Milwaukee Army Recruitment Center Protesters: They're Back!

This time in the light of the day, protesters have returned to the same Milwaukee U.S. Army Recruitment Center that was the scene of a violent protest a few weeks ago.

This afternoon's protesters made reference to the previous protest that included setting off smoke bombs, throwing paint, smashing windows, and resulted in the arrests of 21 people.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

A couple dozen people protested outside the U.S. Army recruiting office near the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus this afternoon.

It was the first demonstration at the recruiting office on Oakland Ave. since 21 people were arrested last month after demonstrators broke windows and threw paint bombs at the office. The protesters held up signs that said "Bring Our Windows Home Now," "Give Windows a Chance" and "100 Windows are Broken Every Day in Baghdad."

The event was organized by the Milwaukee chapter of Students for a Democratic Society.

As a guitarist played and sang "Eve of Destruction" and other '60s protest songs, Dawson Barrett, a UWM graduate student in history, said, "It's a little ridiculous that three broken windows are treated as violence while no one wants to talk about 700,000 dead Iraqis and almost 4,000 dead U.S. troops."

Really?

I don't think it's ridiculous. I disagree with Barrett.

Anti-war protesters claim to support the troops. They hate President Bush. They hate the administration's policies, but they love our fighting men and women.

When an army recruitment center is targeted with violence, it exposes that big lie.

Furthermore, it's ridiculous to say that "no one wants to talk" about Iraqi or American casualties.

The nation is embroiled in discussions about the war.

It's just silly to suggest that people care more about the protesters' violence than what's happening in Iraq.

It's typical fringe crap.

What's with the 60s protest songs? Was the protest a "let's pretend we're protesting the Vietnam War" event?

And the lame signs with the references to windows, "Bring Our Windows Home Now," "Give Windows a Chance" and "100 Windows are Broken Every Day in Baghdad," were really goofy.

Dawson Barrett whines that the broken windows at the recruiting center got too much attention. So why carry signs about the windows?

What was the purpose of the protest?

Remembering Vietnam?

Raising awareness about the fragility of glass?

It's hard to say.
____________________________

UPDATE: I received the following email from Dawson Barrett.

He provides more details about the protest and offers perspective not found in the Journal Sentinel report.

My name is Dawson Barrett. I am the UWM student quoted in the Journal Sentinel article that you referenced today. As I'm sure you realize, that was not my entire statement, but that's another story...

I am writing you with the intention of starting a dialogue, which was the point of our demonstration today. People drive by signs that say "Support Our Troops," but they do a double-take when they find the word "windows." We were hoping very much that people would ask us what we were talking about.

I stand by my original statement that the mainstream media's obsession with the window event was ridiculous, and that reactions calling for these youths to be executed for treason were another level of obscenity altogether. I also take offense to the notion that I am not allowed to support the troops and oppose the war. I have friends in the military, and I love them very much. My love is reflected in the fact that I do not want them to be killed, and I do not want them to kill people either. In fact, I think that it is unfair to presume that people willing to stand in the freezing, windy cold for hours on end are guided by anything other than a feeling of empathy. I honestly think more people should be demanding that troops get proper protective gear (maybe Halliburton and Bechtel should go ahead and pay for that) rather than merely put ribbon magnets on their vehicles...

Some of today's press reports confused whether or not today's protestors were involved with the March 19 action. We are different people. We were not there today to endorse the tactics of those youth; however, I think the frustration that their actions represent is understandable, if you are willing to try.

I think that many in our society treat this war as if it's a sporting event, debating a troop surge as if it's a debate over changing quarterbacks. This is an enormous insult to our troops - and really to humanity - and it is not the anti-war movement that is guilty of this behavior. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party wins a Congressional landslide (not based on their merits, specifically on the issue of the war), and the best they can muster is a non-binding resolution. Regardless of your party affiliation, you must recognize that this is not democracy in action. And then of course, the media in Milwaukee refused to cover the peaceful protest downtown...

I am not asking you to endorse the destruction of these windows; I do not do that myself. I am merely asking you to attempt to understand where these people were coming from, a task apparently too complicated for our wonderful media. I think you would find that very few of these kids are terrorists who hate American and hate our troops. I would be willing to place bets that most of them are driven by extreme feelings of love, even if their actions do not reflect it very well.

Breaking windows in response to your team losing the big game is juvenile, but can we at least say that something fundamentally different is going on here, that even if we condemn the breaking of windows, we understand that it is in response to near genocide?

I am sure that we will have to agree to disagree, but I hope that we can maybe reach a bit further than the hatred and ignorance so often reflected in our media.

No More Global War on Terror

Want more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted to battle terror?

From the Military Times:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”

Oh, no. Of course not. No political intent at all.

Yeah, right.

"War on Terror" isn't a catch phrase. It's the reality of the post-9/11 world.

The Dems perceive the War on Terror as a construct of the Bush administration utilized for political purposes to win elections.

Naturally, they want to do away with references to something they see as advantageous to the Republicans.

How incredibly self-serving, not to mention myopic!

The Dems don't get that the enemies of the United States are loving what they're doing, this softening of our resolve.

If the 9/11 attacks weren't enough to wake up the Dems that we are at war with Islamic radicals, then I don't think anything will.

It is a global war without traditional boundaries.

The Dems don't get it.

Maybe they do get it. They just don't want you to get it.

Easter Bunny Ahmadinejad

Unlike when Jimmy Carter was president and there was a hostage crisis in Iran, it didn't take 444 days for the matter to be resolved.

The fifteen British sailors and marines being held hostage in Iran are hostages no more.

Nevermind the threats of trials and the parading of the hostages in front of cameras and forcing them to read scripted remarks.

Iran is giving the British an "Easter gift."

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran on Wednesday freed the 15 detained British sailors and marines in what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called an Easter gift to the British people. Prime Minister Tony Blair said he bore "no ill will" toward the Iranian people.

Iranian state television said the 14 men and one woman, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian gulf on March 23, would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.

Ahmadinejad's surprise announcement came at a news conference shortly after he pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.

"I'm glad that our 15 service personnel have been released and I know their release will come as a relief not just to them but to their families," Blair said outside his No. 10 Downing St. office. "Throughout, we have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting, either."

Blair added, "To the Iranian people I would simply say this: We bear you no ill will."

Perhaps in a gesture of thanks and goodwill, Blair should send Ahmadinejad a solid chocolate Easter bunny, not the cheap hollow kind.

Read the Islamic Republic News Agency spin.

In a special ceremony on Wednesday the 15 British marines had a sincere meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and thanked him for the amnesty.

They exchanges discourse one by one with the president and lauded the humane treatment of Iranian government and nation.

Wearing uniforms, they said that Iranians treated them in a friendly and hospitable way.

President Ahmadinejad said that he hoped British Prime Minister Tony Blair would not prosecute the soldiers for telling the truth.

Ahmadinejad is a joke. That's a given.

It's Blair's reaction that is a bit troubling to me.

It seemed like Blair's comments were scripted by Iran. I think it can be said that 16 hostages were released by Iran today.
_____________________________

Read Ahmadinejad's statement announcing the release of the hostages.

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Mohammed) … and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15."

Ahmadinejad seems to have a Pontius Pilate complex.

Pelosi and Assad Find Common Ground

Today was the main act of Nancy Pelosi's Terror-palooza Tour. She met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

DAMASCUS (Reuters) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on a visit to Syria opposed by the White House, said on Wednesday President Bashar al-Assad was ready to hold peace talks with Israel.

But her remark that Israel was prepared to negotiate with Damascus prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office to underline the Jewish state's preconditions for such talks.

Democrat Pelosi is the most senior U.S. official to visit Syria in more than two years. The White House called her trip to Damascus a bad idea and Republican President George W. Bush said it sent mixed signals to Syria.

"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president (Assad) that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations (for) peace with Israel," Pelosi said.

"(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well," Pelosi told reporters after talks with Assad.

An Israeli government official said that was not the message Olmert had asked Pelosi earlier this week to convey to Assad, who seeks the return of the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

"The prime minister said Israel is interested in peace with Syria, but Syria would first have to abandon the path of terror and providing support for terrorist groups," the official said, in reference to Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

"Comments (Olmert) made to the speaker of the House did not represent any change in a policy Israel has expressed to all international figures dealing with the (Syrian) issue," a statement from Olmert's office said.

With all due respect to Madame Pelosi, she has revealed an astounding degree of idiocy and ineptitude.

Did she think that she could run over to Syria and misrepresent Israel without being called on it?

Pelosi has not only taken it upon herself to misrepresent U.S. policy, but she's screwing with Israeli policy as well.

Those Dems are great diplomats, aren't they?

I understand why Pelosi and Assad could relate to each other.
Read this September 2006 Spiegel interview with Assad.

He echoes the Dems' talking points. Bush is bad. It's all Bush's fault. Terrorists must be appeased to achieve peace.

SPIEGEL: United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thanked Syria for its role in preventing the attack. In return, however, you sharply criticized America's Middle East policies. Why didn't you take advantage of this rare gesture of goodwill?

Assad: Ms. Rice didn't thank us for our policies, only for our response to the attack. But this attack happened precisely because of American policies in our region.

SPIEGEL: Why should the Americans be at fault?

Assad: Because they contribute to hopelessness in our country, and to silencing the dialogue between cultures. And then there is the condescending language -- the expression "islamofascism," which President Bush used, is a prime example. The pope's recent comments are also part of it. Such statements complicate the situation and create this need for revenge.

...

SPIEGEL: After the cease-fire between Israel and the Hezbollah militia, you gave a much-noted speech on the situation in the Middle East. In your speech, you mentioned a "critical stage of the history of Syria and the region." Wherein lies the opportunity?

Assad: First of all, it's clear to everyone that the status quo of war and conflict and instability is no longer acceptable. Now America enters the picture, because only America, because of its weight, can be the main broker for peace in the Middle East. But the Bush administration is under pressure. It's being accused of not having managed to bring about peace in six years. This pressure is good. Europe's foreign policy role is also growing. We specifically do not want a special role for the Europeans. We expect them to work together with America to achieve peace, and to do so on the basis of a vision America must develop.

...

Assad: But Israel occupies a part of my country - of course Israel is an enemy. If you want to play a role in our region, then you have to be able to see things from our point of view. That's also true for the classification of Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization." That cannot remain so. In 2004, Germany played an important role during the prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah. That's exactly the point: to work within the realities that exist in this part of the world.

SPIEGEL: Germany's history also plays a role. Do you accept that Germany has a special responsibility for Israel?

Assad: Do you mean that Israel is allowed to kill Palestinians and Arabs because Jews at that time were killed in Germany?

SPIEGEL: No, of course not. We're talking about Israel's right to exist.

Assad: But why don't you also protect our right to exist? For us, the balance is important, and there, Europe is much closer to us than America. Europe knows our world.

Pelosi believes she has just opened the doors to peace in the Middle East.

In reality, she's legitimizing Syria's Bush-bashing and confusing Israel's policy.

I think Pelosi's script was written before she went to the Middle East and donned her headscarf.

Her Terrorist-palooza Tour had a pre-ordained purpose -- to disgrace President Bush.

I think she failed. She disgraced herself and the Democrat Party.

I Have a Dream

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

January 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968






Text of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, August 28, 1963,
Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.

Thug Alderman Michael McGee, Jr.

This is an absolute disgrace.

The people of Milwaukee's 6th Aldermanic District voted to keep Michael McGee, Jr. in office.

A recall effort to unseat the controversial McGee failed.

In a field of eight candidates, he won more than 50% of the vote, allowing him to avoid a runoff election.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Although Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee could not block the recall effort against him, he got a knockout win Tuesday where it matters most: at the ballot box.

The outspoken McGee, whose actions have infuriated critics and inspired supporters, got 64% of the votes in the eight-person race.

Because he received more than half of the votes cast, a runoff isn't needed.

McGee easily outdistanced the field. The two strongest opponents were former city development official Una Van Duvall (14%) and recall organizer ViAnna Jordan (13%).

The remaining five candidates split 9% of the vote, with several registering only a few dozen votes.

While the recall focused on what the challengers said were McGee's flaws, including a host of problems that have generated headlines, Tuesday's results left him politically strengthened and well-positioned to win a second term next year.

McGee is politically strengthened?

That may be, but the community isn't strengthened by having someone like McGee in office.

No one is perfect. No candidate is without flaws. You have to weigh the good and the bad.

...In office, McGee has worked to find a place for cruisers, which many other aldermen consider a summertime plague. He helped lead protests on behalf of Frank Jude Jr., who was beaten by a group of off-duty Milwaukee police officers. And he launched a gun buy-back program, as well as a "Rapid Response Team" to address crime in the district.

But McGee has also been at the center of controversy.

For instance, the Jude protests did not start immediately after the beating, but after a front-page story appeared in the Journal Sentinel months later. At one rally, he called then-Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann a "dumb ass" and used the word "faggot" to label the officers involved.

When that drew complaints from gay leaders, McGee was confronted at City Hall by state Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee), who demanded an apology.

McGee walked away, but later allegedly bragged to students on a bus trip to Washington, D.C.: "Man, I should have kicked his ass."

There have been plenty of other incidents, including one with police outside a Blockbuster video store in Wauwatosa. Later, McGee was arrested on suspicion of threatening a woman pregnant with his unborn child who had just received a restraining order against him. No charges were filed in that case.

Most recently, a restraining order was issued against McGee ordering him to stay away from Leon Todd, campaign manager for Jordan. In a radio appearance, McGee had said Todd should be "hung" for his "betrayal of the community."

He later gave out Todd's phone number over the air, which Todd said led to harassing phone calls.

Read more detailed accounts of McGee's adventures here and here and here and here.

As I said, no one is all bad, but McGee seems to carry around an excess of negatives.


Does McGee seem fit to serve in elected office?


Lying in court, having an affair, impregnating a woman other than his wife, threatening people with violence, using gay slurs and other offensive language doesn't exactly make him a good role model.

I can't believe that the people in his district would settle for a leader like McGee. On Tuesday, they validated McGee's behavior. They rewarded him.

After securing his position as alderman, McGee said in a television interview on Milwaukee's ABC affiliate, "Praise God. Power to the people."

McGee went on to say, "Black people have to stop killing each other."

True. I have no argument with that.

Still, those are interesting words coming from a man who threatened the mother of his child in court.

He allegedly said to her, "If you drive by my house, I'm going to kill your ass."

This from the man who crushed his opponents in a recall election.

The results reveal just how incredibly dysfunctional Milwaukee has become.

What passes for leadership in the community is frightening.

I'm sure Michael McGee, Sr. will be gloating today. Will he celebrate his son's victory by threatening violence and spewing racist and anti-Semitic remarks on the radio?

That would be fitting.

McGee, Jr.'s victory was a victory for thug politics, another nail in Milwaukee's coffin.

"Praise God."

Justice Annette Ziegler

It wasn't even close. Annette Ziegler trounced Linda Clifford.

In this expensive election, running dirty didn't pay.

The icy Clifford's ruthlessness turned off voters.

Madison -- Washington County Circuit Judge Annette Ziegler won a seat Tuesday on the state Supreme Court by a wide margin, besting Madison attorney Linda Clifford in the most expensive high-court race in state history.

With 98% of precincts reporting, Ziegler had 58% of the vote to Clifford's 42%, according to unofficial vote tallies.

Ziegler will replace retiring Justice Jon P. Wilcox on Aug. 1.

The race was expected to be much closer. Some pundits predicted Clifford would win.

Wrong.

..."Today, I think the voters made clear that they reject negative campaigns and that those don't work and that instead they want someone who's a judge and who's practiced criminal law," said Ziegler, 43, a former assistant U.S. attorney.

Ziegler campaigned as someone who would practice judicial restraint, and she highlighted that in her comments to a crowd of more than 100 people at the Old Courthouse Museum in West Bend.

"I will work very hard to be a judge, not a legislator," she said.

I don't know what the results reveal about voters' motivations.

The percents don't tell.

I don't know if it was the negative tone set by Clifford that caused voters to reject her.

I don't know if it was Clifford's total lack of experience as a judge.

I don't know if voters just didn't want another liberal on the Court.

I assume that all of those fators played into Ziegler's victory.

I voted for Ziegler because she's a constructionist. In my opinion, the liberal, ACLU lawyer Clifford would have been a disaster on the Supreme Court. She made no secret of the fact that she intended to be an activist.

...Clifford, 58, told supporters at a Madison tavern that she was disappointed not to have been elected to a position for which she was qualified but said she would continue to focus on issues such as judicial independence.

She decried the escalating cost of judicial elections, estimating later she was outspent 3 to 1 by Ziegler and groups backing her.

"I'm especially, though, disappointed in the fact that judicial elections in our state are now so overwhelmed by money that it appears that the candidate with unlimited funds is surely going to be the victor," she said.

Clifford doesn't know how to lose gracefully.

I'm not surprised.

I wouldn't expect someone who would run such a negative campaign to suddenly become a class act in defeat.

Clifford is bitter that she lost by such a large margin so she's looking for excuses.

She blames money.

She should think again.

The negativity that characterized Clifford's campaign didn't deliver a victory.

The Greater Wisconsin Committee can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Congratulations, Justice Ziegler.

Rosie O'Donnell Goes a Rant Too Far

Apparently, Rosie O'Donnell went a rant too far when she expressed her conspiracy theories on the 9/11 attacks.

She's said so many outrageous things so many times before, but this time she feels the need to defend herself.

Wow!

In fact, she's taking this so seriously that she actually decided to write about it on her blog using both upper and lower case letters and punctuation! (Maybe Barbara Walter proofread and edited it.)

She hasn't totally sold out. She uses a rather snide title for the entry, "2 whole paragraphs."

She (or someone) writes:

9/11 affected me deeply, as I know it did many Americans. The falling of the twin towers served to remind me that many of the assumptions Americans have about their lives are rooted in false feelings of security. In light of this reminder, I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do: inquire. Investigate. America is great in so many ways, one of which is the freedom to speak, and indeed think, freely. I have, of late, begun exercising the rights bestowed upon me by the democratic system I value, and the exercising of these rights has taken the form of an inquiry into what happened five years ago, an inquiry that resists the dominant explanations and that dares to entertain ideas that push me to the edge of what is bearable. I have come to no conclusions and, given the scope of the subject, will not for some time.

If the very act of asking is so destabilizing for people, than I have to wonder whether the fabric of our democracy is indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage. My own belief is that the act of asking is itself reparative, because it brings to life the values on which our constitution rests. I am, therefore, pledging my allegiance, hand over heart, trying, as always, for a rigorous truth.

So, Rosie is backing off a little.

"I have come to no conclusions and, given the scope of the subject, will not for some time."

This is no doubt to appease Barbara and the powers that be at The View and ABC.

You know that ABC's patience with O'Donnell must be wearing thin.

She didn't clarify her conspiratorial comments on the 2007 Iran hostage crisis.

the british did it on purpose
into iranian waters
as
US MILITARY BUILD UP ON THE IRANIAN BORDER

we will be in iran
before summer
as planned

come on people
u have 2 c
i know u can

Good grief. Soothsayer O'Donnell is trying to get Americans to wake up and smell her predictions.

In my opinion, she's more than a bit nutty.

I definitely think O'Donnell is on the ropes on her 9/11 remarks. Reaction to what she said shows how comments about 9/11 have the capacity to strike a nerve with the public in a way that other issues don't.

What's next for O'Donnell?

Will Donald Trump shave her head at a pay-per-view WWE event?

Barbara Walters and ABC should reevaluate the pros and cons of having O'Donnell fill a seat at The View table.

come on abc
u have 2 c
i know u can

___________________________

Popular Mechanics debunks O'Donnell's WTC7 lunacy.

Nancy Pelosi's Terrorist-palooza Tour

Against White House objections, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi arrived in Syria today. She will be meeting with terrorist President Bashar Assad tomorrow.

Pelosi completely brushed off the requests from the White House. She's sort of acting like Jesse Jackson, engaging in his own unofficial diplomacy. (Remember when Jackson went to Venezuela to get cozy with Hugo Chavez?)

The difference between Pelosi and Jackson is obvious. She does hold elected office. She isn't a private citizen pretending to act on behalf of the country. She has some legitimacy, which makes her behavior exceedingly more reckless and irresponsible.

Message to Pelosi: YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT.

This morning at his news conference, President Bush was asked about Pelosi's stunt.

JENNIFER LOVEN: Thank you, sir. You agreed to talk to Syria in the context of --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me?

JENNIFER LOVEN: You've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences on Iraq. What's so different or wrong about Speaker Pelosi having her own meetings there? And are you worried that she might be preempting your own efforts?

THE PRESIDENT: We have made it clear to high-ranking officials, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, that going to Syria sends mixed signals -- signals in the region and, of course, mixed signals to President Assad. And by that, I mean, photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror; when, in fact, they're helping expedite -- or at least not stopping the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq; when, in fact, they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah; and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.

There have been a lot of people who have gone to see President Assad -- some Americans, but a lot of European leaders and high-ranking officials. And yet we haven't seen action. In other words, he hasn't responded. It's one thing to send a message; it's another thing to have the person receiving the message actually do something. So the position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior. But sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counterproductive.

I agree completely.

Pelosi is sending mixed signals. Once again, she and the Dems are playing into the hands of the terrorists.

They are putting their political futures ahead of the good of the nation.

Message to Pelosi: YOU'RE NOT THE PRESIDENT.

Pelosi doesn't seem to know this.

She's letting criticism of her trip to cozy up to terrorist Assad slide off her like water off a duck's back (or water off her surgically taut skin.)

DAMASCUS, Syria -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) toured Damascus on Tuesday, the highest-ranking American politician to visit Syria since relations began to deteriorate four years ago. President Bush criticized the trip, saying it sends mixed signals to President Bashar Assad.

...Pelosi, D-Calif., is scheduled to meet Assad and other Syrian officials on Wednesday. She made no comment on arrival and headed for the Old City of Damascus where she toured the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque.

Pelosi draped a scarf over her head as she entered the historic mosque and stopped at a tomb inside the mosque said to contain the head of St. John the Baptist. She made the sign of the cross in front of the tomb. About 10 percent of Syria's 18 million people are Christian.

In the nearby outdoor Bazouriyeh market, she chatted with Syrians, who offered her dates, in front of shops selling olive oil soaps, spices and herbs. At one point, she bought some coconut sweets and looked at Syrian carpets.

The Syrians adore Nancy!

Dates! That's big stuff, the stuff of paradise!

...Pelosi has shrugged off the [White House] criticism, pointing out that Republican members of Congress have also visited Syria. During a visit to neighboring Lebanon Monday, she said she considers the visits to be an "excellent idea" and was hopeful of rebuilding lost confidence between Washington and Damascus.

"We have no illusions but we have great hope," she said.

Syria treated the visit as a diplomatic victory. State-run newspapers published news of Pelosi's trip on their front pages, with one daily publishing a photograph of Pelosi next to the headline: "Welcome Dialogue."

Did you get that?

SYRIA TREATED THE VISIT AS A DIPLOMATIC VICTORY.

TERRORIST NATION SYRIA WELCOMES DEMOCRAT NANCY.

...In Israel, Pelosi said she would tell Syrian leaders that Israel will talk peace with them only if Syria stops supporting Palestinian militants. She has said she will also talk to the Syrians about Iraq, their role in neighboring Lebanon and their support for Lebanon's Hezbollah militants.

Pelosi is overstepping her authority.

This isn't just a visit to Syria.

She plans to engage in discussions with leaders.

That's crossing a line. It's inappropriate and a disgusting power grab on her part.

Can you imagine what Madame Pelosi will say to the Syrians about Iraq?

What will she say about President Bush's policy?

She obviously doesn't agree with it.

Talk about mixed signals!

What are we learning from Pelosi's Terrorist-palooza Tour?

The Dems are trying to stage a coup and strip the President of his power.

The Dems are weak on terror.

The Dems want to weaken America.

The Dems are making the United States vulnerable.

Bush Gets Real

Lib media outlets are framing President Bush's session with the press this morning as a slap at Democrats.

I don't see it that way. I see his assessment as realistic.

The Dems are behaving irresponsibly.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Tuesday called Democrats in Congress irresponsible for approving war bills that order U.S. troops to leave Iraq by certain dates. He said such efforts will backfire, keeping some troops in battle even longer.

"In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference.

"The bottom line is this: Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush said. "Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to."

Bush's comments underscored his standoff with Congress. Democrats won power in November, fueled in large part by national anti-war sentiment. They are intent on using their power over money to force Iraq to take more responsibility, and prod Bush to wind down the war.

The president renewed veto threats on both a Senate-passed bill calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, and an even stronger House-passed bill demanding a September 2008 withdrawal. He said both bills "undercut the troops."

Bush bluntly said that Congress could not override such a veto.

Anne Flaherty, author of this AP report, seems shocked that President Bush is acting like he's the president.

She seems to be saying, "But, but, but the Dems are in control of Congress. How dare you threaten to veto their plans!"

Flaherty doesn't seem to understand the Constitution.

It's not "blunt" of Bush to say Congress can't override his veto. It's true.

The president's remarks come one day after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he would try to eliminate money for the war if Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline to end combat.

"It's interesting that Harry Reid, leader Reid, spoke out with a different option," Bush said. "Whatever option they choose, we hope they get home, get a bill, and get it to my desk," Bush said. "And if it has artificial timetables for withdrawal, or cuts off funding for our troops, or tells our generals how to run a war, I'll veto it."

Reid's comments were in connection to his support for Russ Feingold's latest plan for defeat in Iraq.

Why doesn't Flaherty say that Reid is threatening President Bush? Why doesn't she say that he's being blunt?

Bias? What bias?

Bush handled the press extremely well.

Although the Dems' allies in the lib media did their best to point out to Bush that he's weak, the President wouldn't buy it. He didn't act weak because he's not.

Their frustration is palpable.

They tried to portray him as isolated.

Read this exchange.

Q Mr. President, the conservative newspaper columnist, Robert Novak, recently wrote that in 50 years of covering Washington, he's never seen a President more isolated than you are right now. What do you say to critics like Novak who say that you are more isolated now than Richard Nixon was during Watergate?

THE PRESIDENT: How did he define "isolated"?

Q He said you're isolated primarily from your own party, that Republican leaders on the Hill were privately telling him that, on the Gonzales matter in particular, you're very isolated.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you're going to find that the White House and the Hill are going to work in close collaboration, starting with this supplemental. When I announced that I will veto a bill with -- that withdrew our troops, that set artificial timetables for withdrawal, or micro-managed the war, the Republicans strongly supported that message. I think you'll find us working together on energy. They know what I know, that dependence on oil will affect the long-term national security of the country. We'll work together on No Child Left Behind. We'll work together on immigration reform. We'll work together, most importantly, on budget, to make sure this budget gets balanced without raising taxes.

The other day, the Democrats submitted budgets that raised taxes on the working people, in order to increase the amount of money they have available for spending. That is a place where the Republicans and this President are going to work very closely together. I adamantly oppose tax increases, and so do the majority of members in the United States Congress.

Note Novak was cited as a conservative columnist, in an attempt to illustrate just how bad things are for the President, that things are worse for him than they were for Nixon during Watergate.

Clearly, Bush showed that's a media construct.

It's not true.

President Bush has not lost his resolve.

Back in 2000 when he first ran for the presidency, he said he wouldn't govern by polls.

He has lived up to that promise.

President is doing what's right. What's right isn't always what's easy or what's popular.

The Dems and the lib media want him to act as if he's a beaten man. They want him to capitulate to them the way they want to capitulate to our enemies.

President Bush isn't about to surrender.

David Cordero's Obama Jesus

It's Holy Week so that means Christians and Christianity are targets.

It's almost become a tradition, a sideshow accompanying the most Holy season when Christians observe the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We've already had the Chocolate Jesus.

Now, it's the Obama Jesus.

Photo here.

CHICAGO -- He wears Jesus' robes and a neon blue halo, looks like Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and is causing a stir at a Chicago art school. An undergraduate student's papier mache sculpture of Obama as a messianic figure — entitled "Blessing" — went on display Saturday at a downtown gallery run by the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Again, why Holy Week?

Why not put the work on display some other week?

It's difficult to believe that the timing isn't intentional.

...David Cordero, 24, made the sculpture for his senior show after noticing all the attention Obama has received since he first hinted he may run for the presidency.

"All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins," Cordero said. "In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped."

I can understand Cordero's point and his artistic statement.

But he and the school need to understand that people offended by Cordero's work have the right to express themselves as well.

Obama's campaign worked Monday to distance the Illinois senator from the artwork.

"While we respect First Amendment rights and don't think the artist was trying to be offensive, Senator Obama, as a rule, isn't a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities," said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

I wonder how long it took for the Obama campaign to come up with a suitable response.

Obama is striking the right tone, at least partially. He's got it about half right.

It's not his fault that Cordero created the Obama Jesus. It's not like Obama posed for the guy.

Nevertheless, how Obama responds to it is his responsibility.

Obama should have included in the statement that he's not in the same league as Jesus when it comes to saviors.

In the end, I think an inflated ego may be Obama's downfall.

I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. Obama, you're no Jesus.

Cordero said the school had fielded plenty of calls about his work, "some of them from angry people." He also said he had heard from a few potential buyers.

A few buyers?

Let me guess--

Oprah

George Clooney

Barack Obama

Those are all possibilities.

From another angle, it could be Hillary who's trying to buy the Obama Jesus. She'd probably like to use it as a voodoo doll.

I bet Hillary's jealous that Cordero didn't dress her as Jesus.

She shouldn't be too upset. She has inspired artists before.

Do you recall Daniel Edwards' creation, "The Presidential Bust of Hillary Rodham Clinton: The First Woman President of the United States"?

It was displayed at the Museum of Sex in Manhattan.


That is ghastly; but I digress.

In my opinion, Cordero's piece is not impressive. It looks like a G.I. Joe, not Obama.

Bottom Line-- I wish these "artists" would lay off during Holy Week, out of respect for Christians and the Son of God.

Annette Zeigler and Linda Clifford

Thankfully, the race to fill the seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court will be over in a matter of hours.

It wasn't just a dirty campaign. It was filthy. Toxic waste.

Opposition research is commonplace, but Linda Clifford's camp took it to new heights. (Perhaps "new lows" is more appropriate.) She didn't only go negative; she enlisted liars to do her dirty work to slime Annette Ziegler.

And just a day before the election, Clifford stooped even lower, bombarding Wisconsinites with misleading automated phone calls.

Madison -- Recorded phone calls urging people to support Linda Clifford for state Supreme Court have created confusion among some voters.

The call by Clifford's campaign touts a Journal Sentinel editorial page endorsement for her, leading some to believe the newspaper - rather than her campaign - is behind the calls.

"It sounded very much like that to me," said Jerome Weinhold of Milwaukee, who plans to vote for Clifford's opponent, Washington County Circuit Judge Annette Ziegler.

I can understand how someone would be confused.

Read a transcript of one of the automated calls.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorses Linda Clifford for Supreme Court.

The Journal Sentinel says that her opponent Annette Ziegler's conflicts of interest make Ziegler unsuited to be a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Almost every major newspaper in Wisconsin has rejected Ziegler.

The Journal Sentinel says it's Linda Clifford who is the quote "clear choice".

Vote experience and integrity.

Linda Clifford for Supreme Court.

Authorized and paid for by Linda Clifford for Justice, Mary K. Rouse, Treasurer.

If one only listens to the beginning, as I typically do when scanning messages on my machine, it would be very easy to think that the call came from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

It's sort of funny because I wouldn't put it past the lib JS to do something like that.

After receiving complaints, the JS actually sent a letter to Clifford's campaign to stop the calls.

Madison -- The Journal Sentinel sent a "cease and desist" letter to the campaign of state Supreme Court candidate Linda Clifford over automated phone calls this afternoon, but the campaign said it had already stopped making the calls.

Paul Bargren, a lawyer for the paper, said in his letter that the calls misled voters into thinking they were made by the newspaper.

Clifford campaign manager Nicholl Caruso said the calls were not intended to trick voters and noted they said at the end they were paid for by the campaign. She said the campaign calls ended shortly after 3 p.m., more than an hour before the campaign received the letter.

"We followed all the rules," Caruso said. "We were very proud of the Journal Sentinel endorsement and we wanted readers to know about it. There's no inaccurate information in this call at all."

The Journal Sentinel sent the letter after receiving calls from people who said they thought the calls came from the paper.

"We understand the First Amendment right of free speech," Editor Martin Kaiser said. "However, the Journal Sentinel cannot stand by while its readers are confused and misled by political telephone calls that undermine the newspaper's integrity and independence.

"Any calls that mention the newspaper's editorial page endorsement should let callers know immediately and clearly that the calls are coming from the political campaign and not from the newspaper."

I wonder if The Journal Sentinel regrets its endorsement of the desperate Linda Clifford.

Again, it's funny. What an awkward position to be in!

I would guess that the paper was annoyed by the calls of complaint and having to get a lawyer involved. But I'm sure it stands by the Clifford endorsement.

The Journal Sentinel hasn't retracted its endorsement of the slimy Jim Doyle and its accusations that Mark Green was corrupt. It's not about to withdraw its endorsement of Clifford. Libs are willing to excuse a lot.

I saw portions of the We the People Supreme Court debate. That's the same group that hosted the Wisconsin 2006 gubernatorial debates.

The format of the debate was different from others in that there was a segment where Clifford and Ziegler asked each other questions. They had a back and forth exchange without interruption from any moderator. It was ugly. Clifford was so icy. She was Nurse Ratched scary and completely creeped me out.

I have some issues with Ziegler that are disquieting, but they pale in comparison to Clifford's inexperience and liberal baggage.

I believe a Supreme Court justice should interpret the law. That's Ziegler's philosophy.

Clifford, on the other hand, believes her role is to legislate from the bench. She promises that she will be an activist judge.

Even if Clifford hadn't run such a dirty, dirty race right down to the wire, even if Clifford seemed like a decent person, I wouldn't vote for her because of her judicial philosophy.

That's what this race is about.

I want to elect a justice, not a legislator.

There's no question that Ziegler is the right choice for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

TOM BARRETT: "I DON'T WANT TO FLAIL"

Mayor Tom Barrett said on Monday that he doesn't want to flail.

Not fail, FLAIL.

So, what brought Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, Alderman Tony Zielinski, Captain Eduardo Negron of District Two, and other Milwaukee Police Department officials to the Bay View High School auditorium on Monday night?

Crime.

Cards went out to Bay View residents inviting them to "attend a public meeting covering crime and public safety issues."

Bay View business owners and their employees were scheduled to meet with "Milw. Police Department officials and Ald. Zielinski" from 6:00pm to 6:45pm. Residents were invited to meet with them from 7:00pm to 8:30pm.

The gathering was organized to address the robberies of the months long Bay View crime spree. Actually, the robberies weren't only a Bay View problem. The crimes occurred over a wide area, including the city and suburbs.

Candidates up for election tomorrow made the most of the event to do some last minute campaigning. Representatives from the campaigns of Jennifer Havas, Bill Pocan, and Terry Falk were posted at the entrance to the school, handing out literature to people as they entered the meeting. Judge Bill Pocan and school board candidate Terry Falk were there to shake hands with potential voters.

Given that Monday night was the NCAA final, the meeting was relatively well attended.

At the meeting for residents, Ald. Zielinski acted as host. It began with brief remarks from Mayor Barrett and D.A. John Chisholm. Cpt. Negron also spoke. They received a polite, even warm, reception from the crowd.

Barrett reiterated his usual lines about guns. Chisholm talked about his reorganization of the D.A.'s office to get better coordination between the prosecutors and the police. Negron mentioned the District meetings, stressing the importance of law enforcement and the community working together.

Then, the public was invited to ask questions.

The first came from a woman. She said she was mad. She had spent years living in Bay View and always felt safe. That's changed. She has concerns about her neighborhood that she didn't have before. Her question was about guns. Were the guns used in the robberies registered?

The point she was making was the pointlessness of the sort of legislation that Barrett keeps whining about getting enacted, as if that's a solution.

Tougher gun laws won't keep the guns out of the criminals' hands.

At some point, there was discussion of the robberies being gang-related. Barrett kept referring to a series running in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about "crime crews." He didn't seem to know or didn't want to say that the Spanish Cobras were connected to the robberies.

Another woman told her story of being robbed at knife-point and the anxiety problems she's suffered since the trauma.

Barrett responded with a Bill Clinton "I feel your pain" story, telling of the 1994 break-in of his home.

A man asked about graffiti on a pizza place that hadn't been removed in spite of repeated complaints. Zielinski used the term "War on Graffiti" and promised it would be taken care of.

One woman spoke of her brother, a homicide victim in 2005. The murderer was never caught. She thanked "everyone here," meaning the mayor and the other officials, for doing such a great job in dealing with the robberies. She said she felt safe but worried about the rest of the city and that there was not enough "manpower" to handle all the problems.

Another woman talked about being afraid to report suspicious people in the neighborhood out of fear of being called racist.

Before Barrett cut out early, he talked of his many contacts with Governor Jim Doyle and the collaborative effort being made to tackle the city's problems.

He spoke of the societal problems, the lack of jobs and the impact that has had on crime.

He said when he speaks to high school students he starts off by introducing himself and then saying to them, "I'm begging you to stay in school," because the manufacturing jobs that were once plentiful in Milwaukee are gone. (It might be a good idea to beg them not to steal and kill, too.)

Basically, it was the same old, same old from the mayor -- No jobs. Too many guns. It's not my fault. Everyone has to work together.

Some of the comments from officials weren't answers to the questions posed. They seemed to veer off into using tired lines from old stump speeches.

Without question there is a disconnect between what citizens are experiencing and how officials assess the situation.

Chisholm told the group that Milwaukee is "remarkably safe." WHAT?

That's a tough sell to a neighborhood that's been plagued by a massive crime outbreak. Tell that to the people who had guns in their faces as they were robbed. Tell that to the business patrons ordered to floors while gun-toting thugs stole money.

Barrett does deserve credit for surfacing and facing city residents.

I think he cares. I just think he doesn't have what it takes to take back the city from the thugs.

Barrett said, "I'm not someone who is a screamer. I don't want to flail. I don't think flailing gets us anywhere."

Who's "flailing"? It seemed like a possible shot at Alderman Bob Donovan for suggesting that the National Guard be brought in to assist patrolling the city.

Barrett said there were two ways to approach the crime problem.

One is to make it clear to the bad guys that "we're coming after you."

The other approach is to say "everything's out of control." He said that such a reaction to the thugs from leaders and the media and citizens serves to "encourage them."

Barrett went into full politician mode.

"Public safety is my #1 priority."

"We're never going to throw up our arms and say it's out of control because it isn't out of control."

I'd like to know Barrett's definition of "out of control."

While I do think it's wise to stay level-headed and work to solve the crime problem, I think it's a mistake to deny that the city's crime is out of control.

In spite of all the best efforts of some elected officials and law enforcement, Milwaukee is rapidly deteriorating.

Before you can solve the problem, it's necessary to acknowledge the magnitude of the problem.

I don't think Barrett needs to scream it, but he does need to say it.

He needs to say that as mayor he will not tolerate the crime in Milwaukee. He needs to admit the reality of the situation.

Barrett shouldn't say that he is out of control. Saying crime is out of control is another thing altogether.

The mayor shouldn't flail. He should get tough and take dramatic action.

The issue for Barrett isn't flailing; it's failing.

As Milwaukee's leader, he should be concerned about securing the safety of the people and admit to the reality of the crisis that threatens to doom the city.

Tom Tancredo

This morning, Tom Tancredo made it official. He's running for president.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Criticizing other GOP candidates as weak in their efforts to stop illegal immigration, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo announced Monday he would seek the Republican presidential nomination.

"The political elite in Washington have chosen to ignore this phenomenon," he said.

Tancredo, a congressman who has gained prominence in recent years for his staunch stance against illegal immigration, said immigration would be the primary focus of his campaign.

He said he would not enter the race if he thought one of the leading candidates was sufficiently conservative on the issue.

It's, "the field, the field," he said when asked why he was entering the race. "You look and you see no one is going to make this the primary issue of their campaign."

I don't think that Tancredo really believes he has a shot at the nomination.

I assume that he wants to force the front runners with the big bucks to take ILLEGAL immigration seriously and address the issue.

Because Tancredo is basing his campaign on that single issue, I don't think he's positioning himself for the number two spot on the ticket.

By taking a strong stand on such a divisive issue as ILLEGAL immigration, Tancredo would probably be seen as a liability as a vice presidential nominee.

Tancredo's campaign is only about drawing attention to the problem of ILLEGAL immigration. His aspirations stop there. At least I hope they do. If not, he's clinically delusional.

Remembering John Paul II

May 18, 1920-April 2, 2005


"There is a way of living the Cross with bitterness and sadness, but it breaks our spirit. There is also the way of carrying the Cross as Christ did, and then we perceive clearly that it leads into glory."

--Pope John Paul II

Feingold's Latest Endgame

And we have another attempt by Russ Feingold to secure defeat for America in Iraq.

He probably wanted to put his latest plan out there before going on Spring Break, though I suppose he'll spend the recess coming up with other ways to undermine the U.S. and squash hope for victory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has jumped on board with Feingold this time.

What a coup for Feingold!

It's another sign that the Democrat Party has lurched to the fringe Left.

Washington D.C. -- U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

Oooh. Feingold and Reid are having a lovefest!

Here's the language of the legislation:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Those "exceptions for limited purposes" aren't very limited.

The exceptions render the legislation meaningless. Talk about wiggle room!

Message to spineless, politically opportunistic Democrats: IF YOU WANT TO END THE WAR, THEN CUT OFF ALL FUNDS NOW.
______________________________

Read more.

Crime in Milwaukee

Criminals in Milwaukee don't consider Sunday a day of rest. They don't keep holy the sabbath. Palm Sunday doesn't give the thugs pause.

Police are investigating two Sunday afternoon and three overnight robberies.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Two men pointed a gun at a cashier at a George Webb's restaurant before fleeing with a small amount of money from a register overnight, Milwaukee police said this morning.

The robbery occurred about 11:35 p.m. at 9207 W. Capitol Drive. No one was injured.

The case is one of three involving robbery in the city overnight; however, in the other two cases, the suspects got nothing.

Police are also investigating an attempted armed robbery when a victim was approached on the street in the 2900 block of N. Oakland Ave. at 12:08 a.m. A suspect implied he had a weapon; however, one was not seen. He demanded money but didn't receive any before he fled on foot, police said.

In a separate case, a suspect entered a Wal-Mart store at 401 E. Capitol Drive about 12:30 a.m. Police said the suspect pointed a gun at an employee but became startled when another employee appeared. The suspect fled without any money, police said.

Here we go again.

This is just like first reports of robberies that later were linked to the Bay View crime spree.

No descriptions of suspects.

That's irresponsible.

What's with Block Watch programs and enlisting the public to be vigilant? Wouldn't it help to release descriptions of the suspects terrorizing the public?

Why not give out that information?

Holding back keeps the public from assisting in finding the thugs. It also prevents them from protecting themselves.

These sort of reports only serve to spread fear.

They are vague warnings, but strong reminders that the city is going to hell.

To its credit, the Milwaukee Police Department did issue a warning after two robberies at ATMs yesterday afternoon.

Police are warning residents about two armed robberies at automated teller machines that occurred about the same time Sunday afternoon, Milwaukee police spokeswoman Anne E. Schwartz said.

It's likely the same two suspects who were seen at both incidents, which happened at W. 22nd St. and N. Capitol Drive at 3:25 p.m. Sunday, and at W. Villard Ave. and N. 22nd St. at 3:39 p.m., Schwartz said.

Police are working on getting video from surveillance cameras at both locations, Schwartz said.

OK.

The "same two suspects" were seen at "both incidents."

What do those suspects look like?

It's good that police issued the warning about robberies at ATMs. It took months before any official warnings about robberies came out during the Bay View crime spree courtesy of the Spanish Cobras.

It's ridiculous that again descriptions of the suspects weren't provided. Without a doubt, they know what they look like in the ATM cases.

Is it the police department holding back the information?

Is it The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doing shoddy reporting?

I can't say.

However, it definitely is one or the other. It hurts the public; and in the long term, it does damage to the city as the exodus to suburbs and exburbs continues.

The High Price of the Presidency

If successful fundraising translates into a successful campaign that translates into votes, then Hillary Clinton is on course to be the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2008.

WASHINGTON -- Two Democratic presidential candidates broke previous fundraising records during the first three months of the year, with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton setting a high bar of $26 million in new contributions for the quarter.

Former Sen. John Edwards raised more than $14 million since the beginning of the year. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account, bringing her total receipts for the quarter to $36 million.

Unlike Edwards, Clinton aides would not reveal how much of her total was available only for the primary election and how much could be used just in the general election, if she were the party's nominee. By not breaking down the amount available for the primaries, the Clinton camp made it impossible to assess how much of an edge she actually has over Edwards.

...[T]he total raised by each candidate outdistanced past presidential election records and set a new bar by which to measure fundraising abilities.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois — sandwiched in public opinion polls between Clinton and Edwards — had yet to reveal his totals. Obama was expected to be among the top Democratic fundraisers.

Add together the campaign war chests of Clinton and Edwards and you're looking at $50 million.

Tally up the funds of Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Joe Biden and you come up with millions more.

Although Barack Obama hasn't disclosed his totals, according to The Washington Post, he has raised upwards of $20 million.

[Obama's spokesman] Bill Burton, said: "We're humbled by the tremendous grass-roots support we've received from individuals all over the country. But the numbers that the American people truly care about are the number of troops we still have in Iraq, the number of Americans who still have no health care and, importantly, the number of people who truly believe we can transform our nation by changing our politics."

Certainly, the American people care about other numbers than the staggering sums raised by politicians for their campaigns.

It's hard to comprehend the loads of money being directed into the coffers of politicians.

I can't help but think that the money could be better spent.

It's such a waste.

Candidates rationalize the fundraising and the spending by convincing themselves that the country needs them. To be elected, a candidate must have big bucks.

All this money being raised to fund campaigns is rationalized as necessary for the realization of a candidate's agenda, as though there's something noble about spending so much money to win elected office.

I don't think it's justifiable.

Think of what could be done with that money besides producing slimy attack ads and paying sleazeballs to dig up dirt on opponents.

The candidates brag about their grass-roots support, as they shake down the poor to "pony up" and contribute.

Remember Obama's pitch to an audience in Cleveland?

They're shameless when it comes to asking for cash.

With Clinton and Edwards, and likely Obama, smashing fundraising records, I wonder if it's possible to put a lid on the out of control race for the money.

I'm not suggesting that people stop making contributions to candidates; but I think it could be scaled back.

I'm not for banning people from supporting candidates. People should have the right to do what they want with their money and make financial contributions to anyone they wish. I just think they should consider donating less to politicians and more to worthy charities.

How does a candidate claim to be a voice for the poor while sitting on a pile of tens of millions of dollars?

America is supposed to be a country where anyone can grow up to be president.

That's a myth. Opportunity, at least in terms of the presidency, is related to the efficiency of one's moneymaking, political machine.
_______________________________

The Democrats aren't the only ones smashing fundraising records.

Republicans have done the same.

WASHINGTON -- Republican Mitt Romney reported raising $23 million for his presidential campaign during the first three months of the year, a surprising tally for a relative newcomer and an amount rivaling the total reported a day earlier by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Meanwhile, the GOP front-runner in the polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said his donations totaled $15 million — including more than $10 million during March alone.

Want fair and balanced?

Apply everything I said about the Dems to the Republicans.

Tommy Thompson on This Week

Even though Tommy Thompson barely registers a blip on the 2008 presidential radar screen, George Stephanopoulos gave the former Wisconsin governor and former Secretary of Health and Human Services a moment in the national spotlight this morning.

Watch the interview here.

Thompson wants to run as the genuine Republican. He believes Republicans have lost their way and he wants to change that. He wants to be the candidate of change.

He says he feels "very optimistic" about his chances, citing his place in the polls in Iowa.

Thompson repeatedly referred to Iowa, saying that he has been in Iowa "every week" since December. He clearly is putting all his eggs in the Iowa basket, hoping to make a good showing there and gain some momentum. Again and again, he tried to connect with the people of Iowa.

So, why is Thompson optimisitic in spite of the fact that nationally he places at 1% or 2% in polls?

In Iowa, he's in fifth place with a whopping 5%.

I'm sorry, but I see no reason for optimism.

It's almost embarrassing to tout that 5% as something positive.

(Exact quotes follow. Don't blame me for stilted grammar.)

Steph asked, "How would President Thompson be different from President Bush?"

Thompson replied, "Oh, tremendously. I mean, first off, I would have a completely different Iraq strategy. I would demand the al-Maliki government first to vote as to whether or not they want the United States in their country. Nobody's ever asked that government, duly elected, to vote. And if they vote that they want United States in their county it immediately gives a degree of legitimacy..."

Steph interrupted, "Most polls show that they won't; and if they voted no America would leave?"

Thompson said, "We would get out. Absolutely. It's a duly elected government."

Calling Iraq a civil war, he said, "If the government duly elects that says we want the American troops, the American government out, we should leave. But I do not believe that. I believe they will vote that they should stay in there and that will give a degree of legitimacy to a United States for being there."

Regarding Alberto Gonzales, Thompson said that he would not have appointed him. He said he wouldn't have "made that mistake."

Thompson went on to bash Gonzales.

Then, he explained why he is the "only reliable conservative" among the current field of Republican candidates.

Thompson said they're good people, but they're not coming up with original ideas and plans.

Yes, Thompson believes he's the man with the plans.

He's a good guy, too.

But being at only 5% in Iowa polls, I think he'll have to be in Iowa more than every week if he hopes to get into double digits.

I think he may have to start personally going door to door to sell his ideas to Iowans.

At the end of the interview after Steph thanked Thompson for being on the show, Thompson said, "Thank you very much, George. And good luck to you."

Thompson is the one that will need good luck. I think he'll need a miracle.

Green Palm Sunday and Chocolate Jesus

In some U.S. churches, Palm Sunday is going the way of this year's Academy Awards by going green.

From The New York Times:

Clutching a tiny knife in his big calloused hands, Laizon Corzo wound his way through the thick foliage in one of southern Mexico’s forested areas in search of living treasures.

...Mr. Corzo is one of the indigenous farmers who puts palms in the hands of North American churchgoers on Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Easter. He is also on the cutting edge of a new movement to harvest what are being called “eco-palms.”

Slightly more expensive than the average palm, eco-palms are the rage in churches across the United States because of the social and environmental benefits they represent. They are collected in a way that helps preserve the forest, and more of the sale price ends up in the pockets of the people who cut them.

“We want to be a green congregation,” said the Rev. David C. Parsons, pastor of St. John-St. Matthew-Emanuel Lutheran Church in Brooklyn, which purchased eco-palms for the second straight year. “We are conscious of our footprint on the earth. There is a biblical mandate to do that.”

Now operating in a handful of palm-producing areas in southern Mexico and northern Guatemala, the eco-palm project is similar to programs for certified coffee, chocolate or diamonds. But the consumers in this case are churches, and many say that the religious significance of the plant compels them to buy the most wholesome palm possible.

“Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem was accented by the jubilant waving of palm branches,” Lutheran World Relief, one of the groups endorsing the project, says on its Web site. “Unfortunately, for the communities where these palms are harvested, palm fronds do not always represent the same jubilation they do for us.”

"Eco-palms"?

"The most wholesome palm possible"?

They've got to be kidding.

Palms are a renewable resource. It doesn't take years to grow palm branches.

If palm producers are receiving better wages, that's great.

But that's a business matter.

In that case, the "eco" should refer to economy, not ecology.

...Dean A. Current, a professor of natural resources management at the University of Minnesota, was called in to study the economics of the palm industry. He discovered that about 10 percent of the palms sent to the United States were bought by churches. The rest go to florists, who often use them in arrangements for weddings and funerals.

In surveying churches, Mr. Current found that most were willing to pay up to double the going price to be sure their palms were responsibly harvested. A big church might spend as much as $1,500 on palms for Palm Sunday.

Sometimes, they are burned for the next year’s Ash Wednesday, although that practice is being cast aside by some congregations because of concerns that it pollutes the air.

I'm guessing here but I doubt that burning the blessed palms is a major source of air pollution.

Certainly, heating and cooling a church for a year produces far greater pollutants than burning palms ever could.

The practice upholds the Church's tradition, at least in my church.

I find the following part of The Times article particularly bizarre.

...[E]xactly what [the palms] are used for up north is not always clear.

“I know it’s used for decoration,” said Moses Macal Maroukin, 69, a veteran palm chopper, who seemed somewhat mystified. He said he had no palm fronds in his home.

But then he revealed what the people here had long believed to be the real use of the exported palms. The juices in the stems and leaves are extracted, he explained in a conspiratorial whisper, and then turned into a special mixture that is used to stain greenbacks green.

“This is how you color your dollars,” he said, waving a palm.

Where did they find this clueless "veteran palm chopper"?

Mexico is an overwhelmingly Catholic country.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the people don't understand the significance of Palm Sunday or the use of palms.

Read about the observation of Holy Week in Mexico. This paragraph is especially relevant.

Palm Sunday, Domingo de Ramos in Spanish, starts off Semana Santa on Sunday April 1st this year and the week builds toward Maudy Thursday, Good Friday and of course, Easter Sunday, known as Dia de Gloria - Day of glory. On Palm Sunday everyone goes to Mass in the morning for the blessing of the Palm leaves; when dry, the leaves are made into crosses that people use as amulets, adorning their cars and homes.

The Times wants its readers to believe that the palm harvesters in Mexico are "mystified." The article takes a mocking tone toward the use of palms in the observance of Passion Sunday and the beginning of Holy Week.

I guess it's to be expected from a liberal propaganda outlet like The Times.

That reminds me. I still haven't commented on the Chocolate Jesus controversy.

A planned Holy Week exhibition of a nude, anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ was canceled Friday after Cardinal Edward Egan and other outraged Catholics complained.

The "My Sweet Lord" display was shut down by the hotel that houses the Lab Gallery in midtown Manhattan. Roger Smith Hotel president James Knowles cited the public outcry for his decision.

The reaction "is crystal clear and has brought to our attention the unintended reaction of you and other conscientious friends of ours to the exhibition," Knowles wrote in the two-paragraph cancellation notice.

Matt Semler, the gallery's creative director, resigned in protest.

The six-foot sculpture was the victim of "a strong-arming from people who haven't seen the show, seen what we're doing," Semler said. "They jumped to conclusions completely contrary to our intentions."

But word of the confectionary Christ infuriated Catholics, including Egan, who described it as "a sickening display." Bill Donohue, head of the watchdog Catholic League, said it was "one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever."

It's disgusting that a chocolate, anatomically correct figure of Jesus would be displayed during the holiest week of the year for Christians or at any time.

The "artist" Cosimo Cavallaro certainly meant to cause an uproar. He had to know that he would offend Christians. The gallery director certainly knew what the reaction would be.

Cavallaro didn't submerge the sculpture in his urine, did he?
I suppose he wouldn't want to be accused of ripping off Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, and I doubt the chocolate would hold up under those conditions anyway.

I wonder. Has Cavallaro created a chocolate nude Mohammed? How about a chocolate nude Moses or a chocolate nude Buddha?

I don't think he has. A "My Sweet Mohammed" display probably wouldn't go over too well in midtown Tehran, or midtown Manhattan for that matter.

I do know that Christians the world over won't riot in the streets because they were offended by Cavallaro's tasteless creation.

I think that Cavallaro suffers from a decency deficiency. Perhaps that happens when you eat too much chocolate.
_______________________________

UPDATE: Apparently, there are thousands suffering from the same decency deficiency.

NEW YORK -- An anatomically correct chocolate sculpture of Jesus Christ infuriated Catholics and even led to threats, but the artist says offers to buy or exhibit the piece have been pouring in.

Artist Cosimo Cavallaro said Saturday that because of "some people who are fanatics" and the threats he received, he had stored the sculpture in a refrigerated truck in an undisclosed location.

...Cavallaro said the controversy spurred "thousands" of e-mail messages from people offering help, donations and exhibition space.

"It's quite amazing," he said.

April Fool Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being stubborn again.

This guy doesn't want to talk. He wants to control.

He wants to annoy the West. He likes playing the role of the "little thug that could."

CAMP DAVID, Md. -- President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.

Bush said Iran plucked the sailors out of Iraqi waters. Iran's president said Saturday they were in Iranian waters and called Britain and its allies "arrogant and selfish" for not apologizing for trespassing.

"It's inexcusable behavior," Bush said at the Camp David presidential retreat, where he was meeting with the president of Brazil. "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent. They did nothing wrong."

It was the first time that Bush had commented publicly on the captured Britons. Washington has taken a low-key approach to avoid aggravating tensions over the incident and shaking international resolve to get Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

..."I support the prime minister when he made it clear there were no quid pro quos," Bush said.

Like Bush's words, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were his most extensive on the crisis. They tracked tough talk from other Iranian officials, an indication that Tehran's position could be hardening.

"The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery," Iran's official news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise."

...Iran appeared unreceptive to possible talks with Britain.

"Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in southeastern Iran.

Without question, I support pursuing all channels to resolve the situation diplomatically as opposed to militarily.

I think eventually Iran will get around to releasing the 15 British sailors and marines.

And I don't think it will take 444 days, as it did when Iran held Americans captive during impotent Jimmy Carter's failed presidency.

I suspect Ahmadinejad is enjoying flexing his little girlie man muscles, and convincing himself that he's really holding the West hostage.

He's not. Tony Blair is not Jimmy Carter.

Ahmadinejad is acting like a thug, the way some losers do. The little guy wants to be a big tough guy.

No apology from the British will suffice because I don't think he really wants an apology. That would end the crisis. Ahmadinejad doesn't want that.

That wouldn't feed his ego.

When Ahmadinejad calculates that he's pushed this hostage situation to the limit and realizes its time to back down, as he will at some point, he won't admit that he's surrendered when he releases the hostages. He'll claim victory for Iran no matter what.

This situation illustrates that in the end you can't talk to Ahmadinejad because he doesn't want to talk.

Iran's flip-flopping demands indicate that a solution is not the goal.

Ticking off the West is.

Clear Choice For Wisconsin Supreme Court

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has endorsed a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Editorial Board decided to back the candidate with these members of Congress in her corner:

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Senator Russ Feingold
Congressman Steve Kagen
Congressman Ron Kind
Senator Herb Kohl
Congresswoman Gwen Moore
Congressman Dave Obey

That candidate is Linda Clifford.

Do these supporters give you an idea of the sort of judge Linda Clifford would be?

I hope so. There's not a lot else to go on.

She has never been a judge, so she has no record whatsoever serving in the judicial branch. Zero. No experience. None.

The Board decided to back away from Annette Ziegler, the candidate with endorsements from sheriffs, district attorneys, and circuit court judges across the state. Former Governor Tommy Thompson, elected to an unprecedented four terms, also endorsed her.

Ziegler has years of experience as a judge.

If she had served as a judge for only one week or one day or one hour, Ziegler would have infinitely more experience as a judge than Clifford -- because Clifford has NEVER been a judge.

Nonetheless, in all its wisdom, the Editorial Board considers Clifford to be the clear choice for Supreme Court.

In the editorial, reasons, albeit empty ones, to not vote for Ziegler outnumber reasons to vote for Clifford.

The Board tackles Clifford's negatives by offering lame excuses for them.

Some have raised reservations about Clifford's judicial philosophy. They have characterized the current court as overreaching, citing as one example its attempt to make right the injuries suffered by a Milwaukee teenager poisoned by lead paint. The court's ruling allowed the boy to sue even though it was impossible to know which companies made the paint that poisoned him.

This was indeed overreaching. But all that critics have to suggest Clifford would be a party to such rulings is the label of "liberal" they attempt to tar her with.

Poor Clifford. She's being called (GASP!) liberal.

A little deeper into the editorial, it becomes clear that critics have much more than that label to suggest that Clifford would be an "overreacher."

The Board spells it out, negating its previous statement!

Clifford has said she has a strong respect for precedent and that she would follow the law. She has called her approach to judging pragmatic. She has said that the constitution must be allowed to breathe. We agree. And when this "breathing" occurs, this is not necessarily overreaching or so-called judicial activism.

The law must evolve to meet changing needs.

"So-called judicial activism"?

Writing law rather than interpreting it IS judicial activism.

Then, the board argues that Ziegler's judicial philosophy is BS.

Ziegler has indicated she is a judicial conservative. But experience teaches that "judicial restraint" is often a very thin veil. The truth is that conservative judges are just as apt to pursue their own agendas as liberals.

What experience teaches that?

The truth is conservative judges, constructionists, do not purse political agendas. They interpret the law.

Libs want activist judges to legislate from the bench and deliver laws that would never be passed by a legislative body. It's their avenue to enact their extremist lib agenda. The courts are the libs' last best hope.

That's the truth. Apparently, the Board can't handle the truth.

Once again, the JS Editorial Board is just making crap up.

The fact is there is a very clear choice for Wisconsin Supreme Court.

It's Annette Ziegler.