Man charged for sex with wife

Strange story.

Matthew Koso, 22, was charged Monday with first-degree sexual assault, punishable by up to 50 years in prison. He was released on $7,500 bail pending an Aug. 17 preliminary hearing.

Koso had pre-marital sex with his wife-to-be. And Nebraska is charging him for it?

The couple were married in May by a judge in Hiawatha, Kan., just across the state line from Falls City.

Nebraska allows people as young as 17 to marry if they have parental consent.

Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. The marriage must be approved by both parents or guardian, or by a district court judge, said Whitney Watson, spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. A judge also must approve if only one parent approves.

Uh oh. I don't like where this is going. She had to cross state lines to get married because she is a minor. Well, he was 21 at the time. If she was 16 then I guess that would be not-so-bad. Besides, the parents gave permission and they have to be watching out for her welfare, right.

Oh, I missed the first paragraph of the story.

A 22-year-old man faces criminal charges in Nebraska for having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl, although he legally married her in Kansas after she became pregnant.

So my question really is why are the parents not being charged with endangerment? Why allow her to marry the man who is 150% the age of the girl? More than that, why encourage her to cross state lines.

Worse than that...why is Kansas not being ridiculed for this practice of allowing child molestation.

See, we as a society have to decide. Is it molestation under the age of consent (18)? If so, how is it justifiable to allow a marriage that would allow what otherwise would be a registerable sex offense? If Koso took pictures of his youthful wife during their wedding night why would that not be considered child pornography?

The larger concept is that this society must pick ONE age at which everything is allowed. You pick the age, but make it for everything. Drinking, smoking, marriage, contracts, eligibility for prison, graduation from juvenile criminal systems, sex industry, driving, firearms, joining the military...EVERYTHING should be at that age. That ONE magical birthday makes the person 100% adult with all of the privileges and responsibilities.

There, now that I got that off of my chest, what age should it be?

Islamic groups want double standard

I do not really like picking on a particular group, but I am right on my theory about Muslims. Silence is Support. Islamic groups want Rep Tancredo (R-CO) to resign.

Hispanic and Islamic groups called on Rep. Tom Tancredo to resign Monday, saying he has embarrassed Colorado by suggesting bombing Islamic holy sites if terrorists launch a nuclear attack on the U.S.

They also criticized the GOP congressman’s staunch advocacy of tougher immigration controls.

“Enough is enough. We’re here to say ‘Stop,'” Hispanic activist Manolo Gonzalez-Estay told a crowd of about 200 at the state Capitol.

Abdur-Rahim Ali, imam of a Muslim shrine in Denver, said Tancredo’s statement that “you could take out” Islamic holy sites in a retaliatory attack was unacceptable.

Notice that there is not a word about Islamic members wanting to "take out" New York, or as Osama says, 4 million Americans. Double standard from hypocrites.

“What would happen if a prominent Muslim made that statement about Catholic holy places like the Vatican?,” Ali asked.

If Catholics were launching a war against Middle Easterners, beheading them and planning a nuclear attack while killing civilians I would say "Bombs Away, Man". Especially if Catholic priests said NOTHING against the initial violence...kind of like hypocrites like Abdur-Rahim Ali.

Tancredo was traveling and unavailable for comment. His spokesman, Will Adams, said the four-term congressman has no intention of apologizing or resigning.

“They are a lot more upset about what he stands for, our nation’s security and border policy, than anything else,” Adams said.

I say, if there is a nuclear attack then we have every right and obligation to level with tactical nukes EVERY site that means anything to the groups that did it. Since the majority of Islamic clerics are silent about Islamic terrorist and Islamic nations refuse to condemn murdering civilians then I find no problem with admitting holy sites are targets.

As for the Muslims in America who say nothing and do nothing against the "extremists" I still say that their Silence is Support. I'm wondering if the "extremists" are actually not the mainstream of the religion.

Teen killer declared sane

Teen murderer declared sane.

ST. CLOUD, Minn. - A teenager convicted of murder in the deaths of two classmates was not insane at the time of the shootings and will go to prison instead of a mental hospital, a judge has ruled.

The judge said it was clear John Jason McLaughlin suffered “some sort of mental impairment.” But Judge Michael Kirk added that “numerous facts laid out in this case point to the defendant knowing his actions were morally wrong.”

Good. Never should someone's "mental impairment" make a difference. The ONLY thing that matters is if the killer knew that their actions were wrong.

The judge convicted McLaughlin, now 17, of first-degree murder in the death of Seth Bartell, 14, and second-degree murder in the slaying of Aaron Rollins, 17. The two were killed in 2003 at Rocori High School in Cold Spring.
The first-degree murder conviction means a mandatory sentence of life in prison, with parole possible after 30 years. Sentencing was scheduled for Aug. 30.

I can hear the screams from the left already. "Rehabilitate him, we can't waste his life. Blah, blah, blah." He wasted his life when he pulled the trigger...not once but multiple times.

“It really didn’t matter what the judge came up with,” said Tom Rollins, Aaron’s father. “It’s not going to bring either of the boys back, and we’re going to have a hole in our families for the rest of our lives.”

Prosecutors portrayed McLaughlin as a chronic liar trying to escape responsibility for his crimes. They said he had a history of lying or exaggerating his own actions to everyone from parents to school friends.

The defense, though, presented him as a paranoid schizophrenic striking out at a perceived persecutor. McLaughlin said Bartell had teased him about acne since junior high.

This case is a good smack down of the stupid idea that being bullied allows brutal responses. The more society perpetuates the idea that bullying is so egregious that it has to be outlawed, etc, the more kids will think that being the victim of bullying is something that warrants a large response. Bullying happens, it happens in the adult world and in the schoolyard. It is a part of life that kids need to learn how to deal with. I learned from being bullied a good portion of my younger years. I learned how to read people's motives and intentions. I learned survival. I learned how to talk my way out of being pummelled frequently. I learned how to befriend the good hearted person that could kick the ass of the bullies. I learned how to deal with life that way.

The successful people in life were the bullied...because we learned important lessons. The bullies for the most part are the losers with jobs that you would not consider taking if your life depended on it. The exception is a successful bully. Stop fighting bullying and just make sure it does not become unreasonable or dangerous.

Defense lawyers argued that McLaughlin only meant to wound Bartell and did not mean to hurt the other student at all.

This is a load of crap. Just read the next 2 paragraphs.

The boy shot and wounded Bartell in a hallway, then fired another shot that missed him and hit Rollins, authorities said.

Prosecutors said McLaughlin then chased Bartell up the stairs and into the gym, and shot Bartell in the forehead. He died 16 days later.

Let's see if I understand McLaughlin's timeline. 1) He wants to wound Bartell and fires a shot into the forehead. McLaughlin is pretty damn stupid if he thinks this will only "wound" his victim. 2) I assume the first shot resulted in the victim falling down and some blood spilling somewhere...so why fire another shot?

McLaughlin is lucky that I was not on the bench for his case. That boy would not see the light of day. I would do the paperwork to make certain that parole would not be possible until the little demon was eligible for social security.

Mitch Berg & NARN promote Race to the Right

A very big H/T to Mitch Berg of NARN. Mitch is THE radio talk show master of Minnesota and has provided advice, help, support and the occassionally morale boost for both Marty and me.

It looks like the radio show has a big endorsement from a MOB big wig.

Thanks!

From Mitch:

Sometimes the dark horse wins.

Even on the radio!

Marty Andrade and Tony Garcia are starting a new radio show, at KNSI in Saint Cloud, beginning this Sunday from 1-3PM.

Last spring they briefly had a show on AM-1570 "The Deuce", on Sundays here in the Twin Cities. For a couple of college guys, the show was actually pretty darn good, well-spoken, and if not "polished" at least creditably smooth. And they know their politics better than a whole lot of hosts working full time jobs at actual stations (and I'm not just talking Wild Wendy here...). They're also pretty energetic - they've already got the entire Sixth District GOP slate of candidates booked. This should be a great show.

So here's the deal: Give Marty and Tony a listen, either on the air (AM 1450) or via the webstream. And give them a call - 320-251-1990. They'd love to hear from you.

And if you're a MOBster from the greater Saint Cloud area, please pass the word to your neighbors and readers. This is the kind of programming we need to support; solid, grass-roots talk radio. KNSI is to be not only congratulated; they need to see numbers!

Gerry Daly Did It

A while ago I mentioned that I was having rendering problems on the blog. A friend of mine, Gerry Daly (who runs the best blog around at Daly Thoughts and will be a frequent guest on our radio show), fixed the problem.

You are da man!

Also, Gerry has really good traffic on his blog. So if you have something to advertise (book, product, services, etc) contact Gerry about his BlogAds.

Thank you Gerry.

The Ginsburg Precedent

(H/T to The Baseball Crank)

How did the Senate treat uber-liberal Supreme Court Nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It is how nominees should be treated as chronicled at Red State.org.

GINSBURG CONFIRMATION HEARING
Ginsburg’s hearing lasted a total of 4 days.
Only one panel of witnesses was permitted to testify against Ginsburg at the hearing.
Chairman Joseph Biden established a new practice, effective for “all Supreme Court nominees,” that the Senate Judiciary Committee would review the nominee’s FBI file only in confidential, closed session. Chairman Joseph Biden, Ginsburg Hrg. 116 (July 20, 1993). The Committee would also question the nominee about the file in confidential session, no matter how “serious” the subject. Chairman Joseph Biden, Ginsburg Hrg. 369 (July 23, 1993).
Ginsburg was not required to discuss her legal views on a host of issues, including
Abortion
Civil rights laws
Gay rights
Gun-owners rights
Rights of the disabled
School vouchers
Separation of church and state
Free speech
Rights of Indian tribes
Ginsburg was not required to discuss her personal views on issues such as the death penalty.
The fact that Ginsburg had made controversial ideological statements in speeches and law review articles was not considered a disqualifier. For example, before her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had argued
there may be a constitutional right to prostitution
the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12
for an to end single-sex prisons to prepare male prisoners to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners
Even Senators who strongly disagreed with Justice Ginsburg’s personal political views voted for her confirmation.
Even those Senators who eventually voted against Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation treated her, and spoke of her, with respect.

I have a prediction, though. The Democrats are a do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do bunch. I predict that Roberts does not get that standard of treatment.

I'm going to say what Jackson would say

From MSNBC.com

MONROE, Ga. - Civil rights activists marked the 59th anniversary of an unsolved lynching Monday by re-enacting the brutal slayings of two black couples who were forced out of their car by a mob of white men and killed.

The scene was recreated with black volunteers acting as Ku Klux Klansmen, fireworks for gunshots and fake blood poured on for effect.

It is disrespectful to use blacks in place of whites. (Jackson would have a fit of any whites replacing blacks in any reenactment, I'm certain).

Reenacting something this horrific is simply showing support of it. (Jackson would have a fit if whites reenacted something like this to show protest.)

I guess my point is that there is a terrible double standard in all things race related. That double standard is making race relations more difficult. Hold one standard. Jesse, ask yourself if you would rather whites doing whatever you are doing. If you would not mind then go ahead...otherwise stop what you are doing.

The double standard is killing any racial harmony. Understand that.

Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game

Both the Democrats and Republicans have been in high speed spin mode on the whole CIA leak story. This is one of the few issues where neither side can be trusted. So who can you trust?

FactCheck.org. That's who.

They have just issued a timeline of the facts. Read it for yourself...but be forewarned. It is a long article, but it is well documented.

Radical Unions shoot themselves in foot

The AFL-CIO is suffering from defections.

The AFL-CIO splintered on Monday, spooking some Democratic Party leaders and the ranks of organized workers, their futures in the hands of labor rebels who bolted the 50-year-old federation vowing to reverse the steep decline in union membership.

The Service Employees International Union and Teamsters will be leaving the AFL-CIO with the UFCW and UNITE HERE expected to leave the AFL-CIO later.

This would be another example of the far-left wing trying to act like they are the majority of their party/group and causing more damage. The 2004 elections were a case of that. By endorsing Michael Moore as their Hollywood emissary and spokesperson the lunatic wing of the left alienated the moderate voters and diminished the voice of the moderate Democrat.

AFSCME's contract negotiations of late have been the same. They tout their memberships to be higher and stronger than they actually are as a show for the public. Eventually the leadership convince themselves of that lie in numbers and that the inflated membership numbers represent a group of people that hold their similar extremist and militant views.

Here these rougue unions are breaking away from the AFL-CIO because they want to expand the power of the unions. WHAT?.

What I heard was that United Food and Commercial Workers was upset at the AFL-CIO's inability to recruit and unionize industries that do not need unionizing, industries such as fast food, restaurants and retail. (If you unionize them prices will rise and revenues fall. Since the union hacks do not understand what that means let me explain: Less money available for jobs and benefits.)

Let them split. Unions necessity has passed by, their power is over representational and organized labor needs to ride of into the sunset. They did their job: they got us through the rough years through the mid-1900's. Good bye, good riddance and give me my union dues refund please.

T.O. is a Moron

OK, Terrell Owens hates Jeff Garcia and tries to weasel into free agency even though he missed the filing deadline (stupid Terrell).

San Francisco trades him to Baltimore even though he claims he had a tender offer from Philadelphia. So, all 3 teams work out a deal that sends Terrell to Philadelphia officially. He claims that he is happy and tried to earn all of his incentives.

In an arrogance that he no longer is able to back up he thinks he is now being underpaid under the same deal he was so thrilled with last year.

"I mean, the bottom line is that I still believe I deserve a new contract. I still believe I deserve more than what they've given me. But I'm not stupid. I'm not about to miss training camp, get fined every day and give them even more reasons to keep from paying me."

At least the Eagles front office is seeing clearly since they (1) are not looking to trade Owens, (2) not giving Owens permission to seek a trade, and (3) said that Owens and his agent "don't think in commonsense terms."

"If he feels that way, then get rid of me," Owens said Thursday. "He wants to talk about Drew and I. If we're problems, then... trade me, release me. And we can just part ways like adults.

"What it all boils down to is I'm going to do what's best for my family. I don't even have to play for the Eagles, to be honest. I can go play with any other team and still be productive."

I suppose you need more than $7 million a year so you can feed your family, huh. I have to agree, Owens is out to lunch.

Oh, and Terrell, you have to act like an adult before you get treated like one. To date you do not qualify.

"I'll be there. But I won't be happy, I can tell you that much," Owens told the Inquirer. "Take from that whatever you want."

I hope the Eagles stand by their position to not redo Owens' contract. If he becomes too much of a problem throw his whiny, hyper-egotistical ass on the Injured Reserve for the next 6 years of his contract. Let him grow old on the bench.

Putz.

Not An Extremist, Then You Are A Target

Bombs rocked Egypt in a well-planned terrorist attack.

A series of explosions, including at least four car bombs, struck the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik early Saturday, hitting several hotels packed with European and Egyptian tourists. Security officials said at least 45 people died in the deadliest attack in Egypt in nearly a decade.

As many as seven explosions in quick succession shook the city, beginning at 1:15 a.m. and rattling windows miles away. Smoke and fire rose from Naama Bay, a main strip of beach hotels in the desert city at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, also popular with Israeli tourists, witnesses said.

My hunch is that these attacks are because Egypt has been cooperating with the United States and/or because Egypt is not trying to wipe Jewish people (and Israel) off the face of the planet. Both of these items are issues to the Muslim extremists (and those silent Muslims who do not fight against the extremists).

About Time

So today in England the police shot a fleeing suspect of the London bombings. Here is the story

He was a suspected suicide/homicide bomber. So I guess there was no way except to kill him before he triggered an explosion. Good...another of the killers are dead.

I thought that we, the United States, was supposed to be leading the War on Terror but we have so many useful idiots protecting the terrorists at all costs that we cannot fight effectively. In the meantime England gets hit and they get serious.

They are "profiling" using the characteristics of the past terrorists: young to middle-aged male Muslim/Middle Easterners. Sorry, that is who is doing the killing then that is the group that is subjected to constant searches and questioning. Now it seems that we might eventually have to add South Asian to the list.

"If you are dealing with someone who might be a suicide bomber, if they remain conscious, they could trigger plastic explosives or whatever device is on them," said Mayor Ken Livingstone. "Therefore, overwhelmingly in these circumstances, it is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy."

The shooting took place about 10 a.m., when jittery commuters spotted a man, who witnesses said appeared to be a South Asian, wearing a padded coat in the Stockwell subway station in south London. Police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso, an eyewitness said.

Did you notice that they have this concept of War figured out? "[I]t is going to be a shoot-to-kill policy." Unlike the left here that is intentionally hamstringing our efforts, they are now trying to win the global war against the evil terrorists.

It is about time they get on board. Now if only we could get on board, too.

America Ain't So Bad

All of you whiney anti-America people and all of you "America is evil" (read: far-left liberals) types need to remember that you are allowed to hold your misguided views, and voice them.

The following link is graphic (I think the 2nd protester was killed), and this is from Korea. What happens to protesters outside of the US.

Ebonics to be a foreign language in CA

The San Bernardino County Sun is reporting that the San Bernardino schools will be introducing Ebonics as a foreign language in the schools to provide a "more well-rounded curriculum".

Wh-wh-wh-WHAT?

Incorporating Ebonics into a new school policy that targets black students, the lowest-achieving group in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, may provide students a more well-rounded curriculum, said a local sociologist.

The goal of the district's policy is to improve black students' academic performance by keeping them interested in school. Compared with other racial groups in the district, black students go to college the least and have the most dropouts and suspensions.

Here is the problem. It is the same problem with altering the SATs and ACTs and all other performance tests. If you lower the bar to get more people to clear it you end up doing a disservice to everyone ESPECIALLY those who you are lowering the bar for.

If in this county the blacks are the "lowest-achieving group" then the answer is not to make it easier. There are many, many other answers. Bill Cosby has one that the NAACP does not like: impose responsibility on the parents.

A pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at two city schools.

Mary Texeira, a sociology professor at Cal State San Bernardino, commended the San Bernardino Board of Education for approving the policy in June.

Texeira suggested that including Ebonics in the program would be beneficial for students. Ebonics, a dialect of American English that is spoken by many blacks throughout the country, was recognized as a separate language in 1996 by the Oakland school board.

"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe,' Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language.'

If Ebonics is a different language that warrants a class in school then so are Valley Girl Talk, Pig-Latin, Surfer Talk and Minnesotan (it is SODA not POP).

Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in.

"There are African Americans who do not agree with me. They say that (black students) are lazy and that they need to learn to talk,' Texeira said.

Len Cooper, who is coordinating the pilot program at the two city schools, said San Bernardino district officials do not plan to incorporate Ebonics into the program.

"Because Ebonics can have a negative stigma, we're not focusing on that,' Cooper said. "We are affirming and recognizing Ebonics through supplemental reading books (for students).'

First, the students need to "fully comprehend" ENGLISH. End of story. But then Texeira sets up a straw man. "they are lazy..." No, that is not the case. The students who are not learning are not being motivated. Do not cater to them. Get better administration and teachers. Get ones who motivate and inspire.

Speaking from personal experience I needed two AWESOME teachers to finally get me to pay attention. And they inspired me to do well (better, at least) in other classes as well. The did not need to lower the bar for me, I just needed inspiration.

Ebonics has the same stigma as Valley-Talk and Surfer-Talk...as well it should.

Before you write off the district entirely understand that there is ONE person there with common sense.

Teresa Parra, board vice president, said she worried the new program would have an adverse effect.

"I'm afraid that now that we have this the Hispanic community, our largest population, will say, 'We want something for us.' Next we'll have the Asian community and the Jewish community (asking for their own programs). When will it end?'

Parra said the district should focus on helping all students who are at risk.

"I've always thought that we should provide students support based on their needs and not on their race,' Parra said.

But of course, Danny Tillman (the board member that pushed the insanity through) disagrees with logic, color-blindness and common sense.

Tillman disagreed with Parra, saying programs that help Latinos already exist in the district. He cited the district's English- as-a-second-language program.

Fair point. While I disagree with the ESL programs there is a huge difference. The kids going into Ebonics classes have English as their mother tongue. That is, their home country's language is English. That is what they should be taught. While enrollees of ESL have a different language as their mother tongue.

Regardless, if any kid cannot pass a course in English then they should not pass to the next level.

Ratibu Jacocks, a member of the Westside Action Group, a coalition of black activists, said they are working with the district to ensure the policy is implemented appropriately.

"This isn't a feel-good policy. This is the real thing,' Jacocks said.

Jacocks said he didn't believe the new policy would create animosity. He said he welcomed the idea of other ethnic groups pushing for their own programs.

"When you are doing what's right, others will follow,' Jacocks said. "We have led the way before the civil-rights movement opened the door for women's rights and other movements.'

No, Jacocks, you are wrong. Civil-rights is to put everyone in the same category. These Ebonics classes are putting people into the seperate but equal mentality...which we already know is bad.

Hollywood Stock Exchange

For people who like movies AND think that they know a lot about the industry I would like to refer them to Hollywood Stock Exchange.

You can buy "Movie Stocks", "Star Bonds", "Options" and "Mutual Funds". The real meat of the site are in the stocks & bonds. This site started about 8 years ago and they have tweaked the formulae very well.

So, you think that the Bad News Bears will bomb this weekend? Put your H$ where mouth is. As of right now it is trading at H$49.37...which is what the market thinks will be the Gross Box Office (in millions of $) in the first 4 weeks. What do you think? After 4 weeks HSX cashes out the Stock at the Gross Box Office.

Or maybe you think that following the stars is better. Me, personally, I invest almost exclusively in Bonds. A Bond's value is adjusted after a star's movie stock cashes out. That is based on the average box of the past 5 movies of the Star. In between those adjustments it is supply & demand.

Lots of fun!

Mallard Fillmore

(H/T to my friend William C of NC)

Funny Conservative Comic called Mallard Fillmore.
Here is a sample
And another
And one more

UPDATE: The images were complicating my formatting issues and so I changed them into links.

AFSCME sues University

Just remember that this is the union that less than 2 years ago went on strike rejecting a contract because co-pays were going to be $15 and insurance costs were going to go up to slightly below the private sector. They then came back to accept a worse deal than originally offered and claimed that they were victorious because they only wanted to make a point about societal issues like health care costs.

This is also the union that protested (while using union resources to organize rallies) the closing of the General College at the University of Minnesota...for no reason related to the union.

It turns out, according to the Minnesota Daily, that Local 3800 President Phyllis Walker used union leave pay to do her protesting for the General College. Eeks...that cannot be right.

So, the union claims that the University is retaliating by not allowing her continued heavy, generous abuse useage of union leave to sit in the meetings of other unions. The University's version?

Mark Rotenberg [University General Counsel] said Walker’s deal, which excused her from half of her University duties to work on union business with no reduction in pay, was an “unusual, generous agreement” and that the deal expired June 30.

Whoops. Guess Walker was out to lunch on that one (a recurring pattern with her).

Gladys McKenzie, chief negotiator for AFSCME Council 5, said the union took a clear position on General College and that Walker’s use of union leave to protest was appropriate union business.

WHAT BUSINESS WAS THAT?
Back to the lawsuit.

AFSCME union leaders said they wanted health-care workers and clerical workers to bargain at the same table, but Jennifer Lovaasen of AFSCME Council 5 said, “(The University) said point blank that that was something they found unacceptable.”
...
Law School professor Stephen Befort, a public-sector labor-law expert, said the union is “generally right that they can control who represents them,” but that bringing together separate bargaining units, such as locals 3800 and 3260, “is only appropriate with the consent of all parties.”

Yep, the Union is suing because they want different unions to be able to sit in on each other's meetings and get paid for it.

The truth is that the leadership of AFSCME has for a long time had a huge chip on their shoulder. They are finding any reason to act like they are the victims as a result of the "establishment". The reality is they are victims of their own ineptitude. They look for any reason to go on strike thinking that it is their God-given right. I forgot, most of them hate the acknowledgement of God. Let me rephrase. They look for any reason to go on strike thinking that it is their Solstice-bestowed right. That is all that they are trying to do now anyway.

Let us understand that just after the strike the leaders of AFSCME came up and promoted internally the strategy of grouping together with all of the other unions so that they may have a more successful strike that 'actually causes a shutdown'. That is all that this tactic is about.

Solutions: The Courts need to see that this suit has no merit and throw it out like milk from last Christmas. The union members need to get a brain and realize their leaderships sucks and is actually representing themselves and the far left wing of the Democrat party. The leaders do NOT represent the members at all. Elect those leaders out. Finally, the University needs to let AFSCME go on strike again and this time do not give them a face-saving out. Let AFSCME's leadership's poor leadership be the reason that union falls apart.

John G Roberts, Jr

Well, it is official. The nominee for O'Connor's vacated seat is John G Roberts, Jr. Blog readers already know that. But how about some information. I have not read much about Roberts' decisions but what I have I read I like.

From Wikipedia's entry on him:

* Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority involved a twelve-year-old girl who was invited to incriminate herself as an illegal drug user, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters and booked (fingerprinted) because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Roberts began his opinion by noting that "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was "apprehended" have since been changed. Roberts concluded the court was not authorized to second-guess the appropriateness of the District's policies: "The question before us," Roberts wrote, "is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution."

Evidence that he is not willing to create laws from the bench. He understands the proper role of the courts. Score one in favor of Roberts.

* Military tribunals. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts joined the majority in upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects, overturning the district court ruling. [4] The majority ruled that Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, can be tried in a military commission because, the Court ruled: (1) military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants; (2) the 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies; (3) even if the '49 Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance because Hamdan received a legitimate hearing in front of a competent tribunal. And finally, under the terms of the '49 Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.

Totally agree. Score another in favor.

* Environmental regulation. On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion siding with a developer in a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the Endangered Species Act. He argued that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California." Nevertheless, he said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds.

Love the style. Score more support.

Now I get to say I told you so. I knew that the Democrats would call anything and everything a "extraordinary circumstance." In this article from KTVU.com they report on Sen. Boxer.

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact this spring pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances, and three judges whose nominations had been held up were soon confirmed.

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."

Actually I heard the quote (and have not found it available on the internet yet). She actually said this: "Just having O'Connor stepping down is an extraordinary circumstance."

So here is how it will lay out. If the Dems think they can get away with it they will filibuster Roberts (or if their Borking fails--that will be tried). Based on the history of the squishy spined Senate GOP they will eventually back down OR they will start the Nuclear Option and then back down when the media blames them for breaking the agreement.

Now what do I think of the future of the Court? I think that a very likely scenario is that there will be much ado about Bush not nominating a woman. Regardless, once the conservative Roberts is confirmed Rehnquist will retire. That will leave 2 appointments essentially...one for the 9th seat on the Court and one for the Chief Justices robes. Bush then might appoint Brown (a black, conservative woman) as Chief. What kind of corner would the Dems be in then? Fighting against the first black Chief, the first woman Chief...better than that fighting against the first black woman Chief. The racist colors of the Senate Dems would be very easy to point out after that.

That is my War Room guess.

Edith Clement

Word on the rumor mill is that Bush is considering Edith Clement for the Supreme Court. There is a good article about her possible nomination and the implications of that in a National Review Online.

Joy Clement, in contrast, would be a [hard] target [on controversial issues]: Her own specialty was in maritime law; she has not dealt, in her opinions, with the hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights; and she has stirred no controversies in her writings or in her speeches off the bench. She would be the most disarming nominee, and it would be a challenge even for Ralph Neas or Moveon.org to paint her as an ogre who could scare the populace. The main unease would come in the family of conservatives: If people don't know her personally, they will suspect another Souter or Kennedy. For they have seen the hazard in relying on the assurances given even by the most reliable conservatives, who claim they can vouch for the nominee.

Clement's bio: Click here

More info about Clement courtesy of Supreme Court Nomination Blog.

Economy brings out lies from the left

I have gone on about how the media is intentionally burying any good news about the economy. I have written about the media even lying about the economy to try to alter the election in 2004.

It is important to bring this up because of the latest poll from AP-Ipsos. This poll shows that Americans are concerned with Foreign Affairs, Iraq and the Economy...bumping out various non-economical domestic issues.

First the lie from the left: The economy is bad, worsening, horrible, troubled, etc.

Richard Davis of Circle Pines, MN has been misled by the media as well. "The Bush tax cut and the war in Iraq have caused us to overspend our budget and we're in a huge deficit that's starting to hurt the economy."

The thing is the economy is getting better. Poor Richard is obviously too daft to learn the truth on his own. Unemployment: improving. Wholesale Price Index: improving. Budget Deficit: improving.

So what is Richard Davis talking about? Nothing but pure partisan hatred. But he is irrelevant. Back to the story.

The economy and terrorism are the main concerns of Americans. This bodes well for Republicans in 2006 because the economy is beginning to see the positive effects
from the Bush tax cuts (the benefit would be bigger right now if the cuts had been bigger).

Terrorism works for either the Democrats or the Republicans depending on what the public really wants. If they want to end terrorism then the issue is good for the GOP. If the public wants to coddle terrorists then the issue will help the left.

Americana and God under attack again

Just when you thought America's traditions were safe from Michael Newdow he returns.

Remember Newdow? He was the atheist who sued his daughter's school because she was being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (*gasp*) and it contained the phrase "Under God" in it (*gasp*). Remember his claim that his daughter was traumatized by being forced to utter the Pledge of Allegiance. And then it turned out that not only did he not have custody of the girl, thus making him unable to file suit as her representative, but she did not mind the Pledge or God.

Well, he's back. He also got a bit of a smackdown.

Michael Newdow, a doctor and lawyer, is suing four Sacramento-area school districts on behalf several atheist children and their families.

...

Newdow suffered a setback Monday in his latest case when the judge said he plans to throw out several parts of Newdow's lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton indicated that he planned to block Newdow from having the pledge itself and the words "under God" declared unconstitutional. His lawsuit instead would focus strictly on whether reciting the pledge in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion, meaning Newdow could still have the pledge barred from schools if he prevails in the long-shot effort.

Well, good. Though I am not a religious person I find it to be a horrible road that the nation is travelling by pushing for a freedom FROM religion.

Then Newdow shows exactly how out-to-lunch he is. "We're a despised minority." Michael, you have it wrong. Atheists are not despised. In fact the belief itself is respected. It is the activists like yourself who are trying to impose your worldview on everyone that are despised.

Clinton's advice for Supreme Court nominations

(H/T: KvM)

President Clinton was recently being interviewed and asked about giving advice to Bush.

Watch a clip here.

The transcript of the advice:

What's your advice in choosing supreme court justices? What type of person?

CLINTON:I would say that he should pick someone -- he'll want to pick someone who may be quite a bit more conservative than I would pick. Because he's probably the most conservative president we've had since the 1920s.

OK, That's not true. Reagan was more conservative. The jury is still out on if G.W. Bush is more conservative than JFK. Back to Clinton's advice.

I would say pick someone who is broad-minded and can think and has a heart as well as a mind. Because you can never predict what decisions the supreme court's going to have to face. And if you get too political or -- you're liable to be disappointed anyway. Because the issues you think should dominate your selection may not be the issued that dominate the court's calendar within 3 year, much less 5, 10, or 20 years. I urge him to think about somebody he will be really proud to have appointed 10 or 15 years from now. I went through this twice.

And aside from Nixon's appointment of Stevens, Clinton got the 2 most liberal Justices currently sitting on the Court.

There are always lots of good qualified people. And the people that are your political opponents will politicize anybody you appoint anyway. So you need to stay out of that. I think he ought to do something, you know, when he goes to bed tonight, he'll sleep well, he'll feel good.

Good advice, but he goes on and nails it again.

He has right to do whatever he wants, despite all the advice. Absolutely, he does. He's got practical considerations he has to face. Can he get a person confirmed. There is an interesting article today about the Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, and whether he would have to recuse from too many cases because since 1974 there's been a law on the books that a Supreme Court Justice has to recuse in cases if he or she was a member of the cabinet or had some other high-ranking job before they went in the Court.

Do you think the Democrats will take the advice of their Messiah? I doubt it, even though he is right.

President Bush, please, please appoint someone to the right of Scalia. Please roll your sleeves up and fight like hell against the hate machine that is the Senate Democrat Caucus. Fight for what you believe is right, not what the media or the DNC tells you is your duty.

The final thought on Karl Rove

OK, I think I am clear on this: If Karl Rove broke the law he needs to be prosecuted. I know the other side does not hold that standard on their own (Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, John Kerry), but that is their problem.

So, did Rove break the law? Based on this Wikipedia article I am going to say that this issue is over.

In order to have broken the law (the Intelligence Identities Protection Act) there are a few criteria that must be met. All of them must be met for Rove to have broken the law.

1) Intentional disclosure of "any information identifying" an undercover operative. Well, the way I see it the GOP defense of "Rove did not mention her by name" is crap. Any information includes the fact that she is "Wilson's wife". That counts. Rove meets this, in my opinion.

2) Knowledge that the U.S. was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity. Again, the GOP spin machine is playing semantics on this. "Novak wrote 'operative' but he actually meant 'analyst'. It is just luck that Novak's mistake was accurate." The Spin Meter went off the charts. Rove meets this, in my opinion.

3) U.S. efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity. From what I understand there actually was an alter-ego or whatever. If that is true, then Rove qualifies still under this act.

4) That Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent. This is pretty clearly defined. This is from Wikipedia:

While there must be evidence that she served outside the U.S., a single official trip overseas within the previous five years (i.e. at any time from July, 1998, onward) might suffice. There are published reports that Plame served in London and Brussels in the early to mid-90s. However, this would not be sufficient to qualify Plame as a "covert agent" under the statutory definition as one "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

Sorry, this failure to qualify ends the idea that Rove violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. End of story.

That you will not hear from the left or the media.

What you will not hear from the right:

f Plame's identity as a CIA employee was in fact classified -- and a CIA criminal referral combined with a long running grand jury investigation would suggest so -- Rove's leak may also have violated other U.S. laws, including the Espionage Act. Moreover, failure to protect classified information, criminal or not, is often grounds for the revocation of one's security clearance.

So, it is my hunch that Rove did violate the Espionage Act. If the typical penalty is a revocation of security clearance than that should happen to Rove. Whatever the typical penalty is should be the fate of Rove and John Kerry for his leaking of an undercover agent's name.

Spin city will continue at a disgusting pace.

New York Times altering quotes

I saw this and had to post it.

I hope that the New York Times begins to die a quick and painful death. When a newspaper begins altering quotes you know that they have a huge bias and that they are not a legitimate source for news anymore. The NYT has been for quite some time been nothing more than a giant editorial piece.

I now submit further evidence:

The New York Times took a breather yesterday from covering the Karl Rove pseudo-scandal to tout "The Evolution of Hillary Clinton" - a tribute to the ambitious Democrat's newfound voice of moderation.

Among the maneuvers cited by the Old Gray Lady was Mrs. Clinton's purported shift to the right on the hot-button issue of immigration.

Included in the evidence cited by the Times: Hillary's quote to WABC Radio's John Gambling on Feb. 11, 2003, wherein she proclaimed, "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration."

The only problem is, Mrs. Clinton never spoke those words.

Apparently, the Times was offended by what she actually said, which was: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants" - a quote first reported by NewsMax an hour after Clinton uttered it.

OK, so it's one word, big deal. Right?

Wrong.

The distinction is important, since, in the Times version, Mrs. Clinton is condemning the crime of illegal immigration, while in realty, what Hillary did was state her opposition to the immigrants themselves.

Moreover, the alteration is important because it is altering what is being presented as fact.

Tsk, tsk...the New York Times is proving more and more that there is a real media bias and they are the center of the deception.

Rove or Kerry...who outed whom

While reading the following post keep these two things in mind. 1) Consider the source. NewsMax' stories have to be taken with a grain of salt often. 2) What the article discusses is easily verifiable...I just do not have the time to do so.

I have been staying away from this story intentionally...both sides are spinning away and facts are being given at an unusually low quantity. That said...

It seems that while Sen. Kennedy, Clinton and Kerry are calling for Karl Rove's dismissal and removal of security clearance because of allegedly leaking a CIA employee's name (Republicans say the employee was a secretary) Kerry did leak an agent's identity.

This article says that while trying to derail John Bolton's confirmation as UN ambassador Sen. Kerry (D-MA) leaked an undercover CIA agent's name.

Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.

Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.

Emphasis added to point out where Kerry blew the cover.

Now, this Bolton character that the Democrats say is not qualified at least tried to maintain composure.

In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.

"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."

Now, it is true that Armstrong was previously identified. But he was in a different capacity at that time. The CIA because of the nomination asked that Armstrong's identity again remain hidden.

Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.

"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.

The article gets the gem of the day award:

Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry...

It seems that Kerry blew the chance to take responsibility for his mistake. He blamed everyone and everything else.

[Kerry], who outed Armstrong [against the request of the CIA]...later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.

And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."

So, my position on the Karl Rove incident is officially this:
Rove's fate should be no stronger than Kerry's.

Torture or not

So, is this torture or not? Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a bra? Leashing a terrorist in custody? Forcing a terrorist in custody to bark like a dog?

I say NO. Degrading? Yes. Acceptable to do to terrorists in custody? Hell Yes! Remember that these scumbags are in violation of the Geneva Convention by not being uniformed combatants among many, many other violations. They do not, nor should they get, Geneva Convention treatments.

Which of these are torture:
**Interrogators telling a terrorist in custody his mother and sisters are whores
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a bra
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to wear a thong on his head
**Telling a terrorist in custody he is homosexual and said other prisoners know it
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to dance with a male interrogator
**Subjecting a terrorist in custody to strip searches with no security value
**Threatening a terrorist in custody with dogs
**Forcing a terrorist in custody to stand naked in front of women
**Forcing a terrorist in custody onto a leash, to act like a dog
**Keeping a terrorist in custody in solitary confinement for 160 days
**Interrogations of a terrorist in custody for 18 to 20 hours a day, for 48 out of 54 days.

The correct answers: No to all of the above.
Well, the Pentagon is not punishing the Gitmo Prison Cheif. Good.

Military investigators examining alleged abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they found treatment such as leashing a terror suspect and forcing him to behave like a dog. But they say they found no evidence that there was torture or that senior leaders imposed faulty interrogation policies.

A few individual interrogators and military personnel are facing punishment, but a recommendation by investigators to admonish the former prison commander because of the treatment of one prisoner was overruled by a senior general.

In all, the findings track what the Bush administration has said, and what subsequent military self-investigations have found: The excesses with prisoners were the work of a few mid- or low-level personnel acting beyond their authority.

Investigators assigned to look into FBI agents' allegations of abuse at Guantanamo presented their findings to the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

Uh oh. Now the Senate is involved.
Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D-MA):

"I am deeply concerned about the failure - indeed, outright refusal - of our military and civilian leaders to hold higher-ups accountable for the repeated reports of abuse and torture of the prisoners at Guantanamo,"

Sen. James Inhofe, (R-OK):

wonder[s] "if we're really getting the most out of these detainees." "What damage are we doing to our war effort by parading these relatively minor infractions before the press and the world again and again and again while our soldiers risk their lives daily and are given no mercy by the enemy?"

The key quote exactly sums up why this cheif should not be charged with anything.

[they] concluded that Gen. Miller's job did not include monitoring the interrogation so closely and he did not violate any U.S. laws or policies.

That is all that needs to be decided when trying to punish a commander.

Here's the article

Profile this

Information about the London bombers is coming out by the moment. I have two quick comments about the cover of the Daily Mirror. What do all of these people have in common?

1) While trying to perform security what criteria would best be used to identify these people? You answer that.
2) If the rest of the Muslims around the world remain silent on this bombing I will further pose that they are passively supporting the terrorists.