top," she told Reuters on Sunday during a trip to London to promote her book, The Mighty and Almighty, which examines religion and world affairs.

On her book tour, Albright is actively campaigning to alienate Muslims by insisting that President Bush is trying to undermine their religious beliefs. He's not. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, Albright's attack on Bush's faith is what's over the top.

"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats.

This is just plain screwy.

Bush hasn't made his religious views part of American policy, certainly no more than any prior president.

Maybe an argument could be made that Carter's religious views weren't part of American policy; but that would be because under the disastrous Carter presidency, there basically was no policy.

And let's not get into Clinton's exploitation of faith when it suited him.

Is Clinton parading before the cameras while carrying a huge Bible Albright's idea of what it means to be a man of faith?

Bush, a Republican, has said that his faith informs his decisions as president. He says, for example, that he prayed to God for guidance before invading Iraq.

"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different. The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us," Albright said.

I'm glad that Bush prays and is guided by a moral framework that is universal.

I prefer that to a president that is morally-challenged.

What worries me is that Albright and those of her deranged ilk don't understand the division between good and evil.

Everything is relative with them.

For example, the 9/11 hijackers weren't evil. They just had a different world view. Understand?

Some Muslims have accused Bush of waging a crusade against Islam.

The White House says it has nothing against Islam, but against those who commit terrorist atrocities in its name.

Albright is playing right into the hands of militant Islam. Her new book could be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

In her book, Albright recalls how Bush, while he was governor of Texas, told Christians he believed God wanted him to be president.

Let's get the entire statement in context, please.

She quotes from his speech to his party convention of 2004, when he told Republicans: "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom."

Oooh. How scary!

Bush says that people have a right to live free of tyranny. What a wacko idea!

(By the way, I think the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights espouses the exact same thing.)


Albright is being so disingenuous.

Let's quote some of Bill Clinton's speeches. How many times did he invoke God?

Albright, 69, who was secretary of state under Clinton from 1997 to 2001, says the war in Iraq "may eventually rank among the worst foreign policy disasters in US history".

She describes it as arguably worse than the Vietnam War, not in terms of the number of people killed but because of the volatility of the Middle East.

It wasn't enough for her to say that Iraq is Vietnam. Albright thinks it's worse than Vietnam.

The woman wants attention.

She wants to sell her new book so she shamelessly attacks President Bush and U.S. policy, without any regard for the ramifications of having a former U.S. secretary of state slam the administration.

Asked about her own beliefs, Albright said she had "a very confused religious background".

Born and raised a Roman Catholic in Czechoslovakia, Britain and then the United States, she converted to Anglicanism when she married and only later in life discovered she had Jewish roots.

It is this legacy which makes her wary of any religion which claims a monopoly on truth, she said.

Albright is very confused. I'll grant her that.

I wonder if she's seen The Da Vinci Code yet.

As Madeleine Albright tries to drum up sales for her book, she is undermining more than President Bush and his administration.

She is attacking America by aiding our enemies.

That's definitely not good.

One might even consider it evil.

Capital Times Out to Lunch

An editorial in The Capital Times slams Mark Green as being out of touch with Wisconsin voters.

Is it surprising that the voice of the People's Republic of Madison is anti-Green?

Not at all.

But is it really necessary to start the personal attacks already?

Apparently, it is. The editorial board clearly doesn't have a lot of faith in Jim Doyle when it comes to his ability to appeal to voters on issues.

Is this an indication of what's to come?

I guess.

Editorial: Mark Green's out of touch

(Excerpts)

Of all the lamentable prospects for this fall's election season, none is more unappealing than the notion of listening for six months as charisma-challenged Mark Green attempts to make a coherent case for his Republican gubernatorial candidacy.

The Green Bay congressman is a nice enough fellow. But that cannot erase the reality that he appears to be the worst public speaker to win a major-party nomination for governor since the happily forgotten Phil Kuehn carried the party banner down to defeat in his 1960 challenge to Gaylord Nelson and his 1962 contest with John Reynolds.

Unless Green can improve his speaking style quickly, Republicans are going to want to avoid placing him on the same stages with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who party bigs shoved aside to clear the way for the congressman's candidacy, and former Gov. Tommy Thompson, who dramatically re-emphasized Green's flaws by flirting with a save-the-party candidacy of his own this year.

At the Republican convention in Appleton over the weekend, both Walker and Thompson delivered more impressive addresses than Green, as did various and sundry other GOP hangers-on.

Four paragraphs critiquing Green as a speaker -- Lame!

Yeah, speaking style is a campaign issue that Wisconsin voters care about.

What makes The Cap Times' obsession with Green's supposed lack of charisma so silly is the implied notion that Jim Doyle is Mr. Charisma and that he is a compelling speaker.

Jim Doyle doesn't exactly ooze charm and enthusiasm. Doyle shows about as much excitement as Herb Kohl does at a Bucks game -- positively immobile with a mask-like face.

If The Cap Times believes that Doyle can beat Green based on oratory skills, that is a BIG mistake.

It wasn't just Green's style that was off-putting. It was his ridiculous message. It will be hard to top the comic moment that was achieved when the Boston-born candidate attempted to paint himself as the embodiment of what makes Wisconsin tick.

"Boston-born." Give me a break.

Green has spent the vast majority of his life in Wisconsin.

If Hillary Clinton is fit to be New York's senator because some supporters bought her a home in Chappaqua, surely Green, a Wisconsin resident, is fit to run for governor.

In a convention speech thick with silly charges and bumbled cheap shots, Green claimed at one point, "Jim Doyle and his crew say they want to keep Wisconsin moving forward, but they just can't seem to grasp the fundamentals of what makes us different, what makes us special, what makes us Wisconsin."

Speaking of bumbled cheap shots, The Cap Times has just described its anti-Green editorial.

Is Green serious?

The congressman has just spent the better part of a decade voting in lock step with Tom DeLay on every federal issue - often to the detriment of Wisconsin. And he is running a campaign for governor that follows the national party playbook right down to the issues that are emphasized and the slogans that are employed.

This is desperation.

Mark Green = Tom DeLay.

And who is Doyle in "lock step" with?

The teachers' union?

Casinos?

Furthermore, it's ironic that the editorial faults Green for following the "national party playbook" in the very paragraph that it mentions Tom DeLay. Sounds like something right out of Dr. Dean's DNC playbook.

Green was a willing lieutenant in the corrupting crusade of Scott Jensen, whose assault on Wisconsin's tradition of clean government was so severe that it earned the former Assembly speaker a criminal conviction for abusing the public trust. And he has been on the campaign contribution payroll of DeLay since he arrived in Congress, answering "yes" every time the crooked former Republican majority leader sought to redistribute more tax dollars from Wisconsin to the pork-barrel projects of Texas and the other Sun Belt states, which have been living large at the expense of the Upper Midwest for the past decade.

There is no substance in this editorial regarding where Green stands on the issues.

It's an impotent attempt to demonize Green by connecting him to the Dems' favorite scapegoats and demons.

Following The Cap Times reasoning, should Wisconsinites reject Doyle because of Chuck Chvala or corrupt Dems like Robert Torricelli or Alan Mollohan or William Jefferson or... (too many others to mention)?

This newspaper has been more critical of Jim Doyle than most. And we certainly think that the governor has handed his critics plenty of ammunition for the 2006 campaign.

But for Green to suggest that he is more in touch with what makes Wisconsin special than Doyle is comic.

As a state legislator and as a member of Congress, Green has consistently sided with those who attack Wisconsin's values of clean and open government and undermine the ability of the state to function by steering our tax dollars elsewhere.

If he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for governor, Mark Green needs to break with his past and reconnect with Wisconsin. He is not going to do that by suggesting that Jim Doyle is the one who is out of touch with what makes the state special.

It's clear that The Cap Times is out of touch, not only with Wisconsin but with reality.

It's "comic" to suggest that Doyle abides by the "values of clean and open government" or that he is more connected with the people of Wisconsin than Mark Green.

Do the people of Wisconsin want higher taxes?

Do the people of Wisconsin want a photo ID bill to help prevent voter fraud and assure the integrity of elections?

Do the people of Wisconsin want School Choice?

Do the people of Wisconsin want their Second Amendment rights protected?

Do the people of Wisconsin want an advocate for religious freedom?

Do the people of Wisconsin want a respect life advocate?

Let's talk issues.

Let's talk reality.

Then, let's determine who's out of touch with Wisconsin.

Culture of Corruption: William Jefferson

William Jefferson, Democrat representative from Louisiana, has a lot to worry about. The Feds have strong evidence that he has accepted bribes.

As far as abusing his power as a U.S. congressman goes, Jefferson is a serial offender.

Of course, that's trouble for Jefferson; but it's also problematic for the Dems.

Jefferson's illicit activities are another embarrassing stain on the Dem plan to paint Republicans as hopelessly corrupt and themselves as lily-white.

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Federal investigators said in court papers that they videotaped Democratic Representative William Jefferson accepting a leather briefcase packed with $100,000 in cash from a government witness in a bribery investigation.

Jefferson, of Louisiana, also was recorded in a telephone conversation promising to help the unnamed witness with a business venture in Nigeria and Ghana, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation affidavit filed to support a search warrant for Jefferson's congressional office.

"I will give it a thousand percent, as you might imagine," Jefferson was quoted as saying during a telephone conversation, according to the FBI documents, which were released by the Department of Justice yesterday.

...Jefferson's case, as well as that of Democratic Representative Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, may complicate efforts by Democrats to capitalize on a series of scandals involving Republicans. Mollohan, who has stepped down temporarily as a member of the House Ethics Committee, has been accused of misstating his personal assets. He has said he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

In past court filings, prosecutors alleged Jefferson received more than $400,000 from a Kentucky company and had a 30 percent interest in a Nigerian company transferred to his children. The Kentucky company, iGate Inc., based in Louisville, was owned by Vernon Jackson, who has pleaded guilty to bribing a public official.

According to the affidavit released yesterday, the FBI recorded phone calls between Jefferson and a cooperating witness, who is not identified, in which they discussed the possibility of a $100,000 payment to Jefferson in exchange for assistance in a Nigerian business venture.

Federal investigators said they videotaped Jefferson on July 30, 2005, accepting the cash in a leather briefcase from the witness and putting it in his 1990 Lincoln Towncar following a meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Arlington, Virginia.

All but $10,000 of the money was found in a freezer when the FBI searched Jefferson's Washington-area home on Aug. 3, 2005, a search that previously was disclosed. The money was stuffed in food containers and wrapped in aluminum foil, according to the affidavit. Some of the money, $4,800, was given to a legislative assistant in Jefferson's office as a loan to address her financial difficulties, the FBI said.

In Jackson's plea agreement, he said he and Jefferson had an agreement that called for Jackson's company to make monthly payments of $7,500 and give the lawmaker stock options and a percentage of gross sales, the court papers said. Jackson's company developed technology designed to transmit data, audio and video communications over copper wire.

Jefferson denies any wrongdoing.

That's just stupid. He's been caught. Why continue to lie? That makes matters even worse than they already are.

How could Jefferson explain away tens of thousands of dollars crammed in food containers, wrapped in foil, and kept in a freezer?

How can he claim innocence with evidence of his actions caught on video and audiotape?

He can't.

Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi need a new strategy. They made an incredible miscalculation in believing that they could present Dems as virtuous and decent compared to Republicans.

Democrats simply cannot accuse Republicans of being immersed in a "Culture of Corruption" when they are steeped in it.

DIXIE CHICKS CLUCK FOR BUCKS

TIME is looking less and less like a news magazine and more and more like an entertainment weekly.

Iraq, Iran, the War on Terror, immigration, the 2006 elections, even Karl Rove -- They all take a backseat to the Dixie Chicks. Yes, the three singers rate the cover of TIME this week.


Clearly, TIME adores the Chicks.

What's not to love?

In March 2003, just before the war in Iraq began, the Dixie Chicks came underfire when Natalie Maines told an audience in London, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

At the time, Maines apologized. Now, just as their new album is released, she's decided to make a retraction.

She's no longer sorry. In fact, she's back to bashing the President. This time she's not on foreign soil. This time she's at home sweet home, embraced by the lib media.

Josh Tyrangiel of TIME opens the story:

Natalie Maines is one of those people born middle finger first.

Isn't that nice?

As a high school senior in Lubbock, Texas, she'd skip a class a day in an attempt to prove that because she never got caught and some Mexican students did, the system was racist. After Maines joined the Dixie Chicks, and the Dixie Chicks became the biggest-selling female group in music history--with suspiciously little cash to show for it--she and her bandmates told their record label, Sony, they were declaring themselves free agents. (In the high school that is Nashville, this is way worse than skipping class.) Now that she's truly notorious, having told a London audience in 2003, on the eve of the Iraq war, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas," Maines has one regret: the apology she offered George W. Bush at the onset of her infamy. "I apologized for disrespecting the office of the President," says Maines. "But I don't feel that way anymore. I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."

..."If people are going to ask me to apologize based on who I am," says Maines, "I don't know what to do about that. I can't change who I am."

As proof, the first single from the Dixie Chicks' new album, Taking the Long Way (out May 23), is called Not Ready to Make Nice. It is, as one country radio programmer says, "a four-minute f___-you to the format and our listeners. I like the Chicks, and I won't play it." Few other stations are playing Not Ready to Make Nice, and while it has done well on iTunes, it's quite possible that in singing about their anger at people who were already livid with them and were once their target audience, the Chicks have written their own ticket to the pop-culture glue factory. "I guess if we really cared, we wouldn't have released that single first," says Maguire. "That was just making people mad. But I don't think it was a mistake."

Whether the Dixie Chicks recover their sales luster or not, the choice of single has turned their album release into a referendum. Taking the Long Way's existence is designed to thumb its nose at country's intolerance for ideological hell raising, and buying it or cursing it reveals something about you and your politics--or at least your ability to put a grudge above your listening pleasure. And however you vote, it's tough to deny that by gambling their careers, three Texas women have the biggest balls in American music.

This is TIME magazine?

Women with the "biggest balls in American music"?

What garbage!

I couldn't boycott the Dixie Chicks back in 2003 because I never bought any of their music and I never went to their concerts in the first place.

I guess I'll just keep up never buying their music.

The article is a lengthy tome about the bravery of the Chicks. Pardon me, but I don't think of them as heroic.

They're entertainers and they're publicizing their new album by speaking out against Bush again. That's not courageous. That's smart marketing.

This anger is all so contrived.



Look at this picture.

Very dramatic, so dramatic it's laughable.

It seems like self-parody. Actually, I think these three Texas women with the big balls take themselves far too seriously.

The article concludes:

Will anybody buy it? The Dixie Chicks talk about Long Way as the end of their commercial salad days, but they're shrewd enough to know that only suckers choose between art and commerce. "I'm not ready to fly coach," jokes [Marty] Maguire, and indeed Taking the Long Way could easily sub as the title for their marketing plan. They'll tour starting in July and flog the record on a few select talk shows. "Natalie's new motto is, 'What would Bruce Springsteen do?'" says [Emily] Robison, laughing. "Not that we're of that caliber, but 'Would Bruce Springsteen do The View?'" They're not doing The View.

Maines says she's not looking for more battles, but she won't shy away from any either. "Everything was so nice and fine and happy for us for the longest time," she says of their pre-Incident days. "It was awesome to feel those feelings again that I felt in high school: to be angry, to be sure that you're right and that the things you do matter. You don't realize that you're not feeling those feelings until you do. And then you realize how much more interesting life is."

And that's the burning question covered in TIME this week. Will anybody buy the Dixie Chicks' new album?

Who cares? I mean really, who cares?

So, Maines is sure that she's right. She feels angry like she did in high school.

Well, I don't think she's right, but I do think she's acting like she's in high school.

When Hate Speech is Acceptable

So often, conservative talk radio is deemed to be hate speech, the ramblings of close-minded, unsophisticated, racist nutjobs.

Bill Moyers referred to conservative talk radio as "a freak show of political pornography: lies, distortions, and half-truths — half-truths being perhaps the blackest of all lies."

Even David Brooks, a token conservative at The New York Times, slammed talk radio hosts in his column, "Sir Galahad of the GOP," last week.

On the topic of immigration, he claims that listeners have been hit by "slopping barrages of manure by Limbaugh, Savage, Levin and every other talk-radio jock in the Northern Hemisphere. ...

"What bothers you about the restrictionists is not that they are primitives or racists. They're not. It's their imperviousness, their unwillingness to compromise. They don't have the numbers to govern, but they think they have the numbers to destroy."

Whatever. Personally, I believe that compromise is key to making progress on handling the illegal immigration mess, but I think Brooks' went a bit overboard in his demonization of conservative talk radio hosts.

If you want to cite some real examples of "slopping barrages of manure," look no further than what passes for talk radio on WNOV-AM(860) in Milwaukee.

Spivak and Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel give a taste of some of the most flat-out racist, anti-Semitic, violent bilge on the air.

Every so often, you just have to turn on ex-Ald. Michael McGee's "Word Warriors" radio show on WNOV-AM (860) to hear what the self-proclaimed commander is spewing.

Thursday morning was one of those days.

Less than 24 hours after his son, Ald. Mike McGee, was arrested in a courtroom, accused of threatening his former girlfriend, his father was on the air offering up a smorgasbord of anti-Semitism, threats of violence against the city of Milwaukee and rants about the difficulty of growing up McGee.

...First off, the elder McGee started with a little humor, if you can call it that.

"Look, I have a joke for you - well, not really a joke," said a female caller. "But what (does) July mean?"

"What do July mean?" replied the commander. "The Jews lie."

Caller: "Uh-uh, and what do picnic mean?"

Commander: "Picnic mean, pick a (n-word)."

(This is a reference to a bogus Internet story about the origins of the word picnic.)

Caller: "There you go. Y'all have a good day."

And that was just the warm-up.

The next caller, as did many others, offered words of support to the McGee clan in the wake of the alderman's arrest.

Here's some background on McGee, Jr.'s recent troubles:

In November 2005, McGee was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after a strange encounter outside of a Blockbuster store.

Recently, McGee, Jr. has been involved in a bizarre case with Kimley Rucker, a woman he supposedly impregnated -- twice.

The details read like bad fiction. If there's anything consistent in the saga, it's that McGee lies under oath. Also, he writes bad poetry.

"Violets are Blue, Today is a great day and I miss you! Too bad but not too sad that you are carrying that McGee Seed."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on May 12, 2006: "In court Friday, Milwaukee Ald. Mike McGee admitted a sexual relationship with a woman who claims she is pregnant by him but maintained he hadn't lied in an earlier hearing, when he denied any "romantic" relationship with her."

Last Wednesday, Ald. Michael McGee was arrested for threatening the woman in court. Allegedly, he said, "If you drive by my house, I'm going to kill your ass."

Actually, I would like to pitch an idea for a new reality show. I think a camera crew should follow Michael McGee, Jr., documenting his adventures.

Back to McGee, Sr.'s radio program--

The caller told the elder McGee that she was praying for his family.

"It's not only at the police station," the woman said. "I work at the post office; it's just as bad with this racism. And we need to do something about it because it stinks. It's just like doo-doo - it stinks."

The remark launched McGee into a tirade reminiscent of his days on the Common Council, when nobody knew just what outrageous comment or threat might come out of his mouth. Remember how, back in 1990, McGee pledged to revive the Black Panther Militia in Milwaukee and threatened organized violence if conditions for blacks in the city did not improve?

On Thursday, he was voicing some more obscure but ominous threats of violence.

"Well, you know, in terms of the McGee family, I'm really tired of them, you know, taking every opportunity they can to slander our family. But, in fact, I feel like sometime my Vietnam syndrome is gonna take over, and I'm gonna go down there and mess up a bunch of 'em. So they better watch out, that's for sure. And that ain't no threat. That's a promise."

Finally, McGee whined about how hard it is for his children because they go through life with his name. McGee claimed that high school sports officials cheated his children out of awards and medals only because they were his offspring.

The anti-McGee discrimination extended to the classroom, he railed.

"Teachers at school find a kid named McGee, and they got to pay for that. Instead of getting an 'A,' they get a 'D,' you know. I'm just, I mean, I'm just tired of the way they just slander us on the news. They take every opportunity to just run some stuff backwards.

"You know, how does somebody get arrested in court for violating a restraining order? It's just time, after time, after time. I'm just tired of it. Pretty soon I'm gonna come to my boiling point, and they don't want to see that."

It's disgusting that WNOV's owner doesn't have a problem with the racist and violent content of McGee's show.

Although he doesn't care for the ethnic slurs and the threats, he's willing to overlook that stuff.

Jones says, "My job is audience. He's got a lot of people who like him."

In other words, if it brings in revenue, hate speech isn't hate speech. It's informative and entertaining.

So, McGee, Sr. has free rein to threaten violence and spew racist and anti-Semitic remarks on the radio.

No problem. People like him.

Right.

The bottom line:

1. Michael McGee, Sr. is a racist. It's highly disturbing that people like what he has to say.

2. Michael McGee, Jr. is a disgrace and embarrassment to his constitutents. It's highly disturbing that he is a leader in Milwaukee's African American community.

3. McGee, Sr. should be off the air.

4. McGee, Jr. should be voted out of office.

Speaking of Xenophobic...

UNBELIEVABLE.

Try and reconcile the policies of Mexico with the demands that Vicente Fox and company, some American citizens, and some American elected officials (mostly Democrats), are making on the United States.

You can't.

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

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

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

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

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

Juxtapose these tight restrictions with the measures passed by the U.S. Senate last Thursday.

Some questions for U.S. senators:

John McCain, care to explain how you could vote to allow criminals, identity thieves, to receive Social Security benefits as a reward for their crimes?

And Harry Reid, making charges that codifying English to be the official language of the U.S. is racist, what do you think of Mexico's policies?

...The foreign-born make up just 0.5 percent of Mexico's 105 million people, compared with about 13 percent in the United States, which has a total population of 299 million. Mexico grants citizenship to about 3,000 people a year, compared to the U.S. average of almost a half million.

Look at these figures!

How can Mexico threaten the U.S. with lawsuits for protecting our southern border while it is strengthening its own immigration policies to be more restrictive and hostile to immigrants?

It's absolutely absurd!

...[J. Michael Waller, of the Center for Security Policy in Washington said,] "If American policy-makers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution," he said in a recent article on immigration.

EXACTLY!

Some Mexicans agree their country needs to change.

"This country needs to be more open," said Francisco Hidalgo, a 50- year-old video producer. "In part to modernize itself, and in part because of the contribution these (foreign-born) people could make."

This is a minority opinion, but the Associated Press, ever fair and balanced, tosses it in. It must have taken a lot of work to get a quote expressing such an unusual sentiment.

Others express a more common view, a distrust of foreigners that academics say is rooted in Mexico's history of foreign invasions and the loss of territory in the 1847-48 Mexican-American War.

Speaking of the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who enter Mexico each year, chauffeur Arnulfo Hernandez, 57, said: "The ones who want to reach the United States, we should send them up there. But the ones who want to stay here, it's usually for bad reasons, because they want to steal or do drugs."

Some say progress is being made. Mexico's president no longer is required to be at least a second-generation native-born. That law was changed in 1999 to clear the way for candidates who have one foreign- born parent, like President Vicente Fox, whose mother is from Spain.

But the pace of change is slow. The state of Baja California still requires candidates for the state legislature to prove both their parents were native born.

The double standard is so blatant that it's a joke.

Mexico is insisting that we should grant the full rights of citizenship to millions of illegals in our country while at the same time Mexico toughens its immigration laws.

AT THE VERY SAME TIME!

The fact that U.S. lawmakers kowtow to Mexico is sickening.

Does my position reveal that I'm racist?

No. It reveals that I'm rational, unlike some members of the U.S. Senate.

Birth of a Nation

Mission Accomplished!

Maybe I shouldn't put it that way. Let me rephrase that.

The new Iraqi government is up and running.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP)
-- After five months of often bitter wrangling over Cabinet posts, Iraq's unity government took office Saturday and vowed to fight the insurgency, restore stability and set the stage for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops.

The new permanent government resulting from December's elections in which 12 million Iraqis participated has been portrayed by Western officials as the best hope for changing the dynamics of violence in Iraq. But it must expand control and persuade insurgents, assassins and militias to stand down, with no guarantee of success.

Of course, the new government isn't perfect.

Our government isn't perfect either. Democracies are always works in progress.

Still, I think the establishment of a full-term Iraqi government is a milestone worth celebrating. It's a big step in the right direction.

Not surprisingly, the Old Media are dwelling on the inadequacies of the government and the difficulties ahead for Iraq.

The New York Times paints a bleak picture and highlights problems rather than focusing on the progress made.

Iraqi leaders on Saturday approved a full-term government here for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein more than three years ago, but one that appeared to lack the cohesion needed to quell the sectarian and guerrilla violence engulfing the country.

The Iraqi Parliament approved 36 ministers who will form a cabinet led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a member of the dominant Shiite coalition that captured a majority of the votes cast in nationwide elections on Dec. 15. But three of the most important posts in the government — the Ministries of Defense, Interior and National Security — were left vacant because Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders could not agree on who should fill them.

Those three ministries are especially sensitive because each controls some part of Iraq's new security forces. That gives them a central role in fighting the guerrilla insurgency, but they have been accused of carrying out sectarian vendettas as well.

Mr. Maliki decided to ask the Shiite-dominated Parliament for a vote on the other posts anyway, prompting 15 Sunni members of his coalition to walk out before the vote.

Mr. Maliki's cabinet includes representatives of Iraq's main ethnic and sectarian communities, including a Sunni Arab vice president and deputy prime minister. Blocs representing more than 80 percent of Parliament were part of Mr. Maliki's government, including a secular alliance represented by a former prime minister, Ayad Allawi.

The vote on Saturday was the final step in the American-backed political program that began here in 2003 and culminated in full-term parliamentary elections in December. Nearly three years later, Iraq has a democratic Constitution that enshrines a federal state with a strongly Islamic cast, and a 275-member Parliament chosen for a four-year term.

"American-backed political program"?

I don't think that's meant to be a positive reflection on the Iraqis' accomplishment.

It seems that The Times is wallowing in negativity, berating the work that the Iraqis have done to establish a government.

Later in the article, The Times again bizarrely points out America's influence, using the phrase "the American-backed democratic project."

I think it's weird to use that term -- "American-backed." "Democratic project" is also strange. I'd expect to read that sort of stuff in a socialist rag.

Why not say "British-backed" or "Australian-backed" or any other country supporting democracy in Iraq?

Why not?

Because it's The New York Times.

President Congratulates Iraqis on Formation of New Unity Government

(Excerpt)

Today, as Iraqis look to their new government, they can be proud that in three years they have progressed from the oppression of a brutal dictator who fomented sectarian divides to an elected government in which all Iraqis have a voice. As Iraq's leaders work together to chart the future of their nation, bringing freedom and security to the Iraqi people, they make the world a safer place for all of us. The sacrifices of many of our country's noblest and bravest have helped make this day possible. We will not forget their contribution to our security and Iraq's democracy.

I think it's very appropriate for the President to honor the sacrifices made by our troops. Without them, there would be no new Iraqi government to celebrate, and the people of Iraq would still be subjected to the atrocities of Saddam Hussein's regime.
________________________________


The Official Website for the Iraqi Government

_________________________________

President Bush's Remarks on the Formation of a New Government in Iraq

The formation of a unity government in Iraq is a new day for the millions of Iraqis who want to live in freedom. And the formation of the unity government in Iraq begins a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq.

This morning, I called the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker to congratulate them on working together to form the unity government. I assured them that the United States will continue to assist the Iraqis in the formation of a free country, because I fully understand that a free Iraq will be an important ally in the war on terror, will serve as a devastating defeat for the terrorists and al Qaeda, and will serve as an example for others in the region who desire to be free.

The Greats and a Pretender*

HANK AARON
755




BABE RUTH
714




*

Video

Read MLB's coverage of Bonds' home run 714.

By the time Bonds reached home plate, where he hugged his 16-year-old son, Nikolai -- a batboy for the Giants on Saturday -- the noise had reached its crescendo. Bonds met his teammates in a group hug in front of the team's first-base dugout and then blew kisses into the stands toward his wife, Liz, and daughters, Aisha and Shikari.

After that, Bonds stepped forward from the dugout and doffed his helmet to the cheering throng. And then did it again, responding to a curtain call.

"Cheering throng"?

No booing?

MLB doesn't want to report on that aspect of the scene.

From The New York Times:

The capacity crowd reacted with a mixture of cheers and boos and Bonds responded by tipping his cap and blowing a kiss to the fans. He stepped outside the dugout for a curtain-call bow as play was delayed and police officers emerged to stand guard near the rails of the box seats.

The cheater takes a bow.


Bonds didn't deserve to be cheered for that home run.

In addition to Bonds having an asterisk attached to his name for all time, I think Bud Selig has earned one, too.


Clueless

Armed Forces Day

Check out The Right is Right.

Poison Pero has a great Armed Forces Day post.

DUMP DOYLE

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle's ears must have been burning on Friday. They must be burned to a crisp.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The National Rifle Association wants Wisconsin to be the 49th state to legalize carrying concealed weapons, and Gov. Jim Doyle is squarely in the group's cross hairs after twice vetoing the legislation.

Acclamations to "Dump Doyle" are everywhere at the 135th annual NRA meeting this weekend at the Midwest Airlines Center and U.S. Cellular Arena.

From a simple seminar on grassroots organizing to a gala opening ceremony with national music acts, Doyle's name never got a rest Friday. Placed around the convention were orange posters saying "DUMP" on the left and "DOYLE" spilling from a dump truck on the right.

"Your governor spent as much time defending your Second Amendment freedoms as O.J. (Simpson) did searching for the real killers," Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said at the convention's opening ceremonies. "Forty-eight other states trust their citizens in this way. Why don't we? We need to get rid of this anti-gun governor."

A rousing guitar solo of "The Star Spangled Banner" from rocker, hunter and NRA board member Ted Nugent stoked the crowd, who also heard Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker say, "I'm a proud member of the NRA and one of the few urban leaders to support the right to carry arms."

Walker hoisted an NRA card over his head as he addressed the crowd.

Doyle responded to the attacks by saying in an interview that the NRA was stirring up its members with pro-gun rhetoric.

"If I have to listen to experts on public safety who are against carrying concealed weapons or the NRA rhetoric, I'll put my trust in law enforcement," Doyle said. "If I have a choice of listening to Ted Nugent or the police officers of Wisconsin, I'm going to listen to police officers of Wisconsin."

Doyle argues that the safety of state residents is not improved by carrying "loaded guns in their pockets."

"It's hardly a radical notion of mine," Doyle said of preserving the illegality of carrying concealed weapons. "It's been a law since 1870."

He added: "I have to consider the safety of the people of Wisconsin. I can't waver when some interest group comes in and yells loud about it."

So, are the governors of the forty-eight states with concealed carry laws derelict in their duties? Are all of the people in those states at risk?

How funny that Doyle, servant of the teachers' union and liberal special interest groups, claims that he can't waver under the pressure from the NRA!

His statement is so lame.

Doyle's little history lesson is equally lame. "It's been a law since 1870."

So what?

Would he have used that same reasoning back in 1973 to argue against abortion?

Not a chance.

During a Friday seminar on grass-roots organizing, the mantra was voter registration among NRA members and supporters of the group's initiatives.

This shows that voter drives are not limited to Leftists and supporters of illegal immigrants.

In this case, however, I get the sense that voter registration is seen as sinister -- The gun nuts are going to the polls!

Doyle wasn't only coming underfire from attendees at the NRA convention. The message was very anti-Doyle at the state Republican convention as well.

From The Duluth News Tribune (AP):

Gov. Jim Doyle is the most vulnerable Democratic governor up for re-election this fall, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Friday as he sought to energize GOP activists.

"I think if you look around the country, I can't think of a single state where there's a greater likelihood that a Democratic governor will be replaced by a Republican governor," Mehlman told reporters as the state Republican convention got underway in Appleton.

Mehlman and other Republican leaders said they would use the weekend convention to make the case that U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Green Bay, should replace Doyle as governor.

Mehlman criticized Doyle's vetoes of bills that would require voters to show photo identification, labeled Doyle a big spender and noted questions about whether his campaign donors have received state contracts.

"Voters clearly want reform. The polls have shown it for a long time and I think Mark Green will offer real reform," Mehlman said.

He framed the election as a "choice between pay to play and honest reform, a choice between a man who is committed to fair elections versus an incumbent governor who ... vetoes legislation to protect voters."

Doyle's record as governor is sure to work against him. He's a puppet.

The convention continues Saturday with speeches from top Republicans including Green, who was expected to make the case for his election as the state's chief executive.

...With the path clear, Green is hoping to start getting his message of change to voters. Polls already show he and Doyle are locked in a tight race even though many voters do not know Green.

Voters don't know Green, yet polls show that it's a tight race.

That doesn't bode well for Doyle. Voters aren't familiar with Green, but their disapproval of Doyle's performane is so intense that they're willing to support someone they don't know.

Anybody but Doyle.




Doyle should be nervous. He's got a target on his back.

Obviously, the Republican Party of Wisconsin wants to get rid of him, and replace him with Mark Green.

Obviously, Doyle has antagonized NRA members, Wisconsin gun owners, and probably Ted Nugent, too.

Doyle's argument that a concealed carry law is bad policy just doesn't fly. Forty-eight states have such laws. Wisconsin is decidedly in the minority.

The notion that permits for law-abiding citizens to carry guns will turn these responsible members of society into murderers or armed robbers is ridiculous. That hasn't happened in the forty-eight states that have adopted the policy.

The fact is if not for Doyle's two vetoes, forty-nine states would have concealed carry laws, making Illinois the lone state that prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying guns.

Although we have no guns in our home, I like the idea that criminals can't make that assumption. Similarly, although I wouldn't carry a gun, I would like the idea of criminals not being able to assume that I'm unarmed.

The bad guys walk around with loaded guns right now, and they don’t hesitate to use them to kill and commit other crimes. They have no respect for the law and no respect for life. Concealed carry laws have no affect on those people since they are morally bankrupt and don't follow society's laws anyway.

If it became legal for the good guys to carry guns, those individuals wouldn't become killers and armed robbers. They would just no longer be vulnerable to the bad guys.

A gun is morally neutral. It's not good or bad.

Doyle disagrees. He thinks that the problem of gun violence can be solved by blaming guns. I think he's wrong.

Guns aren't responsible for violence. People are.

So what does the tale of the two conventions tell us?

Doyle is vulnerable.

Mark Green can win.

The Hypocrisy of the UN

Excuse me while I choke on the United Nations' call for the U.S. to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay.

GENEVA, May 19 -- A United Nations panel on torture called on the United States today to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and expressed concern over reports of secret detention centers and of a practice of sending terror suspects to countries with poor human rights records.

...In the report release in Geneva, the panel, the Committee on Torture, said that the United States should clearly ban interrogation techniques like "water boarding," in which an inmate is held under water to create the fear of drowning; sexual humiliation, and the use of dogs to induce fear. It said that detainees had died during interrogation involving improper techniques.

The panel said it was "concerned" that prisoners were held for indefinite periods without sufficient legal safeguards in the Guantánamo Bay detention center,

The United States "should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close this detention facility, permit access by the detainees to the judicial process or release them as soon as possible," the report said.

...The United Nations panel reached no conclusion on the most explosive issue it considered, the charge that terror suspects had been held in a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe that were not open to inspection by the International Red Cross.

The report criticized the refusal of American officials to comment on the charge, and said that the United States "should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility under its de facto effective control."

The panel is composed of 10 special investigators, or rapporteurs, who make periodic reports on compliance with the international treaty banning terrorism, which the United States has signed.

...The panel also criticized practices in regular prisons in the United States, including the sexual abuse of inmates and the failure to separate all youthful offenders from adults.

Text of the report

First, Gitmo.

President Bush has said he'd like to shut down the prison.

My opinion is if we need the facility open, then we should keep it open and not bow to the pressure of so-called human rights groups that express their concern on a highly selective and political basis.

Second, the state of the United Nations.

What bugs me is that the UN, the steeped in corruption UN, is jumping all over the U.S. for its supposed human rights abuses.

The disgraceful UN has been responsible for untold human misery.

Read a little about some of the UN's recent abuses.

UN Peacekeepers Gun Down Congo Civilians

UN Sexual Predators

Oil-for-Food

Food-for-Sex

The instances above barely scratch the surface of the deep-seated scandals of the United Nations under the shameless Kofi Annan. And let's not forget Annan's son, Kojo. The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the infested tree.

All of this receives little media attention.

Do The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN dwell on the UN's corruption?

Of course not.

Are they drooling over the report that trashes the United States?

Absolutely.

The Old Media's bias makes me sick. They are politically-driven, propaganda peddlers.

The UN is in no position to be citing the U.S. for the "sexual abuse of inmates and the failure to separate all youthful offenders from adults" when it is a hotbed for institutionalized graft and human rights violations.

ITS PEACEKEEPERS RAPE EIGHT-YEAR-OLD GIRLS!

I can't tell you how much the UN's hypocrisy gets to me.

I've said it before. The UN is beyond redemption.

Stop the Senate Insanity!

Remember May 18, 2006.

That is the day the Senate imploded on immigration.

Yesterday, there were seven roll call votes in the U.S. Senate.

The debate, the measures, the votes cast were contradictory and nonsensical. It was the work of a body of some utterly irrational lawmakers.

May 18, 2006 Senate Roll Call Votes

Find out how your senators voted. Perhaps you'll be moved to give them a call or send an e-mail. Let them know that you're paying attention.

I intend to contact Russ "See ya" Feingold and Herb "Nobody's Senator" Kohl to express my disapproval.



Here's an illustration of yesterday's lunacy in the Senate:

REUTERS -- In an unusual move, the Senate voted 63-34 to make English the national language, but moments later by a vote of 58-39 also adopted a milder alternative calling English the "unifying language."

During the debate on English, Harry Reid again revealed what a buffoon he is.

He asserted, "This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish."

From The Washinton Times:

Mr. Reid's charge of racism caused a stir of whispers in the Senate chamber and gallery, and Sen. James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who offered the amendment, was clearly offended.

As Mr. Reid continued his floor speech, an aide passed him a note on a folded sheet of yellow legal paper. After reading the note, the Nevada Democrat tried to clarify his remarks.

"Even though I feel this amendment is unfair, I don't in any way suggest that Jim Inhofe is a racist," Mr. Reid said. "I don't believe that at all. I just believe that this amendment has, to some people, that connotation -- not that he's a racist, but that the amendment is."

What a doofus!

Here's a press release from former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, commenting on Reid's idiocy. (Does he have 2008 on his mind?)

All the libs that believe it's racist for the country to have an official language should take note:

Such proposals enjoy overwhelming support among American voters.

A poll by Zogby International earlier this year found that 84 percent of Americans say English should be the official language of government operations. The same poll found that 77 percent of Hispanics agree.

And it's a bipartisan issue, according to the poll, which found that 92 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats approve making English the country's official language.

In spite of this madness over the English language, the Senate did make a decision on Social Security.

Unfortunately, it was not a bill to reform the system. The Senate agreed to grant Social Security to illegal immigrants by voting to table the Ensign amendment.

Also from The Washington Times:

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.

"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment."

The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote.

... Mr. Ensign was among 44 Republicans and five Democrats who voted to block such payouts.

Presidential wannabe John McCain was one of the Republican defectors, breaking with his party to vote in favor of giving Social Security benefits to lawbreakers.

I'm sure this vote will come back to haunt McCain.

"It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. "Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits? The Senate missed a big opportunity to improve this bill, and I doubt American seniors will be pleased with the result."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said it would be unfair to deny illegals the benefits.

"We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts," he said. "That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund."

"Steal their funds"?

Leahy is crazy. The illegals stole identities!!!

How are the Dems going to portray themselves as the defenders of senior citizens and protectors of their Social Security benefits when they are rewarding lawbreakers with benefits?

They can't play that card anymore. From a Dem strategic standpoint, that was an incredibly stupid move.

NOTE TO WISCONSIN SENIORS:

HERB KOHL IS NOT PROTECTING YOU. HE PANDERS TO GET YOUR VOTES AND THEN STABS YOU IN THE BACK.

The Congressional Record for the Senate on May 18, 2006, could rival any novel for entertainment value. It's reminiscent of the Hollywood screwball comedies of the 1930s and early 1940s.

The frightening thing is yesterday in the Senate wasn't fiction. It wasn't a movie.

It's the U.S. government at work.

Our future is in their hands.

Scary. REALLY SCARY.

TORTURE AT GITMO

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others —that had no concern for human beings."

--DICK DURBIN

That's how Durbin described American personnel at Guantanamo Bay on June 21, 2005.

Yesterday, guards had the audacity to prevent a prisoner from committing suicide!

How cruel!

MSNBC News Services -- Prisoners wielding fans, light fixtures and other improvised weapons clashed with guards trying to stop a detainee from committing suicide at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, the military said Friday.

The clash occurred Thursday in a medium-security section of the camp as guards were responding to the fourth attempted suicide that day at the detention center on a U.S. Navy base in Cuba, said Cmdr. Robert Durand.

Detainees struck guards as they entered a communal living area to stop a prisoner who was trying to hang himself, Durand said. Earlier in the day, three detainees in another part of the prison attempted suicide by swallowing prescription medicine they had been hoarding.

So, there was an uprising by prisoners at Gitmo, not for better conditions but to enable a fellow detainee to kill himself.

(Something to keep in mind -- Do U.S. guards prevent U.S. prisoners from committing suicide in U.S. prisons? Yes, they do.)

The "improvised weapons" remind me of how the brave passengers and crew aboard Flight 93 (detainees of the terrorists, victims of torture) fought the hijackers and prevented them from succeeding in their mission.

The difference is the Flight 93 heroes fought for their lives. At Gitmo, the detainees fight to kill themselves.

"At this point, I have no idea of motive, no idea of any coordination and no idea of any intended message," Durand said.

I can't speculate on motive or message here, but I can draw the conclusion that people espousing the ideology of militant Islam do not respect life.

That is evident from this incident, as well as the uncontained epidemic of suicide bombers, and of course, the actions of the 9/11 terrorists.

...The United States has faced criticism from human rights groups and some of its allies for holding prisoners at Guantanamo indefinitely. Some have been there since the camp opened in January 2002.

The incidents occurred on the same day that the military transferred 15 Saudi detainees to their country.

There have been 39 suicide attempts at Guantanamo since the detention center opened in January 2002, the military said. At least 12 were by Juma'a Mohammed al-Dossary, a 32-year-old from Bahrain. Guantanamo Bay holds detainees suspected of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

It appears that there is an attempt to connect the supposedly horrible treatment of Gitmo prisoners, tortured by U.S. personnel, with their desire to commit suicide.

That's unjustified.

Al Qaeda and Taliban members WANT to die as martyrs. They WANT to kill themselves. Ideally, they kill infidels (AKA innocent non-Muslim men, women, and children) in the process.

In the discussion of this prisoner/guard clash at Gitmo, when the human rights groups go ballistic over this, it's important to acknowledge the mindset of al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.

They DO NOT respect life.

They WANT to die.

They WANT to kill.

Kiss and Slap

The National Rifle Association's 135th annual convention begins today in Milwaukee.

Sixty thousand people are expected to attend, bringing in millions of dollars to area businesses.

It's a huge event for the city and the state; but Governor Jim Doyle, Mayor Tom Barrett, and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board have mixed feelings about the visitors.

On Thursday, Doyle issued a statement in honor of the tens of thousands of guests gathering at the convention.

"Wisconsin is always pleased to welcome conventions and visitors to our state, and we will be an excellent host to thousands of people expected at the NRA meeting this week. I'm concerned, however, about the message the NRA is going to deliver tomorrow.

"In Wisconsin, we honor and uphold the right to bear arms. Our great tradition of hunting and responsible gun ownership is part of who we are in this state, and we cherish that tradition.

"At the same time, what concerns the vast majority of Wisconsin families is keeping our kids and our communities safe. We are deeply concerned about the NRA's zealous support of legislation that would allow loaded, hidden guns at playgrounds, shopping malls, and school zones. The overwhelming majority of law enforcement in our state also vigorously opposes this NRA backed plan, fearing it will put our kids, our cops, and our communities at extreme risk.

"As the NRA gathers in Milwaukee, I'm challenging them to rethink their support for a proposal that is so strongly opposed by law enforcement and the vast majority of Wisconsin citizens. Instead of making it legal to carry a concealed weapon into a daycare center, we ought to be focused on ways to help middle class families afford to buy a home and enjoy all the good things life in our state has to offer."

Riiight.

Does an "excellent host" bash guests?

Does an "excellent host" challenge guests to change their thinking?

Does an "excellent host" exploit guests to further his own political agenda?

NO to all of the above.

If that's Doyle's idea of welcoming people to the state, then he needs to brush up on his etiquette.

Mayor Tom Barrett isn't exactly putting out the welcome mat for NRA members either.

MILWAUKEE -- On the eve of the National Rifle Association convention in Milwaukee the organization is making national news.

The NRA took out a full-page ad in USA Today asking all American mayors and police chiefs to sign a pledge that they will "never forcibly confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens."

Barrett responded, "I find some irony in the fact that the newspaper ad appears the same day that a bill pushed by the NRA makes it more difficult for me to find if there are illegal guns being sold in this community."

Can you feel the Gemütlichkeit?

Barrett held a news conference to address the NRA's initiative as well as to respond to remarks made by NRA officials indicating their disappointment in how their group is being treated by state and local politicians.

At a City Hall news conference later Thursday, Mayor Tom Barrett said that if NRA leaders want him to sign the pledge, they should accept his invitation to meet and discuss illegal guns and their role in gun violence.

Barrett grudingly said that he welcomes the NRA to Milwaukee and hopes they return. He seemed like a hostage being forced by his captors to say things he didn't believe.

Earlier in the week, in a clearly political move, Barrett invited NRA leaders to meet with him to talk issues, not to take a brewery tour.

"Fighting crime, including crimes involving illegal guns, is not a partisan issue," Barrett wrote in a letter to NRA President Sandra Froman and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "Parents should not have to worry about their children being hit by stray bullets while policy-makers and interest groups argue over ideology. It's time to have some fruitful discussions that will lead to safer streets and saved lives."

In an interview Tuesday, Barrett said he supports the Second Amendment and hunters' rights but is concerned about gun violence. He also said NRA leaders had not yet responded to his invitation, which was faxed Monday.

Perhaps Barrett should have taken a different approach. As mayor of the host city, I don't think he's being a very gracious host. I think he's being obnoxious.

On Friday when the convention opens, rather than greeting the 60,000 visitors to Milwaukee, Barrett has other plans.

Barrett will discuss federal restrictions on local law enforcement agencies' access to information about gun dealers selling weapons used in crimes, when he speaks to a Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort luncheon at the Mother Kathryn Daniels Conference Center, 3500 W. Mother Daniels Way.

What a coincidence!

Barrett will be discussing guns and crime on the very day that the convention kicks off.

What are the odds?

Then, to top off the "greetings" from the governor and the mayor, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel runs a "kiss and slap" editorial, "There is a middle ground," to welcome the NRA members to the city. To call it an insult is an understatement.

It is condescending, insincere, and almost mocking in tone -- really disgraceful.

Welcome to Milwaukee, members of the National Rifle Association. Your three-day annual meeting gets under way today at the Midwest Airlines Center. Gun enthusiasts are expected to flock to downtown Milwaukee by the thousands.

We hope your visit is fun. No doubt, you'll stay busy attending meetings, hearing speeches - Gen. Tommy Franks will give the keynote talk at a dinner Saturday night - and touring "acres of guns and gear," as your organization puts it. But please take some time to sample Milwaukee, too. Feel free, in fact, to stay awhile after the conference.

KISS, KISS!

"Feel free... ."

Yes, this Editorial Board does have differences of opinion with the NRA. Maybe your visit will allow us to learn more about your perspective. And maybe, conversely, your annual foray into an urban center will open your eyes just a bit to a view opposite yours.

Maybe this interaction will uncover a middle ground on which reasonable people can stand. Goodness gracious, we believe in your right to hunt. And your efforts to teach gun safety are laudable. We'll put that in writing. Can this be a starting point of a meeting of minds?

"Goodness gracious"?

I can't recall the JS editorial board ever using that phrase before. Weird.

The "We'll put that in writing" line is so patronizing.

After the initial "kisses," now comes rapid fire "slaps" from the board.

What we do have a hard time buying is that military-style, semiautomatic weapons are essential to the right to hunt. Yet in backing a federal ban on such weapons, we find ourselves accused of trying to outlaw all guns. These rapid-fire weapons are a favorite of organized gangs and mass killers and a peril to law officers. So as we see it, the NRA's successful lobbying to lift that ban aids the bad guys.

Ditto for NRA's opposition to closing the gun-show loophole in the Brady Law, which requires licensed gun dealers to check with the FBI the background of buyers to ensure that they aren't felons or otherwise ineligible to own firearms. The rule does not apply to unlicensed dealers, who proliferate at gun shows, which, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, thugs and gangsters do frequent. So do suspected suppliers of foreign terrorists, court documents suggest.

Rather than closing that loophole, the NRA calls for tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, such as the prohibition of gun ownership by felons. That issue is worth exploring. Still, authorities already conduct periodic crackdowns on illegal gun possession in Milwaukee, and judges tend to heighten penalties if a gun is involved in a crime.

Besides, we don't understand why society can't take both approaches: Make it tougher for outlaws to obtain guns in the first place and crack down on them if they did manage to gain weapons illegally.

The NRA has campaigned - successfully, overall - to have each state enact a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Wisconsin has been a holdout, however.

Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed concealed-carry bills. He was right to do so. We actually agree with the NRA that the law might do some good, by allowing license-holders to defend themselves. But we also note that such laws have done some ill elsewhere, leading to unjustified shootings or to harm to license-holders trying to thwart crime. In our judgment, the threat of the bad is greater than the promise of the good.

So there you have some of our differences. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has invited NRA leaders to meet with him to discuss illegal guns. They should take him up on that offer. Homicides, most of which involve guns, are tormenting Milwaukee.

Yes, there are their differences. How thoughtful of the editorial board to enumerate them!

As far as the suggestion that the NRA should meet with Barrett goes, I would suggest that Barrett make an appearance at the convention and welcome the tens of thousands of visitors to his city. Instead, Barrett and Doyle choose to treat them like criminals.

Barrett was quick to show up at the illegal immigrant protests. He endorses law-breakers, yet he can't bring himself to be even minimally polite to law-abiding citizens because of his political opposition to legal gun owners.

Bottom line: The convention attendees deserve more respect than they are getting from the governor and the mayor, much more.

I think that The Journal Sentinel should strive for middle ground, where they would have the courtesy to treat the city's guests, the ones poised to spend millions of dollars at area businesses, with proper respect.

The NRA is not an evil cult.

On the day that a major national convention opens in Milwaukee, I think it would be appropriate for the city's newspaper to refrain from ripping the organization.

The impression given by Wisconsin leaders and media is not one of welcome, but one of disdain for the group.

I don't understand why the city agreed to host the NRA convention. Barrett is displaying an inappropriate level of animosity. Is he trying to kill his city's chances of landing other major conventions?

Doyle and Barrett and the Journal Sentinel certainly don't have to agree with the NRA on issues, but they should be more cordial.

Meanwhile, help yourselves to tours of two of the city's signature companies: the Miller Brewing Co. and Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Browse works at the Milwaukee Art Museum. Consider moseying over to the Potawatomi Bingo Casino or to Miller Park, where the Milwaukee Brewers are hosting the Minnesota Twins.

Again, welcome. Enjoy.

These final comments really make me sick.

"Do some 'moseying' and enjoy the city! We're so glad you're here!"

What a load!

After delivering all those slaps to NRA members, the editorial board acts as if it can do a 180 and kiss and make up.

I think I would prefer a hostile but completely honest editorial to this disingenuous tripe.

I feel bad for the Greater Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau, as well as the Wisconsin Department of Tourism. They must try to portray Milwaukee and Wisconsin as welcoming, friendly destinations, in spite of boorish state and local leaders like Doyle and Barrett.

Without question, Doyle, Barrett, and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel owe the visiting NRA members apologies for the insincere kisses and the many undeserved slaps.

Feingold Has a Hissy Fit

The title "junior senator" from Wisconsin suits Russ Feingold.

He acted like a spoiled child, storming out of a meeting.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, D-Wis., who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

It's one thing to get angry during a meeting, but stomping out of the room takes juvenile senatorial behavior to a new low.

Feingold is really losing it.

Maybe he's been spending too much time on Lefty websites.

What did he do after he fled? Go online and look for solace in a radical Left chatroom?

How weird to get up and leave a meeting like that! The guy is such an embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin.

I can't imagine "Nobody's Senator" behaving so childishly. Then again, it's really not fair to compare the two. Mild-mannered Herb Kohl sleeps through most meetings, right?

Among Feingold's objections was Specter's decision to hold the vote in the President's Room, where access by the general public is restricted, instead of in the panel's usual home in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Specter later said he would have been willing to hold the session in the usual room had he thought doing so would change votes.

Now I understand. Feingold wanted the public to witness his grandstanding.

No wonder he didn't bother to hang around.

Feingold, of course, issued a statement, "Objecting to the Judiciary Committee's Handling of the Constitutional Amendment on Marriage."

"Today’s markup of the constitutional amendment concerning marriage, in a small room off the Senate floor with only a handful of people other than Senators and their staffs present, was an affront to the Constitution. I objected to its consideration in such an inappropriate setting and refused to help make a quorum. I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee went forward with the markup over my objection. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader has set a politically motivated schedule for floor consideration of this measure that the Chairman felt compelled to follow, even though he says he opposes the amendment.

Constitutional amendments deserve the most careful and deliberate consideration of any matter that comes before the Senate. In addition to hearings and a subcommittee markup, such a measure should be considered by the Judiciary Committee in the light of day, open to the press and the public, with cameras present so that the whole country can see what is done. Open and deliberate debate on such an important matter cannot take place in a setting such as the one chosen by the Chairman of the Committee today.

The Constitution of the United States is an historic guarantee of individual freedom. It has served as a beacon of hope, an example to people around the world who yearn to be free and to live their lives without government interference in their most basic human decisions. I took an oath when I joined this body to support and defend the Constitution. I will continue to fight this mean-spirited, divisive, poorly drafted, and misguided amendment when it comes to the Senate floor."

Feingold is certainly getting awfully huffy over the venue.

He really feels strongly about having cameras present.

Could it be that Feingold was mad because he spent a lot of time applying makeup to look his best for his close-ups, all for naught?

Could be.

In any event, Feingold really needs to get a grip.

Meeting in a smaller room wasn't "an affront to the Constitution."

Don't you think that's being just a tad overdramatic?

While Feingold is lapping up the love and admiration from the extremists on the Left, he's hurting himself among the more moderate and balanced and sane Americans.

He has to take it down a notch. These antics could come back to haunt him.

I think Russ should release another statement, one saying that he has no recollection of the incident and that he's taking Ambien, or something to that effect.

Retract USA Today, Retract

USA Today may need to do some backpedaling.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- BellSouth Corp. has sent a letter to USA Today and the newspaper's parent company, Gannett Co., demanding the retraction of a story which said the phone company shared its customers calling records with a federal spy agency, according to a Thursday report in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal. The letter demanded that the newspaper retract the "faults and unsubstantiated statements" in the May 11 article, which said BellSouth and some of its rivals shared bulk calling data with the National Security Agency, the Journal said. The story ignited a firestorm about government intrusion into consumer privacy and led to lawsuits against BellSouth, Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc.

Poor USA Today.

Its bombshell story fizzled.

The incompetence of the Old Media is so pervasive. Day after day they look worse and worse. It's pathetic.

Anti-Fence

Sixteen senators don't believe in shoring up our southern border.

From The New York Times:

No Republican voted against the fence measure, which attracted wide support from Democrats. The 15 Democrats who voted against it (as did the independent James Jeffords of Vermont) were Daniel Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye, both of Hawaii; Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico; Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of Washington; Christopher Dodd and Joseph I. Lieberman, both of Connecticut; Richard J. Durbin and Barack Obama, both of Illinois; Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin; Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both of New Jersey; Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.

The liberal wacko usual suspects don't want to extend the fence. That's no surprise.

They are shamefully trying to tap into that pool of potential voters by supporting the law-breakers.

I think something that is often lost in the illegal immigration debate and the rush to appease the illegals is the other consequences of having open borders.

It should be remembered that controlling our borders is not just about keeping illegal immigrants from entering the country to suck our education, welfare, and health systems dry.

If millions of illegal immigrants can make it in, so can one terrorist with a suitcase nuke. That argument is not a scare tactic to garner support for tougher border control. It's the frightening reality.

Ironically, the well-being of the illegals that depended on lax border security to get here are at risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack because of the dismal border security.

Of course, the fringe Left panderer Feingold wouldn't think of alienating his kook supporters that are filling his presidential campaign coffers. Naturally, Feingold continues to amass a voting record which illustrates that he doesn't care about national security. His crusade to undermine efforts to combat terror goes on.

Speaking of panderers, Lieberman is looking pretty slimy lately as well.

I know he's in a tough re-election race, but does that mean that he has to sell his soul?

Lieberman has been the one Dem that has been relatively consistent in his support of the War on Terror. Secure borders are key to an effective strategy to safeguard the country. It's a cheap move for him to vote against an extension of the border fence.

It's always troubling to me when principles are tossed aside to win politically.

Personally, I think on September 12, 2001 -- make that on the afternoon of 9/11 -- we should have started construction to seal our borders; not to alienate our allies Mexico and Canada, but to protect Americans.

Our history is marked by massive projects that span the nation.

By 1890, the American frontier was closed by the completion of the transcontinental railroad. We have interstate highways that crisscross the country.

Surely, we can build a fence to help secure the future of the United States.

Note to Premature "Speaker" Pelosi

Madame Premature Speaker,

You don't have a clue.


On June 21, 2005, MINORITY leader Nancy Pelosi made this absurd statement to a reporter:

"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?"

She went on to say:

"The war in Afghanistan is over."

At the time, I was amazed that the Dem leader in the House would be spreading such misinformation about the War on Terror.

Pelosi, as the obviously surgically altered face of the Democratic Party, proved that the Dems didn't get it.

Today, nearly a year after her idiotic remarks about Afghanistan, we see that the struggle there continues.

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- Some of the fiercest violence since the Taliban's ouster in 2001 erupted across southern Afghanistan, with militants battling U.S. and Canadian forces, detonating car bombs and attacking a small village. Up to 105 people were killed, officials said Thursday.

Much of the violence occurred in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, where thousands of extra NATO troops are scheduled to deploy this summer to counter an increasing number of attacks from a stubborn insurgency.

The Taliban death toll from fighting Wednesday night and Thursday ranged up to 87, U.S. and Afghan officials said. Also, 15 Afghan police officers, one American civilian, a Canadian soldier and an Afghan civilian were killed in the attacks.

The Canadian [Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, of Calgary] was the first female soldier from her nation to die in combat.

Simply put, the Democrats do not understand our enemies, nor do they comprehend the magnitude of the terrorist threat.

The war in Afghanistan is NOT over.

We aren't at war with a country. We are at war with an ideology.

The only borders in this War on Terror are found in the minds of those that believe slaughtering non-Muslim men, women, and children is what God wants.

Pelosi doesn't get it.

The Democrats don't get it.

They can't be trusted to keep the country safe from terrorists and do battle with our enemies.

They have their eyes wide shut.

(In Pelosi's case, I don't think it's possible for her to physically close her eyes. Her eyelids appear to be too taut to allow that.)

The Publicity Game

Ian McKellen is skilled at public relations and marketing.

He's managing to take attention away from the lackluster and some overtly hostile reviews of The Da Vinci Code by making some notable statements.

McKellen seems to be enjoying taking shots at Christianity and Catholicism in particular.

Sir Ian accused the "powerful" people condemning The Da Vinci Code movie of snobbery towards cinema-goers, and said he thought the Catholic Church would like the film's central idea, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, because it offered proof that Jesus was not gay.

The actor admitted that after he read Dan Brown's best-selling book he thought it was "codswallop".

Sir Ian said: "When I read the book I believed it entirely. I thought Leigh Teabing had answered his case very convincingly indeed.

"When I put the book down I thought 'What a load of potential codswallop'. "That's still going on in my mind. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married.

"I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought that this was absolute truth that Jesus was not gay."

Obviously, McKellen has an axe to grind. He seems very troubled.

At the premiere, director Ron Howard commented on the awful reviews the film is getting. He said something that I find impossible to believe.

The director defended the film when he was asked about the bad reviews at today's press conference, saying: "I haven't read any of the reviews and I don't know if there are any other adjectives in any of the others that might be different, maybe slightly more upbeat."

Talk about living in a bubble!

If I made a movie, I would be interested in knowing how people are reacting to my work. Is this a Clintonian parsing of words evasion? Certainly, Howard must be aware of the reviews even if he didn't do the actual reading.

I think the "I haven't read the reviews" tactic is a convenient way for Howard to avoid the issue and pretend that the movie isn't being panned.

I guess people deal with adversity in different ways. McKellen responds to the rotten reviews with an ugly lashing out at the Catholic Church, while Howard prefers to live in a state of denial.

It's sort of interesting to watch the posturing, probably more entertaining than The Da Vinci Code.

I suspect that the studio is confident The Da Vinci Code will still be a big hit, but the execs must be questioning just how big it will be.

All of the positively disastrous reviews have to impact the box office a bit.


__________________________________

Roger Ebert gives the movie a thumbs up.

Hmmm. Strange.

That's a mystery worth unraveling.

Sensenbrenner: Amnesty and Anger

Jim Sensenbrenner is mad; and he has no qualms about making his feelings known.

Washington -- Complaining that President Bush "doesn't get it" on immigration, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner blasted the White House on Wednesday, saying that Bush has provoked a firestorm by endorsing amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"What he is proposing is amnesty," said the Menomonee Falls legislator, using a politically loaded label that Bush has repeatedly disputed.

...Sensenbrenner said that if Bush intended in his Monday night speech on immigration to mollify him and other conservatives by floating tough border provisions, "he failed in that completely."

"I was very disappointed in the speech. I think he doesn't get it," said the powerful committee chairman, who is likely to lead the House side in negotiations with the Senate, should senators approve an immigration bill this month.

Sensenbrenner said the White House has irritated him and others by seemingly "running away" from the immigration bill that the House passed in December. Sensenbrenner crafted that measure, whose get-tough provisions have sparked mass protests.

"He basically turned his back on provisions of the House bill, a lot of which we were requested to put in the bill by the White House," Sensenbrenner said.

Sensenbrenner is obviously frustrated with President Bush's proposed middle ground measures to deal with the illegal immigration problem.

Sensenbrenner clearly believes that the White House caved. He's definitely expressing a sense of betrayal.

...A White House spokesman said Wednesday that the administration stands by the statement it issued on the House measure in December. The statement said the administration "strongly supports provisions in the bill that would crack down on alien smuggling and unlawful entry into the United States."

The aide also took issue with Sensenbrenner's comments about amnesty.

"The president has repeatedly and forcefully rejected amnesty," White House spokesman Alex Conant said.

"Under the president's plan, you have to pay stiff fines, follow the law, stay employed, learn English, and after achieving all those things, you still go to the back of the line. That's not amnesty."

It's not feasible to propose mass deportations, but it's also not realistic to assume that the millions of illegals already in the country will voluntarily submit to all the requirements necessary to become citizens.

Why get in the back of the line when you've already passed through and you're not in line anymore at all?

Illegals currently being educated and receiving health care and other services funded by U.S. tax dollars have no incentive to follow the rules and cooperate.

...Although Bush previously had signaled his support for a citizenship provision, he embraced the idea unambiguously in his prime-time speech Monday, saying that illegal immigrants who have been in the United States longer "should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."

The Senate endorsed the citizenship provisions Wednesday by a roughly 2-to-1 vote.

"It's not amnesty," Arizona Republican John McCain said on the Senate floor. "Call it amnesty. Call it a banana if you want to. But the fact is it is earned citizenship. It is a perversion of the word amnesty."

Sensenbrenner was similarly adamant in his disdain for the term earned citizenship, and in his view, what Bush is discussing "is an amnesty because it allows people who have broken the law to stay in the country."

Agreeing on the meaning of words can be so messy sometimes.

How does one define "amnesty" or "earned citizenship" or "banana"?

It's semantics.

...Sensenbrenner also voiced little enthusiasm for the major security initiative in Bush's speech, a temporary deployment of National Guard troops to back up border agents.

"If the Guard is used to build the fences, that is a great thing for the Guard to do," he said. "But we've got to recognize the Guard is already overstretched."

Sensenbrenner said of Bush's address that "the speech I heard looked like it was something put together by focus groups."

I don't understand this disapproval of using the National Guard to assist in securing the border.

It wouldn't be a cure-all, but every little bit helps.

I think Sensenbrenner's crack about Bush's speech sounding like it was the product of focus groups is pretty funny and legitimate, too.

The address did seem to strain to pacify the masses.

However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes you just have to go with what you can get. I don't think that's selling out. I think it's a smart move.

I guess a very fine line separates productive compromise aimed to achieve results and appeasement of law-breakers.

...Sensenbrenner said that because any Senate bill is going to be dramatically different from the House measure, it "is going to require a lot of very delicate negotiations."

Sensenbrenner said he thinks a compromise could include provisions for temporary workers, if "that does not include an amnesty," and only if it includes "vigorous" enforcement of sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

...As for Bush, he said: "I respect him. I respect his office. I think he's wrong on this."

I admire Sensenbrenner for having the courage to act on principle and for not playing political games with our national security. Instead of kowtowing to special interests, he's looking out for the American taxpayer and attempting to alleviate some of the pressure on our educational, health, and welfare systems as a result of supporting millions of illegals.

He's not anti-immigration. He's anti-illegal immigration.

I understand Sensenbrenner's frustration with all the disingenuousness and the posturing by politicians eager to appeal to illegal immigrants. Rather than showing some backbone, they are quick to bend to unreasonable demands and conditions that would have detrimental consequences for our country.

I have no respect for spineless politicians. But I also see that it's necessary to be flexible.

Sensenbrenner has to be willing to compromise. At the moment, he doesn't appear to be in the mood. That's a mistake.

It's better to accomplish some good than to accomplish nothing.

Listen to Opie

I plan to follow Ron Howard's advice.

CANNES, France (AP) -- It's a rare suggestion from a movie director: Ron Howard says if you think it will bother you, don't go see "The Da Vinci Code."

Sounds like a plan.

I choose not to see it. I won't pay good money to see a movie that disrespects my faith. Why would I add to the studio's profits? I won't support it.

But it's not as simple as Howard makes it seem. This goes beyond individuals making choices about their entertainment.

The problem is there are a lot of people that will go to The Da Vinci Code and buy its fiction as fact.

That's what makes this fiction so disturbing. That's why it's important for the Vatican and others to speak the truth and make it known that it's a piece of fiction.

"There's no question that the film is likely to be upsetting to some people," Howard told reporters. "My advice, since virtually no one has really seen the movie yet, is to not go see the movie if you think you're going to be upset. Wait. Talk to somebody who has seen it. Discuss it. And then arrive at an opinion about the movie itself."

"Again: This is supposed to be entertainment, it's not theology," he said.

Yes, it's "supposed to be entertainment," but based on the reviews that I've read, it falls very short.

Read how film critics are reacting.

Yikes! It sounds like a bomb.

Howard's suggestion to wait and talk to people before seeing it would make sense if the movie had an original screenplay. In that case, it would be unfair for people to criticize the story prior to the film's release, making judgments about its content without knowing what's in it, and calling for boycotts.

Howard says that "virtually no one has really seen the movie yet." Fair enough. Other than critics, that's true. However, millions have read the book.

The novel provides all the information that's necessary to come to a decision about seeing the movie, especially since Howard and company have been on a media blitz informing all that it doesn't stray from the book's plot.

In Howard's adaptation, is it claimed that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene? Yes.

In his film, is the evil Opus Dei a cult of murderers? Yes.

Is it really necessary to take a wait and see approach? No.

One reporter asked the cast if they believed Christ was married.

Star Tom Hanks quipped, "Well, I wasn't around."

That's cute. Cute, but stupid.

Quips don't atone for disparaging the faith of a billion people.

In an interview last week, Howard was asked:

There were earlier reports that you were trying to tone down the controversial theological points. Were there debates on how faithful the movie should be to the book?

Before the adaptation began, there was a sort of discussion about the theological aspects. I have to say I respect the executives at Sony because they quickly said no. They took my position—that we know what this story is and we understand that some of the ideas are controversial and we’re not going to try to mollify the critics. This is a movie, not the book. It will be interesting to see what people think of it. I made some creative choices that are my own. Whether people think that makes it more intense or less intense, will be part of the discussion as well. But we ultimately decided it would be foolish to tone it down.

In other words, the decision was made not to shy away from bashing the Catholic Church.

What about the request to insert a disclaimer that this is a work of fiction?

When you put a disclaimer on a work of fiction, you’re sort of removing the fun of it. What you’re trying to do is get an audience to suspend disbelief and go along on the ride. As much as I acknowledge that the movie deals with some themes that can be very controversial for some people, I am also trying to serve an audience that really wants to go and lose themselves in a movie and have a great time.

Why have a disclaimer?

Here's a reason for a disclaimer. Opus Dei is NOT a fictional group.

Portraying this real group inaccurately calls into question whether The Da Vinci Code is a "work of fiction," or a slanderous hit piece.

I think it might be very difficult for Christians to "lose themselves" in The Da Vinci Code and "have a great time."

Then again, if the initial reviews are correct, it doesn't appear that moviegoers in general are in for a great time.

The Da Vinci Code clocks in at two and a half hours.

I'd much rather watch five episodes of The Andy Griffith Show.

Fences

Eighty-three senators voted to install a fence along 500 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted to build 370 miles of triple-layered fencing along the Mexican border Wednesday and clashed over citizenship for millions of men and women who live in the United States illegally.

Amid increasingly emotional debate over election-year immigration legislation, senators voted 83-16 to add fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers along the southern border. It marked the first significant victory in two days for conservatives seeking to place their stamp on the contentious measure.

This is a victory for conservatives?

I think it's a victory for Americans.

The fact that securing the border is considered a win for conservatives would imply that liberals would prefer that our southern border remains porous.

Construction of the barrier would send "a signal that open-border days are over. ... Good fences make good neighbors, fences don't make bad neighbors," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. He said border areas where barriers already exist have experienced economic improvement and reduced crime.

"What we have here has become a symbol for the right wing in American politics," countered Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. He said if the proposal passed, "our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries."

Open-border days are over.

It's about time that we are getting around to actually enforcing our laws.

Dick "Americans are acting like 'Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others —that had no concern for human beings'" Durbin is clueless.

That is a documented fact.

I have some questions for little Dick:

Is America a sovereign nation?

Is there a border which divides the territory of the United States and the territory of Mexico?

Are the United States and Mexico separate states?

The answer to all of the above is YES.

Given the fact the millions of Mexicans violated our laws and entered the U.S. ILLEGALLY, it is irresponsible to NOT construct a barrier to thwart the law-breaking.

Mexicans or citizens of any other country cannot disregard our immigration laws with impugnity.

If Durbin wants to dub a fence as a symbol for the right wing, then I guess it would be appropriate to consider the lawlessness of a wide open border as a symbol for the left wing.

I'm comfortable with that.

USA Today's Mistakes

USA Today's bombshell story on the NSA monitoring billions of domestic phone calls is turning out to be a dud.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Verizon Communications Inc. says it did not give the government records of millions of phone calls, joining fellow phone company BellSouth in disputing key assertions in a USA Today article.

The denials leave open the possibility that the National Security Agency requested customer calling data from long-distance companies like AT&T, Sprint and MCI in 2001, but not from companies that were mainly local phone companies, such as Verizon.

Verizon has not provided customer call data to the NSA, nor had it been asked to do so, the company said in an e-mailed statement Tuesday.

The statement came a day after BellSouth Corp. issued a similar denial.

"One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls," the statement read.

..."We're confident in our coverage of the phone database story," Anderson added, "but we won't summarily dismiss BellSouth's and Verizon's denials without taking a closer look."

USA Today sounds a lot like CBS did after the network aired the 60 Minutes II report on President Bush's National Guard service.

The intent was to throw the 2004 presidential election. Producer Mary Mapes and Dan Rather, among others, were so anxious to smear Bush that they overlooked the fact that the documents they based the story on were fraudulent.

To make matters worse, CBS defended the authenticity of the documents for twelve days before admitting that they couldn't verify their legitimacy. Delusional Dan Rather still won't admit that the records are fake.

USA Today would be wise to quickly print a retraction of its falsehoods.

Yes, the newspaper hoped to discredit Gen. Michael Hayden and derail his nomination to be the director of the CIA. But what with the phone companies disputing the story, it really would be best for USA Today to just give it up.

The longer they stand by their seriously flawed story, the worse off they will be.

WHAT??? ARE YOU KIDDING???

OK. Mexico has gone too far.

I've had enough.

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico warned Tuesday it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.

..."If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in an interview with a Mexico City radio station.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to immigrant deaths. Since the U.S. toughened security at crossing spots in Texas and California in 1994, immigrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have increased.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

THE UNITED STATES HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS BORDERS.

MEXICANS THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED TO FILE LAWSUITS IF THEY ARE DETAINED FOR BREAKING OUR LAWS???

THAT IS NUTS!!!

And let's call it what it is -- ILLEGAL immigration.

Mexican officials have no need to worry about "immigrant" deaths. No person entering our country legally has anything to fear.

If ILLEGAL immigrants CHOOSE to take a more perilous route into the U.S., those individuals are 100% responsible for deciding to do so and break U.S. law. If they are injured or die in the process, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Mexican newspapers Tuesday characterized the National Guard plan as a hardening of the U.S. position, and some criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand, though Fox called Bush on Sunday to express his concerns.

HUH???

The President of Mexico has no right whatsoever to demand that the U.S. allow Mexicans into America.

We can put our National Guard wherever we want.

MEXICANS ARE NOT AMERICANS. THEY ARE MEXICANS.

If Mexicans want to become American citizens, great!

JUST DO IT LEGALLY!

Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush's statement that the Guard troops didn't imply a militarization of the area, and that Mexico remained "optimistic" that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform "in the interests of both countries."

What a load!

President Bush doesn't need to make any apologies for securing our borders. NONE.

Presidential hopeful Felipe Calderon of Fox's National Action Party issued a statement that the military presence would endanger migrants without stopping them.

"These measures have been proven mistaken. They increase the social and human costs for migrants and only benefit criminal groups that make money on the hopes and suffering of those looking for an opportunity," Calderon said.

Salvadoran President Tony Saca said he was worried that there could be an increase in abuses against immigrants because National Guard troops are trained to handle natural disasters and wars.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS!!!

A Mexican presidential candidate and the president of El Salvador are issuing statements about how we should run our country.

Did Saca listen to the President's address? The National Guard will not be involved in law enforcement.

If he's so worried about "abuses," then he should keep his people in his own country, safe from the abusive American torturers.

This is too much.

It really is.

Venezuela: Axis of Evil Wannabe

Pirate Captain Hugo Flips the Bird


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is trying his damnedest to be an official member of the Axis of Evil.

Chavez, best buddy of Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Jesse Jackson, continues to spew his childish schoolyard taunts at President Bush.

This man behaves like an unruly kid. We know that he doesn't play well with others, and I would bet that he probably runs with scissors as well.

From the Chavez highlight reel:

"You are a donkey, Mr. Bush. You're an alcoholic Mr. Danger, or rather, you're a drunkard."

"The U.S. empire is defeated in Iraq, they just don't want to admit it. Mr. Donkey thought they were going to be received as heroes."

"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush."


On Monday and today, Chavez added to his already ample, steaming pile of verbal muck:

"If you are going to compare me to the worst criminal in humanity - the president of the US; He is an assassin. He is a criminal responsible for genocide, completely immoral.

"I believe that he should be put in jail. He has invaded a country. Are we bombing cities?"

"The North American empire is becoming a paper tiger."

"If it's true that the empire is taking sanctions against us, firstly it's a confirmation of imperial abuse, of imperial desperation (and) secondly we will take no notice. It is an impotent empire."

Remember, this goof is the man that American Leftists adore.

I guess it makes sense. The Lefties basically say the same stuff about Bush and the United States.

Today, in a rather impotent effort to take a shot at the U.S., Venezuela is threatening to sell F-16s to Iran.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuela's military is considering selling its fleet of U.S.-made F- 16 fighter jets to another country, possibly Iran, in response to a U.S. ban on arms sales to President Hugo Chavez's government, an official said Tuesday.

Gen. Alberto Muller, a senior adviser to Chavez, told The Associated Press he had recommended to the defense minister that Venezuela consider selling the 21 jets to another country.

...Muller said he thought it was worthwhile to consider "the feasibility of a negotiation with Iran for the sale of those planes."

Even before the United States announced the ban on arms sales Monday, Washington had stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F- 16s.

Muller said officials have been considering options for replacing the F-16s for some time. He said the military was considering Russian Su- 35 jet fighters, "which is the best jet fighter there is in the world right now."

Chavez has previously warned he could share the U.S.-made F-16s with Cuba and China _ and look into buying new jets from Russia or China _ because he said Washington was not supplying parts for the planes as agreed.

U.S. officials disputed that accusation, saying they were living up to their commitments under the deal. They said Venezuela is bound under the 1982 contract to consult with Washington before transferring any F-16s to another country.

I doubt that Iran would be interested in the jets. I think Ahmadinejad would be too proud to buy Venezuela's castoffs.

These raving, maniacal dictators have very fragile egos, you know.

Doyle and Green and the National Guard

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle and candidate Mark Green have a difference of opinion on using the National Guard to help secure the border.

Doyle doesn't like the idea. He was pretty snippy about it.

With the president announcing National Guard patrols in a nationally televised speech Monday, Doyle said he was unsure whether the nation's chief executive has that authority.

Answering reporters' questions after a public appearance in Waukesha, the governor called it "very questionable" whether Bush unilaterally can order National Guard troops for such domestic duty.

...Later in the day, the governor's office issued a statement criticizing Bush for failing to secure the nation's borders sooner, saying that the immigration issue requires more than "stopgap measures."

Noting the strain of deployment on Guard troops and their families, the statement added: "Nevertheless, securing our borders is a critical national priority, and we will look carefully at whatever the president proposes."

In Waukesha, Doyle told reporters that he agreed that tougher border control is needed, but he called it a federal, not state, responsibility.

Asked whether he would refuse a request from Bush to mobilize Wisconsin Guard members, Doyle said he was undecided. "I would be very concerned if that request came," he said.

Doyle went overboard by attacking the President's "unilateral" move. He really exposed his liberal stripes.

Mark Green supports Bush's proposal.

U.S. Rep. Mark Green, a Republican from Green Bay who is challenging Doyle for the governorship, said: "For too long we've ignored the problem of border security, allowing millions of immigrants to enter our country illegally, and exposing Americans to the grave threat of terrorism. To address this serious problem, I have long called for tough action to secure our borders, including the deployment of troops."

In sum, Doyle seems uncooperative and unwilling to assist in securing our borders.

Green, on the other hand, understands the danger of porous borders and wants to take serious steps to address it.

Doyle loses this round.

Imbalance and Insanity

The gist of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial, "Balance and Humanity," is that President Bush is taking the right approach overall in dealing with illegal immigration by suggesting a middle way, something in between amnesty and mass deportations.

So, the editorial board basically gives Bush a thumbs up on his proposals. They disagree with sending the National Guard to the border, but they are on board with everything else.

Within the space of the relatively short editorial, the board declared Bush to be right on three separate occasions.

"He is absolutely right... ."

"The president is right."

"He's right."

(Did I miss the report that hell froze over?)

The fact that the Journal Sentinel agrees with Bush is a sign that his plan is very soft, and leans toward amnesty.

The answer remains legalizing a manageable flow through a guest worker program rather than criminalizing the presence of migrants who are here without proper documents. This draconian last item, among other things, is what a bill by Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would do.

Senate legislation would create a guest worker program but also includes a path toward legal residency for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already here. It has stalled.

The president is right. Enforcement is part of the solution. A nation does have a responsibility to secure its borders. But maybe not against service-sector workers. A better target would be employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. A preferable route would be to give employers the means to verify whether someone is documented. A tamper-proof ID for guest workers, as the president suggests, might help. Building fences at the border, what the Sensenbrenner bill would do for a large portion, won't.

Basically, the board's take on Bush's proposals is that amnesty (AKA "the path toward legal residency") will be granted to the 11 million+ illegals currently in the country. Moreover, the flow of more "guests" into the United States will not be blocked significantly.

Basically, I'd say their interpretation of Bush's plan is accurate.

While the President is offering some steps to hold back the flood of illegals entering the country, he's not taking strong measures to stop it.

In effect, he's tossing a few sandbags on the border. He's not constructing a dam.

The president said the Guard would stand down after a year and at no point, he said, would it be directly involved in law enforcement.

Good, but its presence at the border - in theory freeing up more Border Patrol agents - has too much potential for stepping over that line. Moreover, Mexico, despite the tension between it and the United States over immigration and other issues, is an ally. Allies don't militarize their mutual borders.

Here's a clear example of the liberal belief that we should not maintain the integrity of our borders.

Yes, they pay lip service to the idea of securing the borders, but they object to any measures which would produce results.

Regarding the board's concerns about Bush's proposal to utilize the National Guard, members will do what they are sent to the border to do; and it won't be law enforcement. There's no potential for them to "step over that line."

Implicit in the statement is that it would somehow be wrong to actually enforce the law and prevent people from entering the country illegally. Apparently, upholding U.S. law would be stepping over the line and inappropriate.

Although there is normally no need to have a heavy military presence at the mutual borders of allies, that's because allies normally respect each others' borders. They don't break the laws of their neighbors.

It's a rare situation when a friendly country is allowed to disregard and disrespect its neighbor's laws with impugnity. That could (should) be enough to seriously damage the alliance.

But the board is saying that in the name of friendship, it's an acceptable arrangement for Mexico to send its problems to the United States.

They obviously don't buy into the notion that good fences make good neighbors.

Offering illegal immigrants already here a path to legal residency after paying fines and back taxes, what the Senate legislation proposes, is not amnesty, he said.

He's right. It's sanity.

Realistically, how many of the millions of illegals already in the country are going to volunteer to pay fines and back taxes?

Believing that they will is insanity.
___________________________________

Mark Levin provides a concise account of what President Bush's plan would mean to the American taxpayer and how it would impact our social and government services.

By any factual analysis—costs to public education, the health-care system, entitlement programs, prison systems, etc.—unrestrained immigration is extremely detrimental to our country, as it would be for any country. And when you consider that the Senate bill now under consideration would result in some 100 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years—not including illegal aliens—the threat to this society is crystal clear. The U.S. cannot possibly assimilate such numbers, and the financial strain on federal, state, and local budgets is incalculable.

Those who support a temporary-worker program (yesterday it was called a guest-worker program) expect us to believe that it’s temporary and the workers will be guests. But they have no proof that aliens won’t stay beyond the legal limit and no proof that any agency of our government is capable of registering and monitoring this. Indeed, the evidence is otherwise: Aliens will stay no matter what, and the federal bureaucracy is as bloated and incompetent as we conservatives have always insisted.

This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress. The social and economic impact would be vast. What is the public-policy imperative behind this? And if it’s such a wonderful idea, why does every other country in the world reject it, including Mexico?

The Journal Sentinel editorial doesn't address these issues. The cost of supporting millions of illegal immigrants isn't even considered. The board approached the problem of funding the Milwaukee Connector Project the very same way, by completely dismissing it.

Damn reality. Full speed ahead!

Would it be nice if we could manage to take in and support anyone interested in coming to America?

Sure.

Is it possible without putting tremendous "financial strain on federal, state, and local budgets"?

No.

A Bit Nutty

Doug Giles wrote a great column about Iran's president, "Ahmadinejad: Nuttier than a squirrel turd."

When the heck did Mahmoud morph into Mr. Rogers? Did I miss something? Man, I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that week-long “How to Write so that You’ll be Relentlessly Blogged by Liberal Cry Babies” seminar. My high-grade narcissism and masochistic bents caused me to miss Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, a rabid, Jew-hating, holocaust-denying, nuke-pursuing, apocalyptic dreamer turn into an epistle-writing, global salve with a scraggly beard and windbreaker. And how the left loves this metamorphosis!

David Limbaugh points out in his latest column, “Fatherly Lessons from President Ahmadinejad,” that the AP, some liberal talk show hosts, Matt Lauer, Charlie Gibson, Senator Diane Feinstein and Satan (the Prince of Darkness) are all giddy over Mahmoud’s “thoughtfulness,” his “good ideas” for a comprehensive group hug, and his pithy WWJD appeals to President Bush in his “can’t we all just get along?” letter. Yes, the Left is singing, “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” after perusing this document.

However, when I read Ahmadinejad’s journaling, I started simultaneously laughing and gagging. This equated an intense abdominal work out for me. In addition, I lost my eye sight for a couple of hours because I rolled my eyes so hard and so often that they got stuck in the up position. That was freaky.

Read more.

Giles has an amusing writing style, but that shouldn't distract from his insights. He succinctly offers fourteen points that one should keep in mind whenever Ahmadinejad tries to take on that Mr. Rogers persona.

It's an act.

Living in the Shadows

This is one time when people on the Right and on the Left can find common ground.

What President Bush proposed tonight to deal with the illegal immigration problem is seen as inadequate by both sides.

Anything resembling amnesty for illegals angers those on the Right, looking to be fair and uphold the integrity of the law.

Anything short of complete amnesty for illegals and wide open borders angers the Left, looking to win over millions of potential voters.

So, Bush can look forward to criticism from those of varying political persuasions.

What bugs me about the entire illegal immigration mess is that it should never have been allowed to happen.

For generations, the U.S. government didn’t take the matter seriously. That’s inexcusable.

Nearly twelve million illegals didn't get here overnight, and we can't expect a quick and easy solution. That doesn't stop opportunistic politicians from demanding one.

The fact is we have millions of illegals living in the shadows.

The fact is we also have politicians that have spent years in the shadows, failing to protect our nation's sovereignty and simultaneously betraying American taxpayers.

To those on the Right and the Left, sharing the mindset that Bush's proposals are woefully inadequate, I say at least his plan is a start.

Some say that the National Guard presence won't solve the problem. Of course, it won't. How could it? The problem is so massive.

Sending the Guard to the border is belittled by some as really just a symbolic move and condemned by others as a purely political ploy to boost Bush's poll numbers.

I think anything that can be done to assist in stemming the flood of illegals is a plus. The perfect plan isn't necessary.

All the political gamesmanship is irresponsible and inexcusable.

It's time for everyone to get out of the shadows. It's time to address the realities of the burdens that millions and millions of illegal immigrants place on the citizens of the United States.

Mexico must take responsibility for the welfare of its own people and stop pushing their problems into the shadows of U.S. communities.

For its part, the U.S. government must take responsibility for enforcing immigration laws and securing the borders. Elected officials should be forced out of the shadows and held accountable for their incredible failures. They need to quit whining and bickering and grandstanding and take action.

Text of the President's Address


Here is a must read from the Heritage Foundation.

More from the Heritage Fondation.

___________________________________

From Drudge:

CNN aired President Bush rehearsing his immigration speech from the Oval Office on Monday night!

The embarrassing images and audio [16 seconds total] captured the president starting and stopping his message, then looking at the White House media advisor for direction.

[Click for video capture]

"The president is rehearsing and the network pool inadvertently went to the president as he is rehearsing," anchor Wolf Blitzer explained.

FOXNEWS, MSNBC and other outlets did not air the rehearsal.

The development comes just six months after CNN mistakenly placed a bold black 'X' mark over Vice President Cheney's face as he gave a speech.

CNN has the quality of a public access cable production without any of the charm.

I don't think that the President was embarrassed by CNN's "mistake" nearly as much as the news network was.

CNN is______.

A) slimy

B) inept

C) slimy and inept

The answer is C -- slimy and inept.

Weird Homework

I can't believe that this teacher isn't being fired.

ST. JOSEPH, MO (AP) -- A high school teacher has apologized for asking students to write about who they would kill and how they would do it, and officials said he will likely keep his job.

Michael Maxwell, who teaches industrial technology at Central High School, said his request that students in his beginning drafting class describe how they would carry out a murder was merely a writing prompt. It was not clear why he asked the drafting class to write fiction.

"I made a horrible mistake that I regret," Maxwell said. "I want to apologize to my students, my colleagues and to the community."

The April 21 writing request, which Maxwell said was not a formal assignment, came to the attention of administrators when a parent of one of the students filed a complaint with Principal Barton Albright.

Albright expressed regret and apologized for Maxwell's "lapse of judgment."

"He's an exemplary person ... this is very out of character," the principal said.

St. Joseph School District spokesman Steve Huff declined to discuss possible disciplinary measures because the matter is considered a personnel issue. But he said the incident probably isn't serious enough to cost Maxwell his job.

Maxwell has issues.

I think they're serious enough to cost him his job.

What's so inconsistent about the fact that Maxwell will probably keep his teaching position even after such a massive "lapse of judgment" is that a student would not be granted the same slack.

If a student scribbled in a notebook something about killing someone and it was discovered, the school would go into lockdown, police would be on the scene, and the kid would be expelled.

Why is it that this teacher can be forgiven for encouraging his students to write about who they would kill and how?

If a student did the exact same thing on his own, there is no way that the matter would be framed as a creative expression. The student would not be commended for taking the initiative in a writing exercise.

I'm not defending students who issue death threats. The threats most definitely need to be taken seriously and examined. Too many kids and teachers have been injured or killed by students run amok.

I have a problem with the double standard here. I doubt a student who did something so "out of character" would be given the leeway that Maxwell is getting.

There should be some consistency. This teacher suggested that his students do precisely what schools forbid students to do!

Nonetheless, Maxwell gets a mulligan. He gets to apologize and everything is all better.

Why are Maxwell's actions being excused as an "exemplary person" doing something "out of character"?

The guy should be out of a job.

The Pope Preaches Tolerance

In a few days, on movie screens around the world, the Catholic Church will be bashed mercilessly, ridiculed and slandered.

As The Da Vinci Code, that "delightful" piece of fiction, that entertaining mystery thriller, is poised to slash at the foundations of Catholicism, here's some reality:

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants Monday while also saying Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.

Benedict stressed the need for "reciprocity" in Christian-Muslim relations during a speech to members of the pontifical council for migrants. The Vatican office is studying the issue of migration to and from Muslim countries during its annual meeting this week.

...Benedict said Christians were called to "open their arms and their hearts to everyone," regardless of their countries of origin.

"Obviously, it is also to be hoped that Christians who emigrate to countries with an Islamic majority find welcome and respect of their religious identities there," he said.

In other words:

DON'T BEHEAD ME BECAUSE I'M CHRISTIAN.

The Pope notes that the Catholic Church has respect and shows tolerance for people of all faiths. He urges that Muslims grant that same respect and tolerance to Christians.

The Catholic Church is about RESPECT and TOLERANCE.

This reality is likely to be lost among the hordes flocking to The Da Vinci Code this weekend.

Tommy Speaks!

FINALLY, the "Tommy Thompson for governor" distraction can be put to rest.

Game over.

Now, Mark Green can get on with his campaign.

Press Release

Statement from Tommy G. Thompson

After serious consideration and many conversations with my family and people around Wisconsin, I have decided not to run for Governor this year. I have come to this conclusion for two simple reasons: my family's unanimous opposition against another campaign and because I am convinced that Mark Green is the right candidate to lead our party and will be victorious in November.

It was critical in my decision making to know that the Republican Party has Mark Green to lead Wisconsin forward again and return our state to the greatness we enjoyed when we were the pride and model of the nation.

I am privileged to accept the role as the honorary chairman of Mark's campaign because he knows that the strength of Wisconsin is found in our people. Mark has the vision, integrity and principles needed to bring the state and its people together.

Mark Green will put the state back on the right track. I will work tirelessly to campaign for Mark as we seek to restore the confidence and resolve that make Wisconsin great.

In his statement, Thompson is very generous with the compliments for Green; and he leaves no question about his support for the campaign.

That's good.




It's unfortunate that Thompson took so long to come to his conclusion not to run for governor again and make it official. While Thompson's indecision was grabbing the media's attention, as well as that of the public, Mark Green was forced to comment on Thompson's aspirations rather than the issues and Jim Doyle.

It was a completely unnecessary complication for Green; but thankfully, it's finished. Thompson has given Green his enthusiastic and well-deserved endorsement.

Mark Green is the right candidate. That's one of Thompson's two reasons not to run.

The other reason is likely to create more speculation about whether Thompson's intends to pursue any elected office.

His "family's unanimous opposition against another campaign" is a bit ambiguous.

Does this refer to a campaign for governor or any campaign?

I take Thompson's statement to mean that his family is opposed to another campaign in general. It seems that the specific office would be irrelevant. The family doesn't want the rigors of another campaign.

Thus, can we conclude that Thompson has ruled out running for the Senate this year?

Short answer: NO

My assessment of Thompson's statement is wrong.

Madison -- Bob Wood, a former chief of staff for Thompson in Madison and Washington, said Sunday that Thompson's statement deliberately left open the possibility that he might still run against U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). That is considered unlikely, however.

Thompson "will make that (Senate) decision this week," Wood said.

Thompson left Madison on Sunday and was not available for further comment, a spokesman said.

OK, Mr. Wood, if you say so.

I misinterpreted Thompson's statement. Doors that seemed closed to me are apparently still ajar.

I guess the family opposition is not directed at campaigning overall but just campaigning for governor.

So, we're back to a waiting game. Will Thompson take on Herb Kohl?

Frankly, I don't think three-term senator Kohl is losing any sleep over the possibility of running against Thompson. Kohl expects to sail into another term.

Thompson was begged by state and national Republican Party leaders to trade his new life, working for private companies and going around the world giving speeches, for a run against Kohl this year. But Thompson derided the Senate seat as too confining for someone who once candidly told a GOP meeting he considered himself a "great" governor.

I think Thompson could unseat Kohl.

Wisconsin Republicans would certainly be energized by Thompson challenging "nobody's senator."

As it stands, Wisconsin conservatives have NO representation in the Senate. We have liberal wacko Russ Feingold and invisible liberal guy Herb Kohl.

We need a formidable candidate, someone capable of winning, to give Wisconsin conservatives a voice in the Senate.

It's too bad that Thompson considers a Senate seat to be too confining for a man of his stature.

Clearly, Thompson doesn't want his political life to be over. It doesn't have to be.

If Thompson put just a little more emphasis on public service and a lot less emphasis on massaging his ego, Kohl could be sent packing.

I would vote for Thompson to replace Kohl in a heartbeat.

Thompson really should take a cue from his former boss, the Decider in Chief.

He should make up his mind about a senate run.

NOW!

DECIDE!

ENOUGH OF THE DRAMA!

Even though Kohl doesn't have a Republican challenger yet, I already know how I'll be voting.

I have never cast a vote for Kohl and I never will. If he runs unopposed, I'd cast a write-in vote.

I'm voting for ABK -- anybody but Kohl. That's a promise.

The New York Times: SNAFU

In its quest to demonize Vice President Dick Cheney and taint General Michael V. Hayden, President Bush's nominee to be the director of the CIA, The New York Times has gone completely off the deep end.

In its foaming at the mouth, front page story, The Times accuses Dick Cheney of fighting to have free rein to spy on any America at will. Hayden is depicted as devising a program that would keep the sinister Cheney happy while pacifying the troubled NSA lawyers.

Did the zealousness of reporters Scott Shaen and Eric Lichtblau expose the distortions of past Times reporting on the much hyped "domestic spy program"?

WASHINGTON, May 13 -- In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.

The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed.

Am I reading this correctly?

The Times is making the case that shortly after 9/11, the evil Dick Cheney wanted the NSA to "intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists."

The NSA lawyers argued that only communications into and out of the country could be monitored without warrants, meaning international calls and e-mails.

According to The Times, May 14, 2006 edition, "The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed."

OK.

In other words, The Times states that THERE IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING.

The NSA's position prevailed, meaning only calls with an international component could be monitored.

In the six months since The Times leaked the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, how often has the operation been referred to as "domestic spying"?

So often that it would be easier to determine how frequently The Times didn't characterize the program as warrantless domestic spying. (I think that might be never.)

In the December 16, 2005 edition, when The Times first ran the leaked story that served to undermine U.S. efforts to protect citizens from terrorism, and from that point forward, the mantra has been "domestic spying."

The phone calls and communications of innocent Americans WITHIN THE COUNTRY (hence "domestic") were supposedly being illegally intercepted.

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

What a massive contradiction!

It's so blatant that I'm doubting myself here.

Has The Times admitted today that there is no DOMESTIC SPYING being done by the NSA?

I think so.

LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S AL GORE!

I had no idea that this weekend's Saturday Night Live was going to be a promo for Al Gore's new global warming flick, An Inconvenient Truth.

Gore opened the show, sitting at the desk in the Oval Office as President of the United States.

He addressed a litany of issues facing Americans in 2006:

"President Gore" began by noting that he was elected "overwhelmingly" in 2000.

He took credit for stopping global warming. Unfortunately, glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. These are "renegade glaciers that have captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine." He promises that "we will not let the glaciers win."

There is a gas crisis -- too much gas! And it's 19 cents a gallon! He proposed a federal bail out for the suffering oil companies.

Of course, all Americans are enjoying free universal health care.

The budget surplus has dwindled to a perilously low $11 trillion. Gore insisted that it's staying in a lockbox and no one will touch it.

Gore referred to people wanting to spend money on a "made up war." To those people he responded, "What part of lockbox don't you understand"?

Gore has faith in George W. Bush, the Commissioner of Baseball, to get to the bottom of the steroid scandal. Bush promises, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America."

We are so loved around the world that American tourists can't go to Europe anymore without getting hugged.

Gore was instrumental in developing an anti-hurricane and tornado machine.

Immigration was difficult. Gore regrets the loss of California, but the Mexifornia economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarzenegger is doing a great job.

Michael Moore was confirmed to be a Supreme Court Justice in a bitter and divisive battle, but the Democrats and Republicans pulled together to confirm Chief Justice George Clooney.

Overall, I thought the parallel earth skit was funny. I think it had something for everyone.

Libs probably enjoyed it as a funny Bush bash-fest.

I liked it because I viewed it as a hilarious depiction of the loony Left's Utopia. Some fringe Leftists talk as if America with Al Gore as president would really have been the type of "paradise" he described.


From Oliver Willis, watch "President Gore" address the nation.

For about half an hour, Gore was gone.

Then, during Weekend Update, Al Gore made a return appearance.

He had a mock debate about global warming with Amy Poehler.

Naturally, Gore argued the dangers of global warming while Poehler made the case that global warming is "awesome."

Gore began by showing a photo of a glacier in Argentina from 70 years ago and the same glacier today, now a lake.

Gore said, "This is no joke."

Poehler played the airhead, saying that it was an improvement.

Later, Gore showed a report from the Bush Administration on the issue. Nearly the entire document had been blacked out as conjecture except for, "Everything is great. Drive big car a lot."

Poehler countered with some goofy stuff such as, "We all know the reason we're getting these hurricanes is because of gay marriage. That's a fact."

The debate ended with Gore saying, "Amy, just go see the movie."

I wonder how this Gorestravaganza came about.

Did Lorne Michaels set it up? Did Gore and his people approach SNL to hawk the movie?

In any case, it was funny. Some of the time, however, I wasn't laughing with Gore. I was laughing at him.

One More Time: Back Off, Tommy!

On April 13, I addressed Tommy Thompson's political future.

I wrote:

Yesterday, Tommy Thompson hinted that he might toss his hat into the Wisconsin gubernatorial ring.

MADISON, Wis. -- Former Wisconsin governor and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said that he'll announce his political intentions at the state Republican Convention in Appleton in May.

Thompson, in a satellite interview from Columbus, Ohio, on Wednesday, continues to fuel speculation that he might run for governor again or the U.S. Senate, WISC-TV reported.

Although some of his closest advisors have expressed serious doubts about whether he'll run again this year, Thompson hasn't put the rumors to bed.

..."I'm ready for anything that's going to be thrown at me in this coming year," he said. "Whether it be governor, or U.S. senator or running for mayor of Elroy or just being a private citizen supporting other people."

"I'm going to be making a speech at the Republican Convention and I'll make a decision a little bit prior to that time, but will be announcing it at the Republican Convention."

Note to Tommy: If you care about getting Jim Doyle out of office, put the rumors to bed NOW. It is way past their bedtime.

Republicans need to unify behind Mark Green. Scott Walker gracefully bowed out of the race, allowing for the Green/pro-Republican and anti-Doyle/anti-Democrat contingents to organize. It is a distraction for Thompson to permit speculation about his possible candidacy to float out there. It's an irresponsible move by Thompson.

Thompson obviously responded to the question somewhat jokingly. He certainly isn't going to run for mayor of Elroy, but I do think it's a serious mistake for him to throw up any obstacles to the Green campaign.

...[K]eeping ANY rumors alive about running for governor again is terribly self-serving.

In any event, if Thompson truly hasn't decided on his future political path, it would be far better for Wisconsin for him to keep his mouth shut in the meantime, and not muddy the waters.

One month later, speculation about Thompson's plans continues, fueled by Thompson's own comments and unbecoming bravado.

Tommy G. Thompson said Thursday that if he ran for governor this year, his election would be a certainty.

"If I run, I win. I have no doubt in my mind about that. But then I have to govern," he said in an interview, adding that he might announce a decision about the race as early as Sunday, after spending the rest of this week talking to family members and others in Wisconsin.

Speaking to a reporter after a health care speech, the former governor and George W. Bush cabinet member also said that:

• He wants to run for president but is not sure whether he will.

• He still hasn't ruled out running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Herb Kohl this year.

In other words, Thompson, famous for his attachment to the public stage, did little to put to rest the speculation prompted by his frequent open musings about a return to politics.

"Everything's up in the air," he said.

As I said a month ago, Thompson should keep his mouth shut if "everything's up in the air."

A simple "no comment" response to reporters inquiring about his political plans would suffice. If he has an announcement, he should make it. This cat-and-mouse routine is selfish.

I don't know what Thompson really wants to do as far as his political future goes, but what he's doing right now is clear.

He's putting his personal goals ahead of what's best for Wisconsin.

To me, it seems that Thompson's uncertainty is less about how best he can serve the public and more about how he can use the public to achieve his self-centered aims.

He should quit the man of mystery act, and start actively campaigning for Mark Green.

Obama O'Brien, O'Brien Obama

This past week, Conan O’Brien has done his show from Chicago. The change of venue was a typical sweeps lure.

Friday’s installment included favorite son Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois.

The interview was a relatively brief segment.

They talked about soul food and barbers and hair.

O'Brien also brought up the keynote address that Obama delivered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. O’Brien commented on what a terrific job he did and what a gifted speaker he is. Obama joked that his four-year-old daughter thinks he’s boring.

Obama seemed very at ease. He was self-deprecating and pleasant.

Then, he took some rather mean-spirited jibes at President Bush.

While discussing what it’s like when addressing an audience and it’s not going over well, Obama said he just keeps talking until he finally says something that appeals to the crowd – sort of like what the President does.

People applauded and laughed at the remark.

O’Brien asked Obama if Bush has a nickname for him.

Obama quipped, “I can’t tell whether he’s trying to give me a nickname or whether he just can’t pronounce my name.”

That also got a laugh from the audience.

What’s ironic about Obama’s joke is that his Dem colleague Ted Kennedy really can’t pronounce his name. Who can forget how Teddy butchered it -- “Osama bin … Osama … Obama”?

As O’Brien kept fawning over him, Obama said that his wife keeps him humble, reminding him that he has big ears.

When O’Brien asked about Obama’s political future and ambitions for higher office, he joked that O’Brien should be his running mate.

The End
__________________________________


Obama seems likable enough, but he I think he's overrated.

He skates by on his likeability, but there's not a lot of depth there. Outside the realm of late night TV, Obama doesn't measure up.

In serious interviews, Obama’s shallowness and lack of knowledge become painfully clear.

He may be good at delivering prepared speeches, but he's not good at thinking on his feet when more than entertainment TV banter is required.

Obama is not ready for prime time.

The Da Vinci Code: Fun-Filled Hooey?

Before I get into discussing The Da Vinci Code, you should know two things.

1. I'm a practicing Catholic, not a "recovering Catholic" or an "I was raised Catholic" Catholic. I go to Mass every week. I do my best to follow the Church's teachings. I don't always agree with the Church's stance on issues, but I am a member of the Church. I am Catholic.

2. I haven't read The Da Vinci Code. I have no intention of reading the book. Why? I'm not interested. I don't care how many people have read it. I choose not to devote hours of my time to the book -- just not my kind of novel.

As someone who hasn't read the book, I can hardly speak with authority about its details, its tone, or its message. I can, however, comment on what I've read about the book, and how people and groups are reacting to the upcoming film adaptation.

Yesterday, The Evening Standard covered Tom Hanks' remarks about Catholic opposition to the movie.

Oscar-winner Hanks said objectors to The Da Vinci Code are taking the film too seriously, telling the Evening Standard: "We always knew there would be a segment of society that would not want this movie to be shown.

"But the story we tell is loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense.

"If you are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, you'd be making a very big mistake.

"It's a damn good story and a lot of fun... all it is is dialogue. That never hurts."

Of course, The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Unlike Michael Moore and his propaganda films, director Ron Howard doesn't claim to be making a documentary.

It's a big Hollywood movie of an enormous best-selling book.

Still, I think it's making a major leap to assume that its content is no big deal. "Hey, it's just a movie. Blah, blah, blah."

It strikes at the heart of Catholicism. Like or not, many non-Christians consider The Da Vinci Code to debunk the Christian faith.

I've had people cite the book as "proof" that Catholic teaching is a farce. Granted, that says more about the intellectual level of those individuals than it does about the novel, but it's disturbing nonetheless.

Hanks can say that it's "loaded with all sorts of hooey" and "a lot of fun," but that fun-filled hooey misrepresents Opus Dei and Catholicism.

Opus Dei responds to the mischaracterization of the institution and other falsehoods in The Da Vinci Code.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also weighs in on assertions made in the book, and in all likelihood, the movie.

Reporters have asked whether even a bestselling novel can seriously damage a Church of one billion believers. No, in the long run, it cannot. But that is not the point. The pastoral concern of the Church is for each and every person. If only one person were to come away with a distorted impression of Jesus Christ or His Church, our concern is for that person as if he or she were the whole world.

The USCCB website is an excellent resource for those interested in the difference between the stuff of a "fun" story and the foundation of the religion of one billion people.

In Amy Welborn's analysis of The Da Vinci Code, she makes an important statement:

"There is enough truth in The Da Vinci Code to be seriously misleading."

If there's a problem with this piece of fiction, that's it.

I admit that the incessant Catholic-bashing of recent years has taken a toll on me. Many people question how I could be part of a church that is filled with pedophiles and their accomplices. They consider Catholicism to not only be backward in its teachings, but harmful to society.

I defend my faith as they shake their heads. I express how disillusioning and painful the abuse scandal has been for Catholics and the overwhelming majority of priests who serve God and His people with love and faithful commitment.

Sometimes, I think that The Da Vinci Code is their bible. It confirms their negative views of the Church. Many don't view it as fiction. That's a fact.

As far as calls from the Vatican to boycott the movie go, I think they're fair. I also think that they won't make a noticeable dent in the profits, not even a ding. If anything, talk of boycotts may be counterproductive and actually entice more people to go.

Nevertheless, I think it's legitimate for Church officials to recommend that Christians not pad the studio's pockets. Personally, I won't pay money to watch a movie that disrespects my faith. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that it's not hurtful.

In addition to the Catholic-bashing, there is the very troubling issue of the double standard.

There is no way that a big budget movie about the teachings of Islam being a sham would