Sunday, July 31


What kind of a site is Peter Daou running these days when one is obliged to sit through an online advertisement for THE HOT SEX HANDBOOK by Tracey Cox ( a purposeful double-entendre to be sure) to gain free access to the site? I'm a fairly regular reader and have had the good fortune to have Peter publish some of my posts from time to time. He's a gentleman and has encouraged and supported this neophyte blogger, and for that I am in his debt.

But I've never encountered this sort of thing. The "Daou Report" provides an excellent compendium of compelling political writing from the Left and Right sides of the blogosphere. I'm a fan (albeit a cheap one). But I won't be one for long if this is the drawbridge over which one must cross to gain free entry.

Oral sex guides and "sex toys tried and approved." Approved by whom, Peter? And "foreplay ideas" to keep me "amused for months." Goodness, Peter; I suppose you'll next offer a forum for Bi-Polibloggers.

While I sat in front of my computer being assailed by Salon's lack of discretion, it brought to mind those ubiquitous Adults Only XXX shops and the oversized billboards heralding their wares that line the interstates these days. I also thought for a moment that I had stumbled upon an online Democratic Party fundraiser promoting "Family Values." I kept waiting to see Whoopie Goldberg's and John Kerry's mugs materialize and with one or the other winking at me.

POSTSCRIPT: I have exchanged emails with Peter Daou this evening. He assured me that he has no decision-making authority with respect to the advertisements Salon chooses to run on the "Daou Report" site. Peter, gentleman that he is, apologized if I was offended by this particular ad. I replied that I was more disappointed than offended and that, in my opinion, the ad was smptomatic of the coarsening of America. The "Daou Report" is an excellent site and I, for one, dislike seeing it compromised by these sorts of advertisements. It's not enough to say that it is simply illustrative of the age in which we live. To me, it's illustrative of too many people being accepting of the commercial crassness of the few. Remember, the age we live in is precisely what we make of it.


First Justice Souter; now Justice Breyer. Seems turnaround is fair play, and appropriately so, when five justices of the United States Supreme Court decide to stretch the concept of eminent domain to include local governments taking private property for the benefit of private commercial interests, rather than purely public interests. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see these activist judges get a taste of their own medicine for a change so they could better understand the impact of their decisions?

HAT TIP: "Stones Cry Out" and "Free Republic"


How many times have I written that the notion that most illegal aliens are simply desperate people searching for a better life in America is bogus? Don't be deceived by the leftist, do-gooder propaganda. Illegal aliens fill our prison systems, clog our courts, and become lawbreakers the minute they breech our borders and the lawlessness oftentimes doesn't end there. Did you know that 47.2% of the deportees in 2004 had criminal convictions?

This article by Jim Kouri, published in "The Conservative Voice," is a must read. In it, Mr. Kouri points to the success to date of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Operation Predator campaign to round up illegal aliens who prey upon children -- i.e., foreign national pedophiles.

Operation Predator is Immigration and Customs Enforcement's comprehensive initiative to safeguard children from foreign national pedophiles, international sex tourists, Internet child pornographers and human traffickers. Operation Predator evolved out of ICE's mission to find and deport illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal records. The majority of the arrests under Operation Predator - roughly 85% - have involved foreign nationals in this country whose child sex crimes make them removable from the United States. By matching immigration databases with state Megan's law directories, ICE agents have arrested more than 1,800 registered sex offenders.

Operation Predator also has an important international component, as leads developed by domestic ICE offices are shared with ICE Attaché offices overseas and foreign law enforcement for action. To date, leads shared by ICE with foreign authorities have resulted in the arrest of roughly 1,000 individuals overseas.

If you want shocking examples, then please read the following!

Now, then, are you beginning to comprehend what Congress' and the president's gross indifference to our nation's porous borders translate into apart from national security concerns? Do you see why amnesty legislation is not legitimate immigration reform and must be rejected?

Do read the entire article by Jim Kouri. Then write to your congressmen and the president and demand that our borders be sealed.


DO NOT PASS GO without reading this important post by Frank Laughter of "Common Sense Junction" on the illegal alien's gambit of choice -- having a baby (babies) in America. It may ruin your Sunday, but then again it may wake you up to the realities of the runaway illegal alien problem in this country!

Border security and immigration reform must become front burner issues! This is the kind of information that may arouse American voters.

Saturday, July 30


Recall Jesse Jackson's clarion call for a Black-Hispanic coalition? I wrote on this at length earlier in the month.

Well, to read this piece in the "Los Angeles Times," you might conclude that ol' Jesse doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the black community any longer (if he ever did).

HAT TIP: "Lucianne"

FOLLOW-UP: More on this today (Sunday) from "Polipundit."


I split from you, Senator Frist ... permanently!

You join Senator John McCain as the second of two Republicans with 2008 presidential ambitions who I will do everything in my power to help defeat in the primaries.

SOURCE: This Fox News story.

POSTCRIPT: The following is from the "Eagle Forum" (316 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 203, Washington D.C., 20003) ...


Tell Senator Frist you can't be pro-life and support killing embryos!
This morning, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) revealed what many have speculated for several years — he supports using your taxpayer dollars to kill human embryos. He supports expanding President Bush's policy which prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on embryos killed after August 9, 2001. Senator Frist supports allowing scientists to experiment on human embryos "leftover" at fertility clinics. For him, as long as parents sign a form, your tax dollars should be used to kill that embryo for scientific research.

After demurring for months, Senator Frist is now supporting the Castle/Specter bill which undermines President Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research.

"I am pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. An embryo is nascent human life. It's genetically distinct. It's living. This position is consistent with my faith. To me it isn't just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science. . . . We were all once human embryos. That human embryo has moral significance and worth. It deserves to be treated with utmost dignity and respect. I also believe embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."
— Senator Bill Frist
July 29, 2005

Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. Saying you are pro-life, doesn't make you pro-life. The pro-life position remains that human life should not be harmed, destroyed, or manipulated in any way. If taxpayer dollars are to be spent, they should be spent on non-embryonic stem cells (such as cord blood and bone marrow), where over 65 diseases have been successfully treated in humans. Even in the case of ethical research, experiments are never performed in humans before first proving successful in animals. Embryonic stem cell research has not treated even one sick rat!

Senator Frist should hear from every pro-lifer TODAY! Please call his Washington D.C. and district offices. He must know that his presidential hopes will never be realized as long as he supports killing human embryos for experimentation.

Take Action

Call Senator Frist and tell him his decision to support killing human embryos makes him clearly NOT pro-life. Be sure to call both DC and district offices.

Sen. Frist offices: Washington, D.C.: 202-224-3344; Nashville: 615-352-9411; Memphis: 901-683-1910; Knoxville: 865-637-4180; Chattanooga: 423-756-2757; Jackson: 731-424-9655; Kingsport: 423-323-1252.

Call President Bush and tell him we expect him to veto any legislation that supports federally funded killing of embryos!

White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111


"The Anchoress" defends our peripatetic president's 50th trip to his Crawford, Texas ranch during the five years of his presidency in this post and I agree with her that it should be his or any president's prerogative to escape the confines of the fish bowl existence in the White House and the politically-charged city that surrounds it.

However, I lament that President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch isn't in one of the Texas counties contiguous to the Mexico border so that he and Laura could live the existence when at their ranch that Bush's misguided immigration and border security policies have foisted upon Texas property owners who suffer the travail of being incessantly overrun and threatened by illegal aliens, many of them lawbreakers and gang members fleeing Mexico. Maybe then the president would get it through his head that not just the borders of Iraq need securing.

Case in point: read this story on MS-13 gang members human smuggling operations through Bee County, Texas, which is in the Rio Grande Valley Sector along the Texas-Mexico border! What if the Secret Service had to guard the president and First Lady against MS-13 intrusion when the nation's First Family was staying at the ranch?

FOLLOW-UP: More on what Texas ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley are experiencing!


Samantha Levine of the "Houston Chronicle's" Washington Bureau reported in the newspaper's July 29th edition (registration required) that U.S. Representative John Culberson (R-TX) has introduced legislation -- H.R. 3622 -- that would permit border states (e.g., Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California) to "establish armed militias to catch people trying to illegally cross from Mexico and Canada." These militias would be known as the "Border Protection Corps."

As Ms. Levine writes:

The bill, which he called a "thunderclap," is more than a solitary, symbolic gesture by the Republican lawmaker: It has 46 Republican co-sponsors.

It comes as the White House, Congress and local officials are becoming increasingly immersed in efforts to find the best way to secure the borders and perhaps also establish a "guest worker" program to let immigrants stay in the United States as temporary legal residents.

Gov. Rick Perry indicated he is open to Culberson's idea.

"Illegal immigration has become a pervasive problem in this country, and it is a drain on our economy," Perry said. "Regardless of the mechanism, the federal government must provide a stronger presence along the border and must provide substantially more funding for border protection."

Then there is this piece in today's "Houston Chronicle" by Jacques Billeaud, reporting that several law enforcement agencies in Arizona "have launched special units devoted to fighting human smuggling, an unusual move because immigration has long been the province of the federal government."

Mr. Billeaud continues:

Local and state authorities have long pursued cases against immigrants who violate Arizona law, but they previously haven't been able to arrest smugglers, unless they committed state crimes.

Political pressure has been mounting for the state to do more since the federal government tightened enforcement of the borders in Texas and California in the mid-1990s and a heavy flow of illegal immigrants began coming through Arizona.

Last year, Arizona voters approved a law that denied some government benefits to illegal border-crossers. State legislators then passed the law that would allow local and state police to arrest immigrant smugglers but didn't provide any additional money for police. Some local officials have said it will be of limited use because they don't have the time or money to build cases against smugglers.

Both initiatives suggest that the "Minuteman Project" is having its intended effect and this writer salutes that organization!

The Bush Administration (like the Clinton Administration before it) can continue to keep its head buried in the sand vis-a-vis this nation's porous borders and the national security problems they pose, but, more and more, indications are that border security and immigration reform are moving to the front burner on the national political scene and something must be done and that something is not misguided (but deliberate) Kennedy-McCain authored amnesty for illegals.

What this writer would like to see is an end to the "Sanctuary City" laws that hamstring local police from questioning suspects with respect to their immigration status.

Much needs doing, but at least a seismic shift is occuring in Washington now from patent indifference to a reluctant admission that illegal immigration is out of control. The key is to keep the solution-making out of the hands of the liberals.

Thursday, July 28


Matt Drudge links today to this "" poll asking six (6) questions of its readers with respect to a John McCain candidacy for the presidency in 2008.

The only "stump-the-band" kind of question is whether or not one would vote for John McCain over Hillary Clinton, and as much as I dislike McCain's political machinations, grandstanding, and singular RINO-credentials, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the quintessential Liberal in sheep's clothing -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.

To be clear, this blog is aligned with "Blogs For McCain's Opponent" (see right sidebar), albeit with the one afore-mentioned caveat, and only if the veritable Sword of Damocles was hanging over my head in the voting booth would I vote for this turncoat.

McCain has become anathema to me and I have said so a number of times.


"Minivandad72" thinks so and makes a convincing case in this post that ought to be read by concerned parents and grandparents, and particularly given this statistic (courtesy of CNN) on widespread teen use of the Internet.

As this concerned blogger writes:

While doing a little research about the Yahoo chatroom shutdown I ran a google search and found a forum full of individuals discussing the recent shutdown of the user-created chatrooms. While reading through the different posts I came across a link (which I will spell out, you’ll have to copy/paste it since I don’t want any tracking).

You’ll notice that this is a little “underground” movement that basically told all of the perverts where to go and hang out. Yes…if someone posted it on a forum then it’s not that “underground,” but it’s still there and it appears pretty dangerous.

Minivandad concludes:

This webpage is a geocities page…in other words…a Yahoo page. This person is blatently providing instruction to those seeking children for sexual purposes, and should be held accountable if anything should happen as a result of his directions.

Yahoo closing the chat rooms earlier this summer was only for monetary reasons…in other words, they didn’t want to lose their advertisement revenue. If you believe, for one second, that Yahoo has any sense of social obligation, then you are sadly mistaken.

You'll find "Minivandad72" and his better half -- Minivanmom74" -- in my site's Blogroll under the heading, Quid Pro Quo, and I heartily recommend both blogs to you.


Seems the U.S. Supreme Court managed to rankle conservatives and liberals alike when it conferred on local governments the right to seize private property on behalf of private commercial interests.

On June 23rd, I wrote:

This is a decision that should unite an otherwise divided, red state/blue state, country, as it confers on the government an overweening, virtually unlimited right under a re-written Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- one that the Founding Father's never envisioned -- to seize your home and property on the pretext that any city and its public officials know best what is best for the common good of the community. And that good is no longer necessarily a public highway, or a bridge, or tunnel, or a school, but now perhaps a privately-held shopping center or mall or industrial complex or office center.

Eminent domain has, in the process, become a virtually unchecked, unrestrained right of the government to seize private property and disrespect the private citizen.

If the notion of an out-of-control Federal judiciary has escaped the grasp of many citizens up until now, particularly Liberal Democrats, those folks ought to begin re-thinking their positions with this egregious decision by the black robes.
The "Fox News" story suggests this is precisely what has happened in the wake of SCOTUS' blatant judicial activism.


Betsy Newmark of "Betsy's Page" has written a well-thought post building on the observations of columnist David Broder and popular historian David McCullough about the dismal state of "history-teaching in our country." Betsy cites the transcendence of social studies over history teaching, along with the advent of politically-correct revisionism, as among the trends in education that have relegated history teaching to the backwaters of public education.

While I do not disagree with Betsy's observations (or those of Broder and McCullough), I would add to their respective theses the fact that far too many parents are dropping the ball by not reading history, being conversant in it, and keeping history books on the bookshelves in their homes and encouraging their children (and grandchildren) to develop a curiosity about the past and its influences on the present and the future.

Socrates said: Know thyself.

But how does one come to understand ones self absent understanding the context in which one lives and its historical underpinnings? Parents, not just professional teachers, must assume this obligation in their child's development.

As Cicero wrote:

To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history.


Rodger Morrow of "This isn't writing, it's typing" published this post on July 25th appropriately excoriating Pennsylvania's Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll's bad form for crashing univited the funeral of Marine Staff Sergeant Joseph Goodrich, who died in Iraq on July 10th, and callously using his funeral as a platform for handing out her business card to the grieving family and denouncing the war in Iraq, while claiming erroneously that the Pennsylvania state government was officially against the war.

Rodger followed up by posting this piece yesterday in which he takes the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" to task for suggesting, and on the heels of the Lieutenant Governor's apology to the family for her tasteless intrusion, that the Goodrich family's complaint about Catherine Baker Knoll's anti-Bush ploy may have been politically motivated. Seems the newspaper can't bring itself to identify the real political player in this tawdry episode.

Rodger, to his credit, takes the gloves off:

For the media to reduce Ms. Goodrich's anger to "politics" is to perform a kind of moral jiu-jitsu by which military people and their families are still to blame for their support of the war.

It's Vietnam redux—but with the liberal fig leaf that "we support our warriors but not the war they're being asked to fight."

Which is to say that the left still spits on our soldiers (and their loved ones).

But only metaphorically—and from a politically correct distance.

Just another example, if you ask me, of the MSM coming to the aid and comfort of rank leftist cranks who grandstand their misguided causes at any opportunity.

POSTSCRIPT: Mark A. Kilmer provides some insight into how this brouhaha may play into the hands of the GOP in Pennsylvania's next gubernatorial race. (HAT TIP: "Election Projection's Daily Blog Roundup").

Wednesday, July 27


Don't neglect taking a gander at this banner of Hillary Clinton courtesy of John Hawkins at "Right Wing News."

I'd like to frame this and hang it in my Study!

HAT TIP: "The Blue State Conservatives"


Ilona at "True Grit" (always a thoughtful writer) delivers this splendid post on the issue of Muslim accountability for expressing outrage and categorical disapproval of the excesses of its fringe groups -- those who provoke senseless violence and the agents of terrorism who carry it out.

Writes Ilona:

First, let's examine what we are looking at when we speak of the Muslim community exhibiting some internal control in the production of world violence and terrorism. We aren't saying that the expectation is to control everyone's mouth. The call to the Muslim community is to express rejection of those extreme elements, and to stop harboring and enabling the terrorists and their cells. To expose those who bankroll and encourage the slaughtering of people, the dissemination of terror for the sake of terror, and the intolerance of anyone unlike themselves. That is being asked, and it is a reasonable request. Stop supporting terrorists in your midst. Plain and simple.

I don't believe Islam has the type of shunning and excommunication process of Christianity, but every religious and culture group has a peer system of pressure against those things which are taboo. We are saying to call outright unmerited murders of people taboo, and show in their actions and their statements that it is so. Stop enabling, stop excusing, stop winking your eyes at the evil in your midst, arising from your own.

There are ideologues of hatred corrupting Islam for their own sinister purposes and the Muslim community had better step up and in large numbers to both denounce and renounce terrorism, or Christians and Jews will soon not see the distinction between the religion and those who corrupt it.


In this age of self-centered, callous capriciousness, it comes as no shock that traditional marriage is being assailed on all fronts: by gay activists, politically-correct liberals, an MTV-generation that cut its teeth on instant and continuous gratification, and a nihilist, Euro-culture run amuck. If pre-borns can be aborted by the millions to suit the convenience of their mothers, than what chance does traditional marriage have? Bored with your spouse; attracted to another; marital problems got you down? Then just bail-out. Commitment to anyone and anything be damned.

Ed Morrissey weighs in on this 'til ennui do we part phenomenon in his excellent "Exit Strategies" column in "The Weekly Standard."

HAT TIP: Frank Laughter of "Common Sense Junction," who, thankfully, has resumed blogging after a hiatus owing to his wife's serious health crisis. His is a blog deserving of being bookmarked and read regularly. I've missed Frank's writing and I'm elated he's back!

Monday, July 25


Patrick Ruffini is conducting what he terms a Just Right straw poll at his site, allowing readers to register their preferred picks for the 2008 Presidential Race. Why not go ahead and cast your vote and we'll see how the results come in.

At this point and given Patrick's list of likely contenders, I'm going to select Senator George Allen (R-VA), because of his strong Pro-Life stance, and for the same reason that Rudolf Giuliani could never earn my vote given his Pro-Choice position.

HAT TIP: Lorie Byrd at Polipundit.

FOLLOW-UP: I would have liked to have seen Newt Gingrich on Patrick's list of projected contenders for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008 and, were he on it, I believe at this juncture I'd be inclined to go with Newt, as I think he could slice and dice Hillary. Mr. Gingrich is keenly intelligent, an innovator, and a Reagan-Republican.



I had committed to resuming my blogging this past weekend on the heels of my grandson's and son's departure, but as my wife so aptly described it, the two of us were suffering from a major case of grandson withdrawal Saturday evening and all day yesterday and I couldn't bring myself to sit still long enough in front of the keyboard to write and publish a post. There was such an emptiness in me. The house had grown silent again. Life was no longer animated by a spirited youngster whose personality had filled our home.

This was the most continuous time (a 12 days' visit) the two of us have had with our grandson Matthew since he was born and particularly since we moved to the Houston area, and we were thoroughly beguiled. Matthew made the house come alive and filled it with bubbling expectations and big bursts of energy. All the good memories of raising our sons came back to us in the presence of this sweet cherub, who loved us, charmed us, played with us, and made us feel as if we were in our 30s again! There's just something about a "little man" in pajamas coming down the staircase in the morning and giving "Grandpaw" a big hug and a kiss that sets the right tone for the day -- a presence that lifts the spirit like the optimism of a splendid sunrise. Life was so supremely good everytime I felt his arms around me and heard the words, I love you, Grandpaw! If only that could be bottled as an antidote for what ever ails a middle-aged man.

We had such fun together. I was reintroduced to cartoons, French Toast, corn dogs, and the card game Fish. And I learned things about our solar system that I had forgotten and with which I never would have imagined a 6-year old would be conversant. We played our own make believe version of "Navy Seals" in the swimming pool most every day: he was "Commander Matthew" and I was "Lieutenant Grandpaw." We'd float on a rubber raft over to the waterfall and there he'd call in to "Headquarters" to receive our next "mission." We pretended the pool was a languid, slyly dangerous river in a foreign land. Squirt guns were our weapons of choice and we defeated imaginary enemies, large and small, from bumble bees in the poolside planters to shrub-shrouded statuary under the soothing shade of live oaks along our fence line.

Our entertainment in the evenings were DVDs of the classic "Honeymooners" series and my grandson delighted in Art Carney, Jackie Gleason, and most every episode, and howled when Ralph Kramden would become unglued over something Norton did. Oh, that infectious laugh of Matthew's! A child's laugh is a nugget of pure gold and our heart its repository.

My wife and I wanted to make Matthew's trip memorable, so we took a car trip to San Antonio and showed him the Alamo (and told of its history) and the Riverwalk, and took him out to Sea World for a day. There the three of us were thoroughly drenched (saturated with ice cold salt water, from head to toe) by Shamu -- a trained killer whale-- and never did completely dry out despite the searing heat. He was captivated at each and every show by the whales, porpoises, sea lions, walruses, and otters. We had a grand time together and even when the rain began falling in the late afternoon, soaking us anew. Cleverly, we took refuge in an indoor aquarium and watched a convoy of sharks move effortlessly through the water, as clusters of adults and children looked on intently in silent wonder.

Our children and our grandchildren are our immortality and among God's most profound gifts. Our blood courses through their veins and our DNA becomes their DNA and links us with succeeding generations. But the true architecture of their souls are the hopes and dreams we have for them and the deeply felt love we give to them. That little man with the backpack who waved "Goodbye" to "Granny" and "Grandpaw," as he walked through the security gate at the airport, carried with him memories of a childhood visit that truly lit up our lives and forged an irrevocable bond. Our love for him has been enriched beyond measure.

Over and out, Commander Matthew! Grandpaw misses you!

Tuesday, July 19


Our six year old grandson has been here for a visit, which explains why I have not been publishing any posts of late. He's here through Saturday and I want to spend all the time I can with him. Look for my blogging to resume this weekend. Thanks for continuing to check in on ACSOL.

Wednesday, July 13


Here's a developing story, courtesy of Matt Drudge, on the heat-seeking, publicity missle that is Senator John McCain incarnate (RINO-AZ). McCain is into compromises, so he may well feel no remorse in being compromised by a cameo appearance in the R-rated Hollywood film, "Wedding Crashers."

James Carville is in it as well, so McCain has managed to rub shoulders with the pro-Hollywood, anything-goes, effete, Blue State crowd and one of its chief proponents.

If you feel like contacting the Senator who fashions himself a leader and a moralist, here's the information you'll need.


According to a "Houston Chronicle" (registration required) story by reporter Edward Hegstrom, published on July 9th, the new Archbishop of Houston, Joseph A. Fiorenza, is quoted as saying in regard to the Minutemen:

We stand against any attempt of outsiders to come into Houston to abuse and intimidate our immigrant communities.
It would appear Archbishop Fiorenza needs to be reminded that American citizens are free to travel anywhere in the United States of America and that neither Houston nor any American city is a closed community. To refer to American citizens as "outsiders" and illegal aliens as members of an "immigrant community" establishes clearly the unclear thinking of the Archbishop on this matter and suggests a mindset in tune with those organizations that abet the human invasion from the south.

It would appear Archbishop Fiorenza needs to be reminded that prejudging anyone or any group of Americans freely assembled is poor form and that the citizen-patriots comprising the Project Minuteman organization deserve fair treatment under the law, objectivity and a fair shake, both from the Church and from Houston's public officials. There are Minutemen who are Catholics!

It would appear that while Archbishop Fiorenza and the Catholic Church have the obligation to attend to the spiritual needs of their entire flock, and regardless of citizenry or ethnicity, that they also must abide the laws of those countries in which they serve the Mother Church; and in the United States of America it is patently illegal for non-citizens to breech its borders and to enter the United States without proper documentation and clearance from immigration authorities. To wit: illegal aliens are at-large lawbreakers.

It would appear that the Archbishop has chosen to promulgate salacious propaganda -- namely, that the Minutemen organization has as its avowed aim (or has, as a matter of documented practice) the abuse and intimidation of illegal aliens, which, to be sure, couldn't be further from the truth and for which the Archbishop has provided no evidence to support his outrageous claims.

If the Archbishop is concerned about "abuse and intimidation" he should turn his attention to the widespread pedophilia within the ranks of the Church. That form of abuse is a matter of record, has gone on for years, and cover-ups have occurred.

And, for what it is worth, this writer is a Catholic, served as an altar boy in his youth, put his sons through Catholic parochial schools, and most certainly regards this nation's porous borders as a serious security threat.

The Archbishop is out of line in this matter -- pure and simple.


The invective against the patriotic Minutemen organization has reached new heights in the City of Houston, with the latest vitriolic salvo coming from a former Houston police officer, now city councilman, Adrian Garcia.

Garcia is quoted by reporter Edward Hegstrom in a story in today's edition of the "Houston Chronicle" (registration required) as saying that the Houston Police Department should monitor the Minutemen, who plan to come to Houston in October to surveil illegal immigrants being hired illegally as day laborers, "as they would the KKK, as they would the Black Panthers." This kind of reckless character assassination was further amplified by Joe Rubio, Chairman of the Mayor's Advisory Committee On Immigration and Refugee Affairs, likening the Minutemen to "vigilantes."

The Minutemen, of course, are intending to do what the Houston Police department had originally announced it would be doing -- namely, photographing illegal aliens loitering on street corners and on private property, as they try to hustle day jobs. But this procedure -- to identify illegal aliens being hired illegally -- was quickly deemed politically-incorrect and the HPD quickly backed away from its role as enforcer of the law.

As the "Houston Chronicle" reported in a story published on July 6th:

The Houston Police Department has instructed officers not to photograph illegal immigrants seeking day jobs, after an incident last month prompted an outcry from an immigrant rights group.

Houston police Capt. Juan Trevino made the pledge to 400 people who attended a meeting Tuesday night organized by The Metropolitan Organization, an interfaith grass-roots political action group.

Trevino said that "an isolated handful of officers" took immigrants' photographs after a business owner on North Shepherd recently complained that they "were walking on private property."

Addressing the TMO gathering in Spanish and English, Trevino said that the Houston police department will work with the organization to encourage immigrant workers to seek work at the east side day labor center.

"We have initiated a policy where, at this time, we are instructing all officers that they cannot photograph any of the day laborers that are currently out in the field," Trevino said.

The Minuteman Project is a group of volunteer American citizens who strongly believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure our nation's borders and that the U.S. Border Patrol is under-manned and under-funded. The Minutemen gathered in Arizona in April of this year along a notorious 23-mile stretch of contiguous border with Mexico to conduct surveillance operations in identifying illegals breeching the border and to turn that information over to the Border Patrol. There were no ensuing instances of violence or controversy. The Minutemen conducted themselves with restraint and good judgement. Their mission was an unqualified success.

It is a shame that certain local government officials in Houston resort to mean-spirited hyperbole and desparate innuendo to villify a group of citizen-patriots. One only need to look at the sordid, hate-fueled history of the KKK and the patent violence of the Black Panthers to understand just how egregious Councilman Garcia's words are.

Of course, this is all part of the "the best defense is a good offense" approach to protecting illegals and those who knowingly employ them; and, regrettably, incendiary commentary from the Left and its MSM allies continues unabated.

Illegal immigration and the security threat posed by this country's porous borders are profound problems in this country. The President of the United States and the Congress have been negligent in allowing these issues to go unaddressed for so long, and particularly post-9/11. Truly, it's an outrage, just as Councilman Garcia's likening the Minuetmen to the KKK and the Black Panther organization is outrageous and entirely invidious! He owes the Minutemen an apology.

Tuesday, July 12


When I read this pointed, on-target post by Greg Wallace of What Attitude Problem? on Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) candor in saying that the Democratic Party is still trying to determine what its core values are, the Prologue of one of my favorite novels came to mind: Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel.

Truly the Democratic Party is lost -- a party without a moral compass, adrift in its own ocean of banality, and driven by the currents of Euro-style secularism and an abiding nihilism.

Greg Wallace's point, however, is that the Dems are "lost" only by Republican, Red-State standards; but, to be sure, their tax-and-spend policies, moral bankruptcy, and incessant criticism of the current administration, absent innovative ideas and solutions for the nation's problems, are of their own making and a conscious choice. So, Senator Obama is playing a kind of disingenuous shell game with his constituents. The Democrats are what they have chosen to be and remain so. Indeed, they have shown no substantive inclination to shed that which makes them unattractive to a majority of voters.

Better put: they still don't get it and that's why Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin (and others of their ilk) remain the spokesmen of a Party that lost its way by picking the wrong way to approach the American heartland.

AUSSIES REMAIN SUPERB ALLIES IN WAR ON TERROR reports in this story by Patrick Goodenough that the Australian Cabinet is considering a new deployment of troops to Afghanistan to meet the re-strengthening of Taliban forces there.

The United States is fortunate to have an ally in the War On Terror the likes of Australia, as is the Free World, and particularly given the lack of fortitude and resolve in evidence in the governments of Spain, France, Germany, and Canada.

Many Western democracies formally issued statements of outrage over the terrorist attack on London, but their officials continue to do precious little but talk, talk, talk. And they don't walk the talk.

The Aussies have always evidenced a backbone and the will to do the right thing. I salute them!


"Ace" points in this post to some BBC News' journalistic shenanigans in its politically-correct, altogether disingenuous editing of the word "terrorist" from their Web site archives.

How could this be a newspaper any self-respecting Brit would continue reading in the aftermath of the "7/7" terrorist attack on London?

Ironic that a newspaper lacking in credibility frets that it may lose that which it doesn't possess absent excising the word "terrorist" from its pages and supplanting it with patent euphemisms.

All Londoners can reasonably do with the BBC is to continue to be served their Fish-n-Chips in it, for that's its only useful purpose.

Monday, July 11


London Mayor Ken Livingstone still doesn't get it, it would appear, even after the appalling tragedy that befell his city on July 7th.

He's quoted as saying:

This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners.

His point? I'd like to think he's not saying that had Parliament, the Crown, or a well-heeled neighborhood in London been the victim of terrorists' bombs he'd be less inclined towards condemnation of the event(s); but, then again, this is the same guy who called a well-known Islamic fanatic a "man of peace."

London has Livingstone; New York had Giuliani. America was fortunate; London has been short-changed.


Countless stories in the British press since "9/11" have anticipated the inevitable terrorist attack on the homeland. Tragically, the "inevitable" happened on July 7th -- London was hit.

So why does it take the actual event -- 49 fatalities (with more expected) and 700+ injured -- for Tony Blair and the British government to contemplate the need for more stringent anti-terror laws?

Do you find it a puzzlement, as I do?


Have any of you out there in the blogosphere, particularly those of you who are Houston-area bloggers, had recent contact with Corie Schweitzer of the blog, "Insane Troll Logic," as her last post was on June 5th and I am unaware as to why she has stopped writing. I'm worrying about her.

Corie is an English professor at Houston Community College, so she may simply be traveling during her summer break. But usually a blogger indicates in his or her last post that a blogging hiatus is about to ensue and why. I find myself fretting that she may be experiencing a health issue.

Worry; worry!

I sent Corie an email on June 18th, but did not receive a reply, which is unlike her.

If you know of her whereabouts or status, kindly leave me a "Comment" on this post or send me an email. Thank you so much.


So Hillary Clinton thinks President Bush is an "Alfred E. Neuman" equivalent -- a what me worry "Mad Magazine" caricature in the White House. This from a former First Lady whose husband cavorted with White House interns and had more sexual trysts than Alfred E. Neuman has freckles. This from one of the nonpareil What me worry? "enablers" of all time! This from a woman whose husband, when he occupied the Oval Office, turned a deaf ear to the issue of terrorism and spent two terms undermining the U.S. military and this nation's intelligence community. If she's in to caricatures, she need look no further than her sexually peripatetic husband or her bathroom mirror.

It'll take more than a village to cure this egotistical, dyed-in-the-wool leftie, and, as William Safire called her, "congenital liar" of her crass, tasteless behavior. And where does Hillary Clinton, of all people, get off on assailing President Bush over healthcare issues? Talk about being disingenuous!

This was an impolitic criticism of the president -- a proverbial low-blow -- and it will come back to haunt her in 2008. Hillary's about as funny as her husband is faithful. Combined, she and her husband, do not have a modicum of the character or integrity of President Bush. But this is what the Democratic Party is all about these days: bereft of ideas and solutions, they resort to political thuggery and the American people are on to them.

You should worry Hillary. You're a lightening rod and there's going to be a huge storm over this.

FOLLOW-UP: Republicans respond to Hillary's Bush-bashing.


This comes as no surprise and particularly if you've read, as I have, Bernard Goldberg's book Bias.

As Jennifer Harper writes in the "Washington Times":

President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.

More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
I don't watch any of the three network news' broadcasts and for ample reasons revolving around the ongoing distortions generated by their patent liberal bias. Brian Williams' (NBC Nightly News) recent gaffe (putting it in the kindest terms) was just another example of more of the same.

HAT TIP: Matt Drudge


The "Houston Chronicle" (registration required) in an editorial this morning supporting patent lawlessness, assails the "Minutemen" and that organization's plans to come to Houston in October to document via video surveillance the legions of illegal aliens (The "HC" prefers the euphemistic term "undocumented workers") who loiter on street corners and in parking lots each day in the fourth largest city in the United States, as they look for work from employers who are knowingly breaking the law in hiring them. That this sort of thing goes on de facto in countless American cities across the land does not make it right de jure and the "Houston Chronicle's" editorial board has once again landed on the wrong side of the illegal alien issue.

Here's a snippet of an editorial that basically takes the position that if lawlessness is widespread and countenanced by government officials, the police department, and local industry, than it necessarily becomes a fait accompli and should be accepted, rather than challenged:

Exactly what the amateur filmmakers hope to accomplish, beyond getting news coverage, is difficult to fathom. In their well-publicized actions along the U.S.-Mexican border, the Minutemen had the support of local landowners angry over disruptive groups of immigrants invading their property. Their reception here likely will be very different. The cheap labor provided by undocumented workers in Houston and other cities is a fact of life, one embraced by most business interests and an issue few politicians care to tackle.

The editorial writer goes on to say that 400,000 illegal aliens residing in Houston must have legitimate opportunities to feed themselves and their families. Accordingly, if an illegal immigrant successfully breeches the Texas-Mexico border and reaches Houston (a "Sanctuary City," by the way) than he or she should be free and unfettered in openly seeking and gaining employment, and breaking the law!

This post from Diggers Realm cites a study by the Federation For Immigration Reform (FAIR) that pegs the annual cost to Texas' citizens of illegal immigration at a whopping $4.7 billion or the equivalent of $725 per household.

I have written on this subject before and will continue to do so. It's an outrage that the invasion continues across our porous borders and that the mindset exemplified in today's "Houston Chronicle" editorial prevails in so many cities. And do understand that the "safety net" of social and medical services provided illegal immigrants in this country, and at taxpayer's expense, is sufficient to allow Mexican illegals, as an example, to send home annual remittances totalling $10+ billion -- the second largest revenue stream in Mexico's economy.

Sunday, July 10


Great Britain's Home Secretary Charles Clarke is reported by the Associated Press (AP) as saying he's "fearful" of more terrorist attack's on England's soil until the "gang" that perpetrated the bombings on July 7th is apprehended.

Our fear is of course of more attacks, until we succeed in tracking down the gang which committed the atrocities on Thursday and that's why the number one priority ... has to be the catching of the perpetrators.
If one didn't know better, you'd think "7/7" was a scene out of a "Law and Order" segment.

It is this sort of naive mindset, viewing the "7/7" tragedy as tantamount to an isolated criminal act, that will continue to leave the British vulnerable, not the timespan in which the perpetrators remain at large.

Fact is, the four bombings may have been carried out by just one "sleeper cell" among many operating in Great Britain, any number of which may be poised to strike. In the context of the War On Terror, it is not simply enough to do the police work and round-up the suspects and call it a day.

British Intelligence, in concert with the USA, France, Germany, and Israel (among the Free World countries) should have identified (and apart from targets in theatres of the war already underway in Iraq and Afghanistan) targets that would be struck in retaliation for any terrorist attacks on its country or any of its allies. Those targets should have already been struck in the aftermath of the "7/7" bombings in London if the Free World, and its intelligence-gathering apparatus, had it together and their was steel in the alliance, rather than a propensity for high-minded political rhetoric about showing resolve. Islamic fanatics only understand force met with force.

Too, the subway bombings in London should not be viewed as an isolated event, but as just one in a series of dastardly terrorist attacks around the world and over a number of years now, which remain ongoing and undeterred.

It's July 10th and the attack in London has not been answered. Islamic militancy cannot be answered with police work alone. Terrorism must be viewed as connected acts of an insidious war, not a crime spree.

Saturday, July 9


My good friend and fellow blogger, "The Happy Capitalist," goes to bat for me in this post regarding a generic leftist attack by "Daily Kos" on a piece I wrote on the heels of the terrorist attack on London. I responded, but I think "THC" does a better job of it in his observations.

To be sure, the half-ass link (not even the courtesy of mentioning my site's name) I received from "Daily Kos" was a dud -- kind of the blogosphere's equivalent of a bad case of E.D. "Daily Kos" gave me fewer hits than the Houston Astros give Roger Clemens!

Meanwhile, the beat goes on. Scotland Yard is conducting an investigation and is looking for the "culprits" who did the bombings, while the Free World has yet to respond to the worldwide network of Islamic extremists and the nations that harbor and abet them. We're in a war. This should not be dealt with as simply a criminal investigation.

Friday, July 8


Hurricane Dennis has struck the U.S. Detention Camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with ferocious winds.

I imagine Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) will call for an immediate Congressional inquiry to determine how the CIA and Pentagon were able to direct this horrific storm system squarily at the facility holding the suspected terrorists. Durbin, of course, will view this as unconscionable. Add to too much noise, too much heat, and too much cold, too much wind and too much rain. Goodness, what if 145 mile per hour winds were to "desecrate" something?

I, for one, think Durbin (and others of his ilk) are packing too much hot wind.


Good post from "The Anchoress" this morning -- post "7/7." She gets it, as I knew she would.

Perhaps if, in the 1970’s, (when Islamofascists took and held hostages for 444 days) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.

Perhaps if, in the 1980’s, (when Islamofascists had bombed soldiers barracks in Lebanon and began calling for holy war) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.

Perhaps if, in the 1990’s, (when Islamofascists had bombed the WTC, then the Khobar Towers, then the US Embassies in Nairobi, then the USS Cole - among other worldwide bombings) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in morning.

Churchill’s necessary policy of 1940 is the necessary policy of today. Fighting against an enemy so cowardly they refuse to wear a uniform, so bereft of shame that they revel in the shedding of innocent blood, there can be no other policy but war and victory.

Well said.


From Victor Davis Hansen:

The British may react very differently than the Spanish did after Madrid -- by doing nothing rather than by retreating from Iraq.
From Mark Steyn:

The choice for Britons now is whether they want to be Australians post-Bali or Spaniards post-Madrid.

This is the beginning of a long existential struggle, for Britain and the West. It's hard not to be moved by the sight of Londoners calmly going about their business as usual in the face of terrorism. But, if the governing class goes about business as usual, that's not a stiff upper lip but a death wish.
I encourage you to read both the Hansen and Steyn columns in their entirety. Please take the time.

As I wrote yesterday, "if the Free World had it together ..."

Regrettably, it does not.

Thursday, July 7


Not since "The Mahablog" annointed me a "rightie blogger" back on January 31st have I exulted so in being the target of cheap shots from the Left side of the blogosphere, and this time around from no less prominent a top-of-the-pyramid maligner of the Right than the blog "Daily Kos."

Seems I'm to be made an object lesson for the Left in how a conservative blogger overreacts when innocent men, women, and children are slaughtered and wounded by terrorists bent on murdering civilians in a war of their making, and at a time and a place of their choosing. On the heels of the worst attack on London since World War II, it makes sense that "Daily Kos" would turn towards my site this evening, rather than citing the kind of muddled thinking in domestic and international circles that abets terrorism, counsels appeasement, and sets the stage for such brutality as was inflicted on London.

The hyberbole used by writer Dunciad is not intended to be a point-counterpoint rebuttal of what I expressed in my post, but rather to distort first, then abuse my comments -- a good example being the suggestion that I should have "gone the extra mile" and proposed that "a dozen or so (GITMO) detainees ... be crucified." Sorry, but I'd be quite satisfied if they simply dined on food while in confinement no better than that which our troops must subsist on in combat operations.

Again, if the free world had it together, we'd know who and where to hit, and we'd be hitting them.

If "Daily Kos" had it together ...


If the free world had it together, pre-planned military strikes (in the event of a terrorist attack on the soil of an ally) would already be underway on the heels of the terrorist attack on London, England. I'm not interested in statements from political leaders, heightened terror warnings, or commitments to a continuation of the G-8 summit. There's already been too much of this: talk; talk; talk.

I'm interested in action and an overwhelming response to the horrors ravaged upon Londoners. Some multiple of what the Israelis would already have done had it been a strike on Tel Aviv.

And GITMO should already have adjusted its food menus, turned up the volume, turned off the A/C, and painted over the arrows on cell floors pointing to Mecca. GITMO detainees need to understand they're going to suffer some trifling inconveniences (regardless of what Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and the ACLU concerns itself with while people get blown up around the world) given the death and destruction rained upon London.

Why should these detainees be dining on Chicken L'Orange, as they gleefully applaud the massacre in London and hurl excrement at their guards?

The do-gooders and bleeding hearts will not win this war on terrorism and people die because of their handwringing and cowardice. The only thing the meek shall inherit in this war are coffins and graveyards.

Why is any country harboring terrorists (e.g., Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan) not being attacked, as I write this? Why are suspected terrorists not being rounded up around the world in a massive dragnet, as I write this? And why haven't Chirac and Schroeder gotten off their asses and joined the fight, rather than simply issuing statements of unity where "unity" doesn't even exist?


An Associated Presns (AP) story by writer Abe Levy, as reprinted in the today's "Houston Chronicle" (registration required), reports on the newly-formed "Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition" -- a group representing "16 counties on or near the Texas-Mexico border" -- and a meeting they're holding in Del Rio, Texas, on their respective communities' vulnerability to "terrorist intrusion."

Not only is the ongoing problem of Mexican emigrants entering Texas and the United States illegally under discussion, but of greater concern to the gatherered law enforcement officials is the geometric increase in non-Mexican illegals entering the country "who hail from nations where al-Qaida and other known terrorist groups are known to exist."

"We're the first line of defense for the country," said Terrell County Sheriff Clint McDonald, whose border with Mexico is 53 miles long. "We'd rather stop it with us than it end up in Dallas."

The number of non-Mexicans entering Texas illegally has reached 96,000 so far this year, versus 34,500 during the same time last year, says the U.S. Border Patrol. Many of the sheriffs are concerned because they say the detainees are given a "notice to appear" in court that they typically ignore on their way to urban centers.

Even more alarming is the following:

The coalition, formed in May, conducted Wednesday's meeting mostly behind closed doors because the sheriffs were discussing sensitive intelligence issues, said Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez, coalition president.

Gonzalez said sheriffs think Mexican violence has infiltrated Texas through "sleeper cells" entering the United States along porous areas of the border. Several of the sheriffs said fighting the battle has exhausted county budgets of fuel and manpower. They don't think federal agencies on the border are sharing intelligence that could help them.

These sheriffs and their officers witness firsthand daily the porosity of our nation's borders and understand the threat it poses. Their identification of "sleeper cells" should put President Bush and an indifferent Congress on notice that something must be done to strengthen border security! It's ridiculous that Washington has turned a deaf ear to the border states and the deleterious impact illegal immigration is having on them.


We in America know and understand your pain and the terrible grief and sense of loss that engulfs you. You are in our thoughts and prayers, as allies, as free citizens of the world, and as fellow human beings. We know this tragedy will test, but not weaken your resolve. The terrorists must be defeated. Your government will not respond as the government of Spain did to a terrorist attack on its transportation system. Your government will not turn tail and run. You Brits have always had a backbone in the face of tyranny and your courage and love of country will sustain you. Know this: we remain at each other's side and will see this dreadful thing through until free men and women prevail against this insidious cult of evil and cowardice.

Do remember the words of Winston Churchill:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last.


The headline of this post was my first reaction to the terrible news of "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" claiming responsibility for the bomb attacks on London's subway system that have left as many as 33 dead and 300+ injured. And it remains my reaction.

I wonder if France's Jacque Shirac is ashamed of himself today at the G8 Summit, on the heels of his controversial statements about British cuisine now that terrorists have struck one of the few European countries that chose not to follow Shirac's pussilanimous lead in refusing to join the alliance of countries, paced by the United States, that ousted Saddam Hussein and is now battling terrorists in Iraq.

I doubt that this jackass has enough character to be ashamed of himself over anything he does. Shirac cracks assinine jokes about mad cow disease and Bristish food, but won't lift a finger to join forces to repel the mad Islamic disease that takes the form of terrorism and deadly attacks on innocents in the twisted context of its deity.

And let's not stop with Spain, France and Germany (among others). Let's look to our own country and the equivalents as individuals of these nations: Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi (and all too many others)-- you know who they are. All the yellow-striped pontificators -- the ones who will look at this cold-blooded massacre in London and claim the United States and Great Britain, led by Bush and Blair, have stirred up the wrath of the Islamic Jihadists and that the war in Iraq is the genesis of these bombings, not radical Islamism!

I wonder what's going through Dick Durbin's mind right now? Probably this: "Prime Minister Blair, whatever you do, if you're able to nab any of the al-Qaida terrorists who bombed London's subway system, treat them well, do not use any form of interrogation techniques that could arouse my suspicions -- take the high road with the bad guys and, whatever you do, don't feed them British quisine!"

The terrorist bombings in London ought to strengthen our resolve as a nation to win the war on terrorism. But you just watch as this story unfolds ...

POSTSCRIPT: The G-8 leaders have issued a joint statement, according to this report from the Associated Press (AP), vowing to "not allow violence to change our societies or our values ..." As you can see, the joint statement was general enough in nature not to commit the countries of Canada, France, and Germany to actually doing anything to fight terrorists. Laughable was Mexico -- a do nothing country in the war on terrorism, but one which exports its own brand in terms of illegal emigrants, human smugglers, drug kingpins, and drug runners -- agreeing with the spirit of the joint statement. Are you gagging yet? But Bush must make nice with these cowards. After all, recall how liberal Democrats and the MSM made much about the lost prestige of the United States in the community of nations owing to Bush's hard-line approach in taking the war to the terrorists.

Text of G-8 Statement (Source: "Financial Times")

Tuesday, July 5


The Texas Legislature -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- is not in the least divided on the issue of wanting to reverse through state constituional amendments and legislation what the United States Supreme Court ruled recently in "Kelo v. City of New London", in expanding the rights of cities and minuicipalities in condemning private property for private economic development. The Supreme Court ruled in that 5-4 decision that a city can not just take your home for the building of a road, a park, a public library -- i.e., something for "public use" -- but it can also do so for the benefit of a private developer (e.g., for a plant, an office complex, a hotel, a shopping mall), provided there's an economic benefit to the city, such as increased tax revenues or increased employment (albeit those benefits do not have to be realized).

The "Houston Chronicle" (registration required) in an article in today's edition points to the fact that SCOTUS emphasized that "nothing in its ruling prevents states from placing new restrictions on the power of governmental bodies to take private property for economic development purposes." And that's just what the state of Texas intends to do.

As Polly Ross Huges writes:

Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in Austin said last week that they support the proposals to allow Texans to vote on the issue this November, saying the high court's ruling undermines the fundamental right to own private property.

And in Washington, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced legislation last week prohibiting the use of eminent domain authority for economic development purposes if federal funds are used.

"The protection of homes, small business and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's founding fathers," Cornyn said on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Not in recent memory has a Supreme Court decision generated the huge backlash from Americans that this has and appropriately so. And this writer is among the many who view "Kelo v. City of New London" as a SCOTUS' overstep. As I wrote in this post:

This is a decision that should unite an otherwise divided, red state/blue state, country, as it confers on the government an overweening, virtually unlimited right under a re-written Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- one that the Founding Father's never envisioned -- to seize your home and property on the pretext that any city and its public officials know best what is best for the common good of the community. And that good is no longer necessarily a public highway, or a bridge, or tunnel, or a school, but now perhaps a privately-held shopping center or mall or industrial complex or office center.

Eminent domain has, in the process, become a virtually unchecked, unrestrained right of the government to seize private property and disrespect the private citizen.

If the notion of an out-of-control Federal judiciary has escaped the grasp of many citizens up until now, particularly Liberal Democrats, those folks ought to begin re-thinking their positions with this egregious decision by the black robes.

Monday, July 4


Kevin Whited, to his credit, takes the "Houston Chronicle" to task today at "" for juxtaposing a Bush-bashing political cartoon that first appeared in the liberal "Atlanta Consitution" on June 30th with an editorial that describes Americans as united: "... no American reviles our troops or desecrates the flag, yet every American wishes the war would end."

What this writer wishes would end is the unquenched, unconstrained criticism of the president in a time of war by the liberal, mainstream media.

Even on a day in which patriotism should flourish, the editorial board of the "Houston Chronicle" chose to publish a cartoon depicting George Bush as an ape; and I'm not simply offended by it, I am furious about it. It's a slap in the face to our troops for whom George Bush is their Commander-In-Chief.

Since that fateful day -- September 11, 2001 -- there has not been a terrorist attack on this nation's soil. Couldn't the "Houston Chronicle" have set aside one day to honor the president?

Lincoln suffered more than his fair share of scurrilous, yellow press in his troubled days during the Civil War. It would appear that President Bush must carry his cross as well.

No wonder the "Houston Chronicle" is losing readership. It sunk to a new low today.


Dear Readers,

On this Fourth of July, 2005, I encourage you to go into this Web site, as President George W. Bush urged you to do in his speech today in West Virginia, and send the troops a message of support, or participate in some other way that assists our men and women in the United States' military.

Fly our country's flag and be mindful of your blessings of freedom.

We owe these men and women -- these American patriots -- so much!

Thank you and enjoy your holiday,

Bernard Higgins

Friday, July 1


So Ted Kennedy is already threatening (oh, he'll huff, and he'll puff, 'til he blows the house down) to foil the confirmation process before President Bush has even named his Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner.

Nobody cares, Senator Kennedy. You're old news. Besides, you're altogether too predictable.

Fact is, the upcoming fight on the Senate floor is going to center squarely on the abortion debate and in the context of Big League politics you're not even a player anymore, Senator Kennedy, and particularly after the Kerry-Edwards debacle. You picked Kerry, you backed Kerry, you turned your staff over to his presidential bid, and the whole enterprise went awry.

What this nomination process and the abortion debate that will attach to it are going to do is to flush out Hillary Clinton's belated romance with "Centrism." Hillary, the early favorite to win the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, isn't going to be able to dance. No amount of choreography will work. That's the dynamic here. She needs "Red State" support and cross-over votes and how she conducts herself during the confirmation hearings may make or break her candidacy.

That O'Conner opted to resign before Rehnqust must have the Junior Senator from New York in a fit of pique.


How the Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, behave in terms of the confirmation process on what will be (had damn well better be) most assuredly the nomination to the United States Supreme Court by President Bush of a Pro-Life, strict Constitutional constructionist will be one of the great litmus tests of our era; and the American people and the majority Party had better demand accountability. Nobody skates this time around. No fence-sitters. No repetition of the Robert Bork fiasco!

I will not pull any punches with my readers: my votes for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 had everything to do with his Pro-Life philosophy. That's what impressed me most about this honorable man. While I trusted him to protect us from terrorists in casting my vote for him in 2004, I was more interested in him placing the kind of people on the Supreme Court of our land (and in the Federal judiciary) who will protect the lives of the unborn from the abjectly selfish Pro-Choice crowd and the gruesome abortion mill industry that serves it.

I remember one presidential debate in particular where George Bush stated his position on abortion candidly and courageously, while Senator Kerry bobbed and weaved. The difference between the two was day and night. Kerry didn't have the courage of his convictions, because he has none.

For me, the key question is how is it that so many politicians in this country can look askance at the wholesale human invasion underway across our southern contiguous border with Mexico, while at the same time holding sacrosanct a "woman's right to choose" -- a euphemistic phrase that in the vast majority of instances means convenience for the mother and needless, oftentimes painful, death for her unborn child. It is beyond my ability to comprehend. For me, abortion is unconscionable, damnable, and thoroughly unacceptable, except in all but the rarest of circumstances.

How can anyone rationalize these grim numbers and the patent immorality of "Roe v. Wade" with the fact that 10 to 20 million illegal aliens are afoot in this country and the McCains and Kennedys in the United States Congress want to grant them amnesty? How about granting amnesty to the innocent, unborn "Americans" whose lives are snuffed out each year and with a cold-blooded indifference that is abominable? A Senator's first priority is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans, not Mexican nationals.

President Bush's nomination and the confirmation process that ensues will combine as one of the watershed moments in American history. I'm about to find out if I'm going to remain a Republican and whether a Republican majority in the United States Senate and a Pro-Life Republican in the White House can give me what they promised me and what in good conscience they cannot deny me or anyone in this country who believes, first and foremost, in the sanctity of life. Do we continue on the slippery slope of Progressive-Secularism or do we regain our equilibrium and return to the founding principles of this country and the ideas of Nature's God and of Nature's Law?


It goes without saying that the Democratic Party and its Senate Liberals will do everything in their power to disrupt the confirmation process of whoever President Bush's nominee is to fill the vacated seat in the United States Supreme Court. That's a given. All President Bush did in his Rose Garden comments on the heels of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's resignation was to ensure that the American people are geared up to watch what the Democrats are truly all about as a political party -- contretemps and obstructionism.

The radical Left feared this most during the 2004 presidential election: namely, the likelihood of President Bush, were he returned to office, of getting the opportunity in his second term of filling at least two Supreme Court seats.

So the game is on. Kennedy, Reid, and Dean will be pontificating and the Senate floor is about to turn blood-red. The blogosphere's polibloggers will be all over this.


Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner has resigned. The game is on now. President Bush will not be able to state publicly that there will be a Pro-Life litmus test for the candidates he draws from to fill the vacancy, but this writer and two-time voter for the president expects no less. I want the day to come when Roe v. Wade is reversed and the slaughter of the innocents ends, and I'm counting on the president and what I hope will be a genuine Republican majority in the Senate (and in lock-step for a change) to make that happen.

Now, however, we're about to see the true result of the John McCain-led pseudo compromise on the Senate's filibuster rule. We can watch the "Seven Horsemen of the Acepha-Lapse" flit about the floor of the U.S. Senate and in front of the CSPAN cameras, as they posture and endeavor to explain why the Senate Democrats are, true to form, obstructing the confirmation proceedings on the president's nominee and getting away with it. We're about to see just how ineffectual that deal was, despite all of McCain's preening and double-speak.


Jesse Jackson, erstwhile self-described civil rights leader, jumped all over El Presidente Vicente Fox's ill-regarded remarks back in May, when Mexico's Harvard-educated leader extolled the virtues of hard-working Mexican emigrants to the United States (not mentioning, of course, their illegality in being here), saying in the process and by invidious distinction that poor Black Americans were unwilling to do the work that Mexicans willingly do in the States. Indeed, after nurturing headlines across the country by decrying the offensiveness and patent racism of Fox's comments, Jesse vowed to go to Mexico City and he did just that. Now the reason for the trip, apart from his penchant for going anywhere, at any time, over most any issue, to get his mug on the front pages, has become clear.

Standing at the site of a landmark school integration battle, the Rev. Jesse Jackson locked arms Thursday with leaders of the nation's two largest Hispanic organizations to repeat his call for a new civil rights coalition.

Jackson said it was time to recall the two communities' shared history of discrimination.

"While some were picking beans, some were picking cotton, but we were both being picked on," he said in front of Little Rock Central High School, where integration in 1957 was the first major test of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling three years earlier.

"Most of the people in the world today are young, brown, black, poor, female, don't speak English," Jackson said. "So let's join the real world: Si, se puede (Yes, it can be done)."

Jackson announced in May he was forming a group that would address issues affecting blacks and Hispanics including fair immigration policies and voting rights.

On Thursday, Jackson appeared with Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latino American Citizens; Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza; and Minnijean Brown-Trickey, one of the famed "Little Rock Nine" who integrated the high school under armed guard.

Jesse Jackson has chosen to disregard the deleterious impact of our porous southern border and the millions of illegal immigrants in this country and, modeling his self-serving behavior after both major political parties, sees in the 10 - 20 million illegals afoot in our land (and with more of them breeching our borders every day) a propitious opportunity for shoring up his crumbling civil rights' activist base and enervated voting block. If he pulls this off, because the President and the Congress abet him by continuing to turn a deaf ear to "sans amnesty" immigration reform and tighter border security, Jesse's "Rainbow/PUSH Coalition" will in time take on a decidely more brown, rather than black, cast. In doing so, he'll be putting Mexico's interests first, not America's, and will be (despite the pretense of an avowed "coalition") disavowing his interest in the issues of his own race. Just look at the huge growth in the Hispanic population in this country, fueled by an unfettered human invasion from the south, and the handwriting is on the wall. Jesse's going where the action is. "Good-bye Watts; Hello El Monte!"

Important in what Jesse is doing is to take a hard look at the organizations he's courting and with whom he's endeavoring to affiliate: the League of United Latin American Citizens (the word "citizens" is interesting, don't you think?) and the National Council of La Raza, both of which actively promote amnesty for illegal aliens and lobby for the near full-fledged rights of American citizenship for people who are anything but.

Both former President Clinton and current DNC Chairman Howard Dean will be addressing LULAC's convention in Little Rock, Arkansas, tonight and over the weekend, so Jesse is not doing anything but being a fast-follower of the Democratic Party's fondness for exploiting this country's Number #1 domestic security issue: illegal immigration. But know, too, that President Bush is sending Cabinet members to the convention as well. So just what kind of organizations are Jesse Jackson and this country's two major political parties falling all over themselves to align with?


Although the formal trappings remain — the official colors of LULAC are still red, white, and blue; the official logo is still a shield emblazoned with the stars and stripes and bearing the name "LULAC"; "Washington's prayer" remains the official prayer of LULAC; "America" is still the official hymn; and the Pledge of Allegiance continues to be recited at the start of meetings — the LULAC which so vigorously championed traditional "Americanism" is gone. Today, LULAC is a "Hispanic" supremacist group advocating actions that are diametrically opposed to those championed by its founders.

The original LULAC declared "Mexican-Americans" to be "white," a part of the same race as European-Americans, and successfully lobbied both the federal and Texas governments to officially classify them as such. Nearly a quarter of a century later, LULAC's position changed. Beginning with Hernandez v. Texas in 1954 and finalized in OMB Directive No. 15 in 1977, LULAC succeeded in having the federal government recognize "Mexicans," and all "Hispanics," as separate from European-Americans and essentially "non-white" so as to be eligible for affirmative action programs.

While the original LULAC emphasized "Mexican-Americans" were "Americans" sharing the same national interests as other "Americans," today LULAC's goals center on "group entitlements" as can be seen in The 1998 LULAC Legislative Platform available on its website (

Among its objectives expansion of American empowerment and enterprise zones along the U.S.-Mexican border; incentives for "Hispanic" small businesses; retention of affirmative action hiring policies "to ensure diversity in all workplaces"; preventing California Proposition 209 from being enforced; increasing the number of "Hispanic Serving Institutions" and according them "as many of the same benefits provided to Historically Black Colleges and Universities"; increasing the number of "Hispanics" at all levels of the federal government and in the civil service, especially at "key positions in the State Department, the Foreign Service and the United Nations"; confirmation of 60 "Hispanic" judges; appointing a "Hispanic" as the next Supreme Court justice; employing sampling for the 2000 census; having the Census Bureau include the population on the island of Puerto Rico in the total "Hispanic" population for the United States; increasing the number of "Hispanic oriented programming in TV and print" as well as having the major media companies increase the number of "Hispanics" employed in "creative positions."

U.S. citizenship is no longer important. Membership in LULAC is not restricted to U.S. citizens. "Residents of the United States" are now eligible to become members (Article III of the Constitution of the League of United Latin American Citizens). Interestingly, it does not specify that they be legal residents. U.S. Citizenship is also apparently not a qualification for National, State, and District Officers, whether elected or appointed. (Article VIII, Section 4).

LULAC's apparent attempt to denigrate the meaning and value of U.S. citizenship extends to the franchise. In The 1998 LULAC Legislative Platform, the organization appears to condone, if not actually promote, the violation of this country's election laws. According to the section entitled "Voter Registration and Citizenship" "LULAC actively encourages eligible Hispanics to fully participate in the democratic process and register to vote. We also encourage those who are eligible to become citizens" (italics added). Since the law states one must be a U.S. citizen in order to be eligible to vote, the wording of this LULAC platform encourages voter fraud.

In 1954, LULAC supported immigration control and mass deportation of illegal aliens. Today, LULAC opposes both measures. Convicted criminal José Velez, the head of LULAC from 1990 to 1994, typifies this reorientation. Using his "special status with the INS as director of LULAC," Velez submitted false documentation for 6,000 illegal aliens seeking amnesty that netted him millions of dollars. Velez had previously declared that the U.S. Border Patrol is "the enemy of my people and always will be."

  • ULAC sought amendments to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 to increase the cap on suspensions of deportations from 4,000 to "at least 75,000 per year."
  • LULAC lobbied for full restoration of benefits cut by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 to legal immigrants.
  • LULAC was one of the primary opponents of California Proposition 187 — the proposition to deny illegal aliens free social and welfare services.
  • LULAC "reject[s] attempts to dramatically cut legal immigration" insisting that current levels of nearly one million a year "serve[s] the U.S. national interest."
  • LULAC opposes any deployment of the military to defend U.S. borders — not even to interdict drug smugglers — because "military personnel are not trained for border patrolling and might easily violate the civil rights of those they intervene with."

Prior to the 1960s, LULAC recognized English as the official language of the United States. Today, LULAC vigorously opposes any official recognition of English as the language of this country.


La Raza condemns the "step-up [in] immigration law enforcement significantly along the U.S./Mexico border and in the interior of the country" claiming such activities violate the civil rights of "Hispanics."

La Raza has called upon the Congress to rescind the immigration and welfare reform acts of 1996 calling them "a disgrace to American values." In addition, it has demanded another amnesty for illegal aliens from Central America coupled with this threat "Our elected officials should not be surprised if their failure to act on reforms of these terribly unjust laws is met with a firm response at the ballot box." And U.S. citizens should not be surprised that those going to the ballot box for La Raza include illegal aliens and non-citizens.

On its website,, La Raza claims to be "the largest constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the country…[with] over 200 formal affiliates who together serve 37 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia…and a broader network of more than 20,000 groups and individuals nationwide — reaching more than two million Hispanics annually."

Where does La Raza get the funding to support its many activities? According to its website, "the organization receives two-thirds of its funding from corporations and foundations, and the rest from the government." For the period 1992-1996, the total amount of "gifts, grants and contributions" to La Raza was more than $38 million. This does not include revenues from "government fees and contracts." Over three years, 1996-1998, La Raza received over five million dollars from just three foundations the majority, nearly four million dollars, from the ford foundation, $850,000 from the Carnegie Corporation, and another $850,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Many Black leaders in this country are on to the Reverend Jackson's antics and where his true priorities are, but what's important is that all Americans understand what's happening here.

Mind you, there is not a thing wrong with various voting blocks in this country aligning with one another to gain more leverage and political clout, and even if such alliances are grounded almost purely in ethnicity. What's wrong with what Jesse Jackson, LULAC, and La Raza are doing is that they are endeavoring to ensure that millions of illegals receive amnesty, that the human invasion from the south continues unfettered and uninterrupted, and that Homeland Security be damned in the selfish interest of amassing millions of voters.

And the hook? These organizations and the polictical alliances they form tap American citizens for the money necessary to provide illegals with social services and healthcare coverage that not even American citizens enjoy! We're subsidizing the purposeful exploitation of Latinos by activist Latino organizations who are merely riding the backs of illegal aliens in order to attain their own goals. Jesse Jackson, a nonpareil exploiter in his own right, is merely following his instincts and perpetuating his self-serving agenda.

The illegals are not being exploited. We are! Wake up, America!