Giuliani: Border Security and Terrorism

The attempted terror attacks in London and the attack in Glasgow, Scotland prompted Rudy Giuliani to link border security and terrorism.

NEW ORLEANS -- The car bomb scare in London and the attack Saturday at the Glasgow airport underscore the need for secure borders for the United States, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Saturday.

"This is the United Kingdom," he said. "They have security that is at least equal to ours; they have intelligence services that have even had more experience with terrorism than ours has, you know, they have to be subjected to this. We're in an era in which we need to know everyone who's in the United States."

Giuliani, who was mayor of New York at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, said the federal government needs to ensure that its borders are secure.

"We need to end illegal immigration," he said. "If we do, a lot of things can happen, in terms of how you resolve everything here. But if you don't end illegal immigration, almost nothing is possible, because no matter what you do, things are going to get worse."

Giuliani is proposing "tamper-proof" ID cards and a database that would track people in the United States from foreign countries. He also suggested strengthening enforcement at border crossings.

I don't think enough people connect ILLEGAL immigration and our porous borders with the terrorist threat.

A crucial aspect of the War on Terror is securing our borders.

Isn't it a no-brainer that we have to know who is coming into the U.S.?

How we deal with the immigration issue is directly related to how well we're able to protect the homeland.

Giuliani gets it.

London Terror Plot: WWAD

Thankfully, the terrorists lost another battle and the good guys won again.

Was the plot the work of Muslim extremists?

I think so.

Why?

It's what they do.

Is it fair to assume that Islamic radicals were behind the plot?

I think so.

Why?

The Free World is at war with them.

LONDON -- Police thwarted a devastating terrorist plot on Friday, discovering two Mercedes loaded with nails packed around canisters of propane and gasoline set to detonate and kill possibly hundreds in London's crowded theater and nightclub district.

The plot, coming only two days after Gordon Brown took over as prime minister, raised the specter of the attacks in July 2005 when the London Underground and an iconic double-decker bus were targeted by a group of homegrown terrorists who killed 52 people.

...Nobody claimed responsibility for the plot, and government security officials said late Friday that no suspects have been identified.

But the discovery of the second bomb, about 20 hours after the first, suggested a coordinated and more sophisticated plot than was initially thought — similar to the July 7, 2005 suicide bombings where four bombs exploded within an hour of one another on London's busy transit system.

Some analysts said the bombers could be trying to send a message to Britain's new leader.

"It's a way of testing Gordon Brown," said Bob Ayers, a security expert at the Chatham House think tank. "It's not too far-fetched to assume it was designed to expedite the decision on withdrawal (from Iraq)."

Professor Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and political violence at St. Andrews University, said a number of factors could have come together to prompt the thwarted attacks.

"With the change in prime minister this could be the work of al-Qaida," he said. "They have a track record of trying to influence political change through violent means such as in the Madrid train attacks.

Testing Gordon Brown?

I don't know about that.

I think the cowardly terrorists want to kill innocents. They would do that whether it was Brown or Blair.

They could come up with a million reasons to justify their actions.

Would withdrawal from Iraq make them stop plotting?

I don't see why. We weren't in Iraq when we were attacked on September 11, 2001, or all the other times during the 1990s.

They want to terrorize and control the West. It's that simple.

Iraq is the excuse du jour.

If the Brits were out of Iraq, the terrorists would come up with some new excuse.

The terrorists are immersed in an ideology of hate that runs much deeper than war in Iraq.

Killing is their reason for living. It's the purpose that drives them.

Maybe the Friday plots had nothing to do with putting Gordon Brown to the test.

Maybe terrorists wanted to blow up innocent people because they're ticked off about Salman Rushdie being knighted.

(CBS) -- Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital's tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: "Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed."

CBS News found the posting, which went on for nearly 300 words, on the "al Hesbah" chat room. It was left by a person who goes by the name abu Osama al-Hazeen, who appears regularly on the forum. The comment was posted on the forum, according to time stamp, at 08:09 a.m. British time on June 28 -- about 17 hours before the bomb was found early on June 29.

Al Hesbah is frequently used by international Sunni militant groups, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, to post propaganda videos and messages in their fight against the West.

There was no way for CBS News to independently confirm any connection between the posting made Thursday night and the car bomb found Friday.

Al-Hazeen's message begins: "In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. Is Britain Longing for al Qaeda's bombings?"

Al-Hazeen decries the recent knighthood of controversial author Salman Rushdie as a blow felt by all British Muslims. "This 'honoring' came at a crucial time, a time when the whole nation is reeling from the crusaders attacks on all Muslim lands," he said, in an apparent reference to the British role in Iraq.

"We say to Britain: The Emir of al Qaeda, Sheikh Osama, has once threatened you, and he carried out his threats. Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed," the message reads.

Yes, well, I guess these sickos believe Allah would want London bombed.

WWAD

WHAT WOULD ALLAH DO?

Terror attacks on London is doing God's work.

And Salman Rushdie deserves to be killed, and so do people in Britain.

God is Great!

Bailing Out Michael McGee

The jailed Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee gets by with a little help from his friends.

Yesterday, $50,000 bail was posted for McGee.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee is expected to appear in federal court today on bribery charges after his bail was posted on state charges Thursday.

Also Thursday, Common Council President Willie Hines Jr. said he wouldn't consider starting impeachment proceedings against McGee until the criminal charges were resolved.

A $50,000 cashier's check was posted for McGee's bail, sheriff's spokeswoman Kim Brooks said. McGee remained in the Milwaukee County Jail on a federal hold overnight.

The Rev. George King signed the check, Brooks said.

McGee's attorney, Glenn Givens, said King and another man, whom he didn't identify, put up the money. They believe McGee was being subjected to injustice and an inflated bail, Givens said.

Givens said King and the other man have never met McGee. He said King, who is nearly 80, was not a minister.

"This money comes from unimpeachable sources, from very upstanding citizens, people who have led a clean life and who are very concerned about what is going on," Givens said.

Who is the Rev. George King?

According to Givens, he's not a minister.

So why does he use the "Rev." title?

What sort of "very upstanding citizen" calls himself "Rev." even though he hasn't earned it?

Very odd.

When you think about it, what isn't odd about the McGee saga?

...If bail isn't argued, McGee would be held until a hearing can be scheduled.

Once McGee appears, prosecutors have 30 days to present the case to the grand jury for indictment.

McGee is lucky to have the Rev. George King in his corner.

The guy shows up with a cashier's check for $50,000 -- all that money to get poor persecuted McGee out of jail.

Too bad for McGee that it wasn't enough to free him. Those federal charges can be a real pain. Boo hoo.

So King, supposedly an unimpeachable source, is "very concerned about what is going on."

I'm concerned about what's going on, too.

It bothers me that McGee, an elected community leader, faces federal charges of "soliciting and taking bribes from business owners in his district."

I'm concerned that a state court has charged McGee "with lying to investigators, violating election law, paying for votes, breaking a court secrecy order and threatening to beat a man."

It troubles me that "he faces 12 counts, including seven felonies, in state court."

Given the sort of man McGee is, given how solid and damning the evidence against McGee seems to be, given how stupid McGee is, I wonder about his allies.

Is it possible to be an upstanding citizen and support McGee?

I'd like McGee's lawyer Givens to define "upstanding citizen."

We must be operating under different definitions.

In my opinion, a free Michael McGee is a dangerous McGee.

Who knows?

King may be an "unimpeachable source."

That doesn't change the fact that McGee is very impeachable.

Fire Hydrants and Parental Irresponsibility

The question is always the same when it comes to out of control, law-breaking kids--

Where are the parents?

Look! Here they are!

Jon Byman reports:

The City of Milwaukee says people are not only opening fire hydrants again this summer, but now they're making it difficult for city workers who come to close them. "When they go to turn off the hydrants, a lot of times the neighbors and the adults in the area will actually threaten them," said Cecilia Gilbert with the Milwaukee Department of Public Works. In fact, it has gotten so bad in some cases police have had to get involved.

Gilbert says opening hydrants is dangerous and costly. She says you can actually get hurt when you open the hydrant. Also, children who play in the water in the street have been hit by cars whose drivers can't see them. Perhaps the most critical problem, an open hydrant causes problems for firefighters if they need to fight a fire.

...Gilbert says people should use county pools are cool off in city cooling centers that open whenever it gets especially hot.

The adults in the area actually threaten the city workers for doing their jobs, turning off the fire hydrants that were opened illegally.

And people wonder why areas of Milwaukee are such a mess.

What horrible role models these kids have!

To the so-called adults: GROW UP.

Ann Coulter -- Elizabeth Edwards Smackdown

Chris Matthews and MSNBC's low-rated Hardball are actually getting some attention.

Democrat hack Matthews allowed the John Edwards campaign to exploit an appearance by Ann Coulter on Tuesday's show.

Was Elizabeth Edwards sitting around the big house, watching Hardball when she decided to try to get through and confront Coulter? Was this a spontaneous bit of political drama?

Hardly.

Things like that don't just happen. They are made to happen.

David Shuster, Hardball correspondent, explains how Elizabeth Edwards managed to call into the show and challenge guest Ann Coulter.

While the campaign was raising money, Elizabeth Edwards decided to confront Coulter herself on Tuesday's "Hardball." Every major blog and Web site that covers politics and covers the news has featured the video of that phone call—from The Drudge Report, Huffingtonpost, TV Newser. And the downloads keep coming on YouTube.

So how did the Ann Coulter-lizabeth Edwards confrontation happen?

Before Tuesday’s Hardball appearance, MSNBC and MSNBC.com promoted that viewer comments and questions would be part of the program.

According to Hardball executive producer Tammy Haddad: “The Edwards campaign called to ask if it was possible that Elizabetth could talk to Ann Coulter live on the air. And we told them yes.”

In turn, Haddad had a conversation with Coulter. “I talked to Ann before the show and told her we had gotten a call from the Edwards campaign and that Elizabeth might call in and she was fine with it,” she says.

In the third block of the show, Elizabeth Edwards was patched in. This morning, the confrontation got more air time on the Today Show. On the show, Chris weighed in, saying “In human terms, Elizabeth Edwards has won this round.”

There was nothing spontaneous about the call.

The Edwards campaign was merely carrying out it's TV Blitzkrieg strategy targeting Coulter.

The week began with John and Elizabeth Edwards appearing together on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, all folksy and likable and down to earth.

Tuesday, the Edwards campaign played the victim card, using Ann Coulter's Hardball appearance as a pity ploy.

Transcript excerpts:

MATTHEWS: You know who is on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today. We said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You‘re on the line with Ann Coulter.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS, WIFE OF JOHN EDWARDS: Hello, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something directly to the person who is with me?

EDWARDS: I‘m calling—you know, in the South, we—when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it.

I would like to ask Ann Coulter to—if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today. But—but it is quite another matter to—for these personal attacks.

That‘s—the things that she has said over the years, not just about John, but about other candidates, is—lowers our—our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.

So, I—I want to use the opportunity, which I don‘t get much, because Ann and I don‘t hang out with the same people—to ask...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: ... have enough money.

EDWARDS: .... her politely to stop the personal attacks.

COULTER: OK. So, I made a joke, let‘s see, six months ago. And, as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months, since then.

MATTHEWS: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

COULTER: I didn‘t say anything about him, actually, either time.

EDWARDS: Ann knows—you know that‘s not true. And, what‘s more, this has been going on for some time.

COULTER: And I don‘t mind you trying to raise money. I mean, it‘s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor...

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you—I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: ... just to use my name on the Web pages. But, as for a debate with me, yes, sure.

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: Yes, we will have a debate.

EDWARDS: ... to stop—to stop personal attacks.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: How about you stop raising money on your Web page, then?

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: No, you don‘t have to, because I don‘t mind.

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: It did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago...

COULTER: Great. OK.

EDWARDS: ... where you suggested that...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: The wife of a presidential candidate is calling in, asking me to stop speaking?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.

COULTER: You‘re asking me to stop speaking? Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Ann, please.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: OK.

EDWARDS: You had a column a couple of years ago which—which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean‘s death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, “Ask me about my dead son.”

COULTER: That‘s now three years ago.

EDWARDS: This is not legitimate political dialogue. It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can‘t have a debate about issues if you‘re using this kind of language.

COULTER: Yes, why isn‘t John Edwards making this call?

MATTHEWS: Well, do you want to respond? We will end this conversation.

EDWARDS: I have not talked to John about this call.

COULTER: I think this is just another attempt for...

EDWARDS: I‘m making this call as a mother. I‘m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate. These young people behind you are the age of my children. You‘re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness, instead of on the issues.

And I don‘t—I don‘t think that is serving them or this country very well.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Elizabeth Edwards.

Do you want to—you have all the time in the world to respond to that.

COULTER: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking.

No.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries, based on science...

MATTHEWS: OK.

COULTER: Wait. You said I would have as long as I would have.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

COULTER: And you instantly interrupt me.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can‘t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don‘t talk to me about how to use language.

MATTHEWS: Elizabeth.

EDWARDS: ... language of hate. And I am going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.

COULTER: OK, I will stop writing books.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Why do you talk about...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: If you can‘t write them without them, then that is fine.

Surprise, surprise!

Mrs. Edwards' performance just happened to be one of the seeds of a large fundraising effort. Operation Ann Coulter would be a fitting name for it.

It was a clearly calculated move.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday encouraged his supporters to donate to his campaign in response to "hateful" comments from conservative author Ann Coulter.

Edwards made his first comments to The Associated Press in response to Coulter's suggestion that she wished he would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot." His campaign cited her remarks in two e-mails and a telephone text message to supporters for donations, with the fundraising deadline on Saturday.

...In the e-mails, the campaign asked supporters to send donations to defy her remarks and help Edwards meet his goal of raising $9 million in the second quarter. The first e-mail from campaign adviser Joe Trippi showed a clip of Coulter on ABC's "Good Morning America," where she made the comments on Monday.

...Mrs. Edwards followed up with an e-mail to supporters Wednesday morning that included a clip of the [Edwards/Coulter] exchange and a donation request. The campaign also sent a text message to supporters' cell phones, asking them to call to hear a recording of the clip and an appeal from Mrs. Edwards to donate. The campaign said it raised more money this week than from any previous e-mail campaign but declined to give a total.

It seems to me that the Edwards campaign did the very thing that they were accusing Ann Coulter of doing.

The Edwards campaign shamelessly chose to exploit the death of Charlie Dean, the Edwards' son, to raise money.

There's something very twisted about John and Elizabeth Edwards' orchestrated outrage over Ann Coulter. I'm sure comments made by Coulter about the death of their son have been hurtful. But this wasn't about that pain. It was about seizing her remarks to rake in cash.

Then, shock of shocks! John Edwards was on Hardball Wednesday to discuss Tuesday's drama.

Democrat hack Matthews sounded like he was a paid worker on the Edwards campaign.

He didn't challenge Edwards when he clearly was misleading about how his wife just happened to call up and do battle with Ann Coulter. He didn't say a word about the set up.

When Matthews asked Edwards why he didn't call into the show to challenge Coulter, Edwards said, "The simple answer to that is Elizabeth I guess heard, and heard her and knew she was on, and called in. So I thought it was appropriate that I come on today.... Elizabeth made this decision on her own to call in."

He certainly makes it sound like it was spontaneous. That, of course, isn't true.

I think it's pretty pathetic that Edwards' campaign must be floundering so badly that it's necessary to resort to playing off of the Left's hate for Coulter as a means to raise money.

What's the deal? Isn't the "two Americas" thing resonating with the public? Do they think that running on an anti-Coulter agenda would be more effective?

Edwards accused Coulter of making comments "calculated to create an emotional response. They're calculated to make people hate."

Flip that around. This whole thing is a coordinated effort on the part of the Edwards campaign. Edwards is counting on an emotional response and trying to benefit by getting people to hate Coulter. He hopes slamming Coulter translates into campaign donations.

Matthews, total Dem mouthpiece that he is, said that Elizabeth may have made a strategic error by assuming she could get Ann Coulter to express shame.

Oh, give me a break!

Edwards responded on cue, "I don't think she has any shame. There's no doubt about that."

He went on, "These people are crazies. There's nothing remotely mainstream about them, and normal people are repelled by them."

GAG!!!

Where does John Edwards get off lecturing about Coulter's lack of shame?

John Edwards is synonymous with no shame.

This was all about raising money, not raising the level of political discourse.

Check out Edwards' website.

The Right Wing Attacks!
Tuesday evening Elizabeth Edwards called Ann Coulter live on Hardball to ask for an end to her personal attacks on John and other candidates. Coulter's response? More personal attacks.

It's up to us to raise the dialogue by taking our message straight to voters. Let's show that Ann Coulter style politics will never carry the day. We have 4 days to reach $9 million. Please donate today:

$25 $50 $100 Other

Good grief.

No shame. No shame at all.

The ILLEGAL Immigration Solution

All of these votes.

All of these amendments.

So much hostility.

So many unnecessary headaches.

There is a simple solution to get a grip on the ILLEGAL immigration problem. It's not a perfect solution, but at least it's a start. It would be much better than the immigration bill currently being considered in Senate.

This solution should appeal to the libs, always looking to forfeit our sovereignty, give a back seat to American interests, and kowtow to the global community.

It should also make the conservatives happy. It takes a tough stance on upholding the rule of law.

Let's have a uniform policy for all countries of the Americas.

The United States and Mexico could be the first to adopt the shared policy.

Actually, Mexico wouldn't have to do anything. The country already employs this policy.

All we have to do is follow Mexico's lead. We can model U.S. immigration law on current Mexican immigration law.

Simple.

J. Michael Waller provides the details.

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

---in the country legally;

---have the means to sustain themselves economically;

---not destined to be burdens on society;

---of economic and social benefit to society;

---of good character and have no criminal records; and

---contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

---immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

---foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

---foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

---foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

---foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

---those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent?

If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

Read more.

Why struggle to construct a massive, comprehensive overhaul of our immigration policy?

Why not just adopt the policy that works so well for our good neighbors to the south?

Sound good?

Good.

Eugene Kane's Journalistic Credibility

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist and race-baiter Eugene Kane wrote a compelling piece that appeared in the Sunday paper, "They're the few, and they haven't got a clue."

Kane was commenting on the violence that followed the Juneteenth Day festivities in Milwaukee.

Of course, it was that video of the merciless beating of Pat Kasthurirangaian, a motorist unlucky to be caught in the mob of thugs and picked to be their victim, that captured the attention of the nation and brought disgrace to Milwaukee.

So Kane gave his readers a glimpse into the thought processes of these ruthless thugs, these conscienceless brutes.

Kane writes:

The few who ruin it for everybody have been such a big part of activities in Milwaukee's black community for the past few years that, unfairly or not, they have come to define "black people" for many Milwaukeeans. As it happens, I recently managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions:

Me: Thanks to all of you for agreeing to an interview. First of all, I want to know if you young people realize the damage you are doing to the reputation of black people in Milwaukee.

The Few Who Ruin It for Everybody: "What do you mean?"

Q. When you act up after Juneteenth Day - like dragging a motorist out of his car and beating him senseless - that sends a scary message to everybody who sees it on the news. Don't you realize that?

A. "Yeah, we do. It's kinda cool, really. That means everybody is scared of us."

Q. Is that what you want, for people to be afraid of you?

A. "Sure. Why not?"

The question and answer session goes on.

It concludes dramatically:

Q. What is it going to take to reach out to you guys in order to be hopeful about the future?

A. "Why do you want to reach us? Like you said, we're the dropouts, the ones without good parents, the ones who don't really think much about the future beyond the next day. Plus, we can get all the guns we want. What good do you think reaching out to us is going to do?"

Q. So, it's hopeless?

A. "Not as long as we're the few. When we become the many, that's when you will really have problems."

How enlightening!

How powerful!

And as it turns out, how FAKE!

Charlie has an e-mail exchange between Kane and retired journalist Ray Py.

Py called Kane on his brand of journalism. He took issue with what he believed was a fraudulent interview presented as factual.

After Kane admitted to Py that he hadn't really "managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants," Py replied:

As a retired journalist, I knew exactly what you were doing and that still doesn't make it right. If I were your editor and you handed me this drivel, I would have told you to get out from behind the computer, put your street shoes on and find these men. Learn what you can in a "real" interview instead of what you have put together in a fake one. Then you would be making a difference. Gene, we need to talk to these people and these people need to talk to us. We need dialog and we need it in a real sense. I thought briefly when I saw your column Sunday that you had that message. I think you owe us all an apology for not doing your job.

Ray PY

Kane playing loose with the facts is particularly noteworthy given his previous criticism of bloggers, attacking their lack of standards and dismissing their credibility.

In a column from January 2006, Kane took on bloggers in general as part of his feud with Jessica McBride.

After writing a column for almost 10 years, I've developed a pretty thick skin when it comes to personal attacks.

Reading negative blogs is no different from the talk radio squawkers in town who have attempted to paint me as a racist ideologue for years, even as they get tripped up with their own personal scandals involving hate speech suspensions and libel lawsuits.

The blogosphere has no sheriff to police most of the comments or statements. But I predict the legal system eventually will step in to restrain some of the more outrageous commentary sent out over the blogosphere.

Some of this stuff is just too ugly to let go unchecked.

Nobody checks your credentials - or your credibility - at the blogosphere door.

Blah, blah, blah.

Eugene Kane, the stellar journalist, the man of integrity.

Yeah, right.

He whines about no one checking the credentials or credibility of bloggers.

Apparently, no at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is too concerned about credibility, at least when it comes to Kane's stuff.

Kane did not clearly inform his readers that the interview was FAKE.

In fact, he went out of his way to mislead readers, saying that he "managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions."

Kane can interview his imaginary friends. He can write his questions and record the answers provided by the miscreants in his head.

What he can't do is pass it off as reality.

He failed to clarify that the interview was his creation. It was creative writing, not reporting.

What was that about the blogosphere having "no sheriff to police" it?

What was that about no one checking bloggers' credentials - or credibility - at the blogosphere door?

Kane does owe his readers an apology. His editor also owes the readers an apology.

I won't hold my breath.
__________________________

It took a week for the Journal Sentinel to get Kane to clarify, and express sympathy for the stupidity of his readers.

Tacked on to the end of his column yesterday, July 1:

The Few Who Ruin It for Everybody: Lots of readers thought last Sunday's column was a powerful statement on the troubles with disruptive young black people in Milwaukee. But some were confused about whether the column was written from an actual interview with a group of specific young people who talked about their viewpoints.

It wasn't.

The column - you can read it at www.jsonline.com/links - was my attempt to address the issue of young blacks who find creative ways to spoil positive events in the black community, such as the beating of an innocent motorist at Juneteenth Day. Although based on my experiences talking with young people about violence in the city, the dialogue was never meant to be taken literally as an actual interview.

I was surprised that some readers misinterpreted my writing device, which was admittedly more literary than journalistic. I apologize for any confusion.

It would have been nice for Kane to say he apologized for misleading his readers by stating unequivocally that he "recently managed to make contact with this shadowy group of miscreants in order to ask some important questions."

Instead, he preferred to diss his readers for failing to pick up on his use of a literary device.

At least Kane did take responsibility for the confusion.

With the Journal Sentinel's dramatic loss of subscribers, I guess it makes sense that the decision was made for Kane to clear up the confusion.

Paris Hilton Trash

People magazine is feeding the public's hunger for details on the Paris Hilton story, "My Life Behind Bars."

EXCLUSIVE interview!

EXCLUSIVE photos!

Whatever floats your boat.

I'm glad I bothered to click on the link as I was scanning Drudge this morning. It gave me a good Hump Day laugh.

I think this is funny.

Look at this screen cap from People's site.



The GLAD Trash Bags ad juxtaposed with the Paris Hilton EXCLUSIVE says it all.

Priceless.

Milwaukee Brewers' Success and George Webb Burgers

The Milwaukee Brewers may actually make it to the All-Star break in first place.

Incredible!

Last night, the Brewers beat the Astros at Miller Park.

The sixth inning was explosive.

With catcher Johnny Estrada capping a nine-run outburst with his first career grand slam, the Brewers roared from behind to pummel the Astros, 11-5.

That's good news for Brewer fans and good news for fans of George Webb burgers.

In addition to its decades old prediction that the Brewers will win 12 straight games and its promise to serve up FREE burgers when that happens (like in 1987), the Milwaukee restaurant chain offers another Brewers related deal.

George Webb predicts our Brewers will score 5 runs in a game. When they do, you'll get: 6 burgers for 5 bucks.

WIN or LOSE! HOME or AWAY!
If our Brewers score 5 runs in
a game we all win!

Stop into any George Webb restaurant and get 6 burgers for $5!!

Our Milwaukee Brewers scored
5 or more runs 74 times during
the 2006 season!!

The Summer of Love was forty years ago.

The Summer of Webb's is now.

Sicko Michael Moore and Jay Leno

It was tough to watch The Tonight Show Tuesday night with guest Michael Moore, and not just because Michael Moore looks like he's put on a ton of weight.

It was Moore's incessant cheerleading for socialized medicine that was nauseating. It was his cheerleading for socialism in general.

While hawking Sicko, his latest Leftist propaganda piece masquerading as a documentary, Moore relayed stories about how superior Cuba's system is to ours. He told of Cuba being even better than Canada's incredible health care. You know, the system that sends desperate, seriously ill Canadians across the border to get medical care in the U.S.

One of the most ridiculous claims that Moore made was that government control of health care would mean less bureaucracy. That's so out of touch it's laughable.

Moore thinks that something as important as health care should not be left in the hands of the private sector. He believes the government would be more effective in managing care. Again, laughable.

Leno did challenge Moore slightly once. He brought up the fact that if Cuba is so great than it's odd that the people risk their lives to escape the island, coming to the U.S. on rafts and boats.

Moore basically ignored the question.

For the most part, Leno was lapping up Moore's pablum. Leno complimented Moore's aggressive style a number of times, telling him how much he likes what Moore does.

Leno nodded and just accepted what Moore was reciting as gospel truth -- If you're sick or injured, Cuba is the best place to be.

Yes, Moore definitely seems to be in love with all things Cuban.

The rotund Moore would fit right in with all those newly overweight Cubans, too.

HAVANA -- Cubans are no strangers to the battle of the bulge. Waistlines have expanded since the economic crisis of the early 1990s eased on the communist-run island - so much so that 30 percent of adults are now overweight, a newly released government study reveals.

Some people outside Cuba hold on to a stereotype of malnourished Cubans waiting in lines for a few potatoes, but there's ample evidence to the contrary in Havana, where bulging waistlines are stuffed into snug skirts or peek through too-tight guayabera shirts.

"People eat lots of things like pizza and bread that fill you up, but put on a lot of weight," said Lucia, a plump housewife who didn't want her last name used, saying she was embarrassed about her weight and uncomfortable talking publicly about something as political as food.

Can you imagine being uncomfortable talking publicly about something as POLITICAL as food?

Yeah, Cuba is a real paradise.

"If you want to go on a diet it's hard because vegetables and fruits cost a lot," she said.

...Cuba has a food ration system that supplements diets with a subsidized basket of rice, beans, potatoes, bread, eggs, a little meat, fish and chicken and other goods. The government estimates it provides a third of the 3,300 calories each Cuban consumes daily.

Cubans also get subsidized meals at work and school, and buy food at farmers markets and overpriced supermarkets or through black market purchases and trades.

Residents say getting food remains challenging, but it's easier now than in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and generous subsidies ended.

Sounds wonderful, doesn't it?

I can't picture Moore handling the food ration system.

He strikes me as a "must feed on demand" kind of guy.

Funny that Moore never mentioned Cuba's food rationing when he was suggesting that Americans should get on rafts and head for the island Utopia, land of universal health care.

Richard Lugar and George Voinovich

The lib media are in full drool mode over Richard Lugar and George Voinovich and their calls for American troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The Washington Post's arousal over the thought of Republicans abandoning Bush and his Iraq policy is palpable.

Key Republican senators, signaling increasing GOP skepticism about President Bush's strategy in Iraq, have called for a reduction in U.S. forces and launched preemptive efforts to counter a much-awaited administration progress report due in September.

In an unannounced speech on the Senate floor Monday night, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. military escalation begun in the spring has "very limited" prospects for success. He called on Bush to begin reducing U.S. forces. "We don't owe the president our unquestioning agreement," Lugar said.

The harsh judgment from one of the Senate's most respected foreign-policy voices was a blow to White House efforts to boost flagging support for its war policy, and opened the door to defections by other Republicans who have supported the administration despite increasing private doubts.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, sent a letter to Bush yesterday urging the president to develop "a comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement" from Iraq. "I am also concerned that we are running out of time," he wrote.

This is supposed to be a dramatic turn in the tide?

Way back in October of 2005, The Washington Post reported virtually the same thing, that there was "shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill" among Republicans.

Flash back:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faced testy criticism yesterday from both Republican and Democratic senators for what they called a vague and troubled strategy in Iraq and for the administration's refusal to offer a concrete timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Rice avoided answering questions about whether American troops would still be in Iraq in five or 10 years, noting only that insurgents would continue to kill innocents for "a long time." In a new effort to stabilize Iraq, she said, the United States will deploy civilian-military teams throughout Iraq next month to foster nation-building, from courts and social services to sewage treatment.

The give-and-take underscored shifting opinion about the war on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee appealed for greater candor and more concrete information. "We have to level with the American people," said George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio).

...Although Democrats have long challenged U.S. Iraq policy, Republican senators were also expressing concern. Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said the administration can no longer assume that creating democratic institutions in Iraq in the short term will diminish the insurgency, which could have long-term implications.

"Permanent instability or civil war in Iraq could set back American interests in the Middle East for a generation -- increasing anti-Americanism, multiplying the threats from tyrants and terrorists and reducing our credibility," he said.

Lugar and Voinovich have been vocal critics of Bush and his Iraq policy for nearly two years.

There recent statements should come as no surprise, nor should they be seen as indicative of a wholesale bail out on the part of the Republican Party.

Citing Lugar and Voinovich to illustrate that Bush is losing support from members of his own party is disingenuous at best. These senators haven't been staunch supporters of Bush. In fact, I don't consider them to be staunch Republicans. Their conservative credentials are flimsy.

These senators don't supply examples of "shifting opinion" or "increasing GOP skepticism. They've been limp for quite a while now. Any firm support they had for the President is just a distant memory. It's been absent for years.

When it comes to Iraq, Lugar broke with his party long ago. He's been very vocal in his criticism of the President's Iraq policy; and Voinovich certainly can't be counted on to support Bush. He's not a very stable man. The thought of John Bolton being the U.S. Ambassador to the UN reduced Voinovich to tears.

Voinovich hasn't received this much attention from the media since his breakdown over Bolton.

Democracy Now! tells of the Voinovich - Bolton drama:

During the most dramatic moment of the debate Republican George Voinovich choked back tears as he plead with his colleagues not to vote for Bolton. Voinovich said "I don't want to take the risk. I came back here and ran for a second term because I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren. And I just hope my colleagues will take the time and... do some serious thinking about whether or not we should send John Bolton to the United Nations."

Of course, a year later, Voinovich did a 180 on Bolton. He commended Bolton for a job well done at the UN. He dried his tears and praised the ambassador, his fears allayed.

Let's be honest. Voinovich is unstable and the man doesn't have the best judgment.

And when it comes to Lugar, I don't see what the big deal is. He's been yapping against Bush and Iraq like a Dem for a long, long time.

The Post treated Lugar and Voinovich as bellwethers of GOP opinion in 2005. Today's article is simply déjà vu all over again.

True, the senators are now calling for troop withdrawals. That can rightly be seen as an escalation of their skepticism; but let's not pretend that Lugar and Voinovich have been supporters of Bush and they've suddenly turned on him.

It's not true.
__________________________

The Associated Press is also bent on shoring up the story. Read more here.

Bush, the Immigration Bill and the Media

So, will the lib media tout today's Senate vote to invoke cloture as a victory for President Bush?

They relished the idea of Bush's party abandoning him on the immigration issue.

Will they now report how 24 Republicans rallied to his side?

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to jump-start a stalled immigration measure to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.

President Bush said the bill offered a "historic opportunity for Congress to act," and appeared optimistic about its passage by week's end.

The pivotal test-vote was 64-35 to revive the divisive legislation. It still faces formidable obstacles in the Senate, including bitter opposition by GOP conservatives and attempts by some waverers in both parties to revise its key elements.

Supporters needed 60 votes to scale procedural hurdles and return to the bill. A similar test-vote earlier this month found just 45 supporters, only seven of them Republicans.

Tuesday's outcome was far from conclusive, however. The measure still must overcome another make-or-break vote as early as Thursday that will also require the backing of 60 senators, and there is no guarantee that it will ultimately attract even the simple majority it needs to pass.

I'm not talking about the merits of the immigration bill here.

I think it's a disaster, riddled with loopholes.

What I'm focusing on is how the media are presenting the bill's life, its journey.

After today's vote, will the media trumpet Bush's power?

Will they praise his ability to persuade members of the Senate to stand by him?

Will his political prowess be commended?

I haven't seen any indication of that.

I guess the bill's fate isn't a measure of Bush's strength anymore. The lib media appear to have abandoned that angle, at least temporarily.
_______________________

Bush's "Republican" Allies:

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Burr (R-NC)

Coleman (R-MN)

Collins (R-ME)

Craig (R-ID)

Domenici (R-NM)

Ensign (R-NV)

Graham (R-SC)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lott (R-MS)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL)

McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Snowe (R-ME)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)
_______________________

Read more about the "Countdown to Amnesty."

Chris Benoit

Truth is stranger than fiction.

When the truth involves murder, it's far more deplorable and painful and tragic than any fiction could ever be.

World Wrestling Entertainment's Monday Night Raw program on USA Network Monday night was supposed to feature a fictional memorial service for the character of WWE chief Vince McMahon.

The show did end up featuring a memorial service, however it was for three very real people: WWE wrestler Chris Benoit and his wife and son, all of whom were found dead in their suburban Atlanta home earlier on Monday.

...The show opened with McMahon standing in an empty ring in Corpus Christi, Texas, where the Raw show was supposed to feature a memorial for McMahon's "Mr. McMahon" character, who was blown up in a car, according to the show's storyline.

"Tonights storyline was to have been the alleged demise of my character, Mr. McMahon," said a sullen McMahon, wearing jeans instead of his customary tailored suits. "However in reality, WWE superstar Chris Benoit, his wife Nancy and their son Daniel are dead."

The remainder of the show was a three-hour tribute to Benoit.

When the tribute aired, media outlets were reporting that the deaths were being investigated as homicides.

Did McMahon and the WWE know at the time that it was likely a murder-suicide, with Benoit the suspected murderer?

If they did, I think it was grossly inappropriate to air a tribute to Benoit.

If they didn't, I don't think USA Network should be condemned for airing the tribute.

As more information on the deaths is revealed, it seems anything meant to glorify Benoit must be viewed as glorifying a murderer.

FAYETTEVILLE, Ga -- Pro wrestler Chris Benoit canceled a pay-per-view appearance at the "Vengeance" event in Houston because of "personal reasons" a day before he, his wife and their 7-year-old son were found dead in an apparent murder-suicide.

Details of the deaths "are going to prove a little bizarre" when released to the public, Fayette County District Attorney Scott Ballard told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Autopsies were scheduled Tuesday by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Authorities were investigating the deaths at a secluded Fayette County home as a murder-suicide and were not seeking any suspects.

Investigators believe Benoit (pronounced ben-WAH) killed his wife, 43-year-old Nancy, and son Daniel during the weekend and then himself Monday. The bodies were found Monday afternoon in three separate rooms of the house, off a gravel road about two miles from the Whitewater Country Club.

Ballard told The Associated Press a gun was not used in any of the deaths, but he would not say how the three died.

"We're pretty sure we know, but we want to confirm it with the crime lab," Ballard said early Tuesday.

This is so sad.

Whatever Benoit's problems were, why did he take the lives of his wife and son?

If he couldn't bear to live, than he could have decided to deal with that in any way he saw fit.

But why take others out with him?

Did Benoit have issues with his wife? Was he angry with her?

Domestic disputes that end in murder aren't unheard of.

I just don't understand how a father could rob his 7-year-old son of his future.

I'm reminded of the shootings in Delavan a couple weeks ago.

Whatever was behind the domestic dispute, whatever wrongs there might have been, I can't fathom anyone responding by taking away the lives of others, especially those of innocent children.
________________________

More details here.

Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with the pulley of a weight machine, authorities said Tuesday.

Investigators found prescription anabolic steroids in the house and want to know whether the muscle man nicknamed "The Canadian Crippler" was unhinged by the bodybuilding drugs, which can cause paranoia, depression and explosive outbursts known as "roid rage."

Authorities offered no motive for the killings, which were spread out over a weekend, and would not discuss Benoit's state of mind. No suicide note was found.

...Benoit's wife, 43, was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said.

The son, Daniel, was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, Ballard said.

Benoit, 40, apparently killed himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.

The prosecutor said he found it "bizarre" that the WWE wrestling star spread out the killings over a weekend and appeared to remain in the house for up to a day with the bodies.

What's also "bizarre" is that initial reports said the deaths were being investigated as homicides.

At first glance of the scene in the home, it would seem pretty clear that Benoit committed suicide.

I wonder how much information the WWE had at the time USA Network ran the tribute to Benoit.

I would hope that they had few details and were led to believe that Benoit was a victim as well and not the killer of his wife and son when the decision was made to spend three hours of airtime to honor Benoit.
_________________________

More information on the case was made public Wednesday:

In the days before pro wrestler Chris Benoit killed his wife and child and hanged himself, the couple argued over whether he should stay home more to take care of their mentally retarded 7-year-old son, an attorney for the wrestling league said Wednesday.

"I think it's fair to say that the subject of caring for that child was part of what made their relationship complicated and difficult, and it's something they were both constantly struggling with," said Jerry McDevitt, an attorney for World Wrestling Entertainment. "We do know it was a source of stress and consternation."

McDevitt said the wrestling organization learned from the couple's friends and relatives that the Benoits were struggling with where to send the boy to school since he had recently finished kindergarten.

He also said Benoit's wife didn't want him to quit wrestling, but she "wanted him to be at home more to care for the kid. She'd say she can't take care of him by herself when he was on the road."

The child suffered from a rare medical condition called Fragile X Syndrome, an inherited form of mental retardation often accompanied by autism, McDevitt said.

...Benoit had been under the care of Dr. Phil Astin, a longtime friend, for treatment of low testosterone levels. Astin said the condition likely originated from previous steroid use.

Astin prescribed testosterone for Benoit in the past but would not say what, if any, medications he prescribed the day of their meeting.

"He was in my office on Friday to stop by just to see my staff," Astin said. "He certainly didn't show any signs of any distress or rage or anything."

"I'm still very surprised and shocked, especially with his child Daniel involved," Astin said. "He worshipped his child."

This really is heartbreaking.

According to his doctor, Benoit "worshipped his child" Daniel.

But Benoit killed him. He killed the son that he worshipped.

Try to make sense of that. Impossible.

Questions about "roid rage" are legitimate. There are larger issues here that can be debated.

For now, I can't get past the three deaths. I can't get past the murder of that little boy.
_______________________

This is weird.

Read about Benoit's Wikipedia entry here.

Bo Black's Summerfest Legacy

The anticipation is growing. Milwaukee's annual Summerfest is just two days away.

Today, before the gates open up on the 40th addition of the Big Gig on Thursday, Bo Black will be honored for her tremendous contributions to the event.

From The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The ubiquitous face of the festival for nearly half its 39 years has been etched into a piece of stone that will dedicate the children's fountain, just inside the main gate, to Black and her work.

The granite plaque attached to a concrete base standing 3 feet tall will be unveiled this afternoon, along with two benches placed next to the fountain.

When Summerfest opens its 40th Big Gig on Thursday, kids old and young will splash in the Elizabeth Bo Black Children's Fountain, named in her honor and in appreciation and recognition of her 19 years of service as executive director of the festival and Milwaukee World Festival Inc.

..."We thought it would be very appropriate to establish a permanent acknowledgment of her accomplishments and tenure," said Howard Schnoll, chairman of the festival board.

Still recovering from a stroke she suffered in February, Black will be unable to attend the dedication.

...In a short telephone interview Monday, she said it was "very nice" for the current Summerfest leaders to recognize her but called herself just a "spoke in the wheel."

Many of those who worked with Black during her tenure at the helm would disagree.

She wasn't just a spoke, but the hub around which Summerfest spun from a small event into the world's largest music festival, an 11-day extravaganza of song, fireworks, food and beer.

It's about time.

It would have been nice if Summerfest had given Bo Black this recognition sooner, when she would have been well enough to attend the dedication.

There was never any question that she deserves a tribute, a permanent "thank you" on the Summerfest grounds.

Bo Black certainly was so much more than a "spoke in the wheel."

I think naming the children's fountain in her honor is a wonderful way to thank her for the incredible impact she had on shaping Summerfest during her years as the guiding force of the event. Her influence is everywhere.

What a great idea to recognize her devotion to Milwaukee, the City of Festivals, with the Elizabeth Bo Black Children's Fountain!

The fountain is a centerpiece of the grounds, just inside the main gate. It serves as a welcome to festival goers.

It's where children splash and play as columns of water spray up. Adults often rim the fountain's edge and cool off as well.

It's a joyous place for all ages, coming together, celebrating the moment.

It's a perfect symbol of Bo Black's Summerfest legacy.

Paris Hilton Free at Last!

When was the last time someone's impending release from behind bars received as much attention as what's being given to the freeing of Paris Hilton?

Maybe Nelson Mandela?

He was imprisoned for 27 YEARS!

Hilton was in jail for 23 DAYS.

The Associated Press cries out: " World awaits Paris Hilton's return."

As Paris Hilton counted down her final hours in jail Monday, her reality stint behind bars was about to be replaced by the bizarre, almost fictional qualities that make up her life on the outside.

With Hilton due to be released sometime Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration promised to keep a close watch on the paparazzi helicopter pilots expected to track her every move.

"We will be sending inspectors to her neighborhood and to the jail to keep an eye on all the helicopter and perhaps even airplane traffic in the vicinity and make sure all the operations are conducted safely," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.

This is insane.

It's disgusting that the media see fit to focus ao much attention and so many resources on Hilton being released from jail today, as if everything else in the world is irrelevant.

It's absolutely nuts.

Look at this:



FOX News is offering live feed on the Internet of Hilton walking out of jail!

See her as she emerges from her imprisonment to breathe free once more!

This does not qualify as breaking news. It's tabloid trash.

Question: Will more people watch the images of Hilton regaining her freedom after those 23 days in captivity than watched her sex video?

The world will probably never know.
________________________


Paris Hilton walks out of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department's Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, Calif. , Tuesday June 26, 2007. Paris Hilton has been released from jail after serving about three weeks for an alcohol-related reckless driving case. (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)

UPDATE:

Hilton is out of the slammer. "Sometime Tuesday" turned out to be just minutes after midnight PDT.

LYNWOOD, Calif. -- Paris Hilton left jail Tuesday after a bizarre, three-week stay in which the hotel heiress was briefly released to her Hollywood Hills home, then sent screaming and crying back to a county lockup.

The 26-year-old celebutante walked out of the all-women's jail in Lynwood to an enormous horde of cameras and reporters after midnight. She had checked into the jail largely avoiding the spotlight late June 3 after a surprise appearance at the MTV Movie Awards.

Hilton smiled broadly as she left the jail. It wasn't immediately clear where she was going.

I'm sure that no matter where she goes the press will be there to document her every move.

Larry King must be snapping his suspenders with anticipation.

The Murders of Jessie Davis and CHLOE

My heart breaks for the family and friends of Jessie Davis.

The agony of her disappearance and then the horrifying reality of the discovery of her body must be among the most unbearable things they've ever experienced.

They're all in my prayers.

There's something that has bothered me about the way the media have reported the murders.

Again and again, they talk about Jessie's death and the death of her fetus.

CANTON, Ohio -- A police officer accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend and her nearly full-term fetus made his first court appearance Monday and was ordered held on $5 million bond.

...Jessie Davis, 26, was missing for about a week before her body was found Saturday in a park. Cutts is the father of her 2-year-old son, and Davis' relatives have said he is the father of the baby girl she was due to deliver July 3 and planned to name Chloe.

...Ohio law allows a murder charge against someone accused of killing a fetus that would have been able to live outside the womb.

Why must the media keep referring to Jessie's baby as her fetus?

She almost had carried the baby to term.

Even Ohio law gives the baby the status of a living, breathing human being.

Cutts, the accused killer, didn't murder a woman and a fetus.

He allegedly murdered his girlfriend and his child.

A baby girl, Chloe, was murdered; not a fetus named Chloe.

The Culture of Death proponents in the lib media don't want to say that.

These pro-abortion people get squeamish when dealing with a baby that wasn't born but was certainly capable of surviving outside the womb.

It's sickening.

Cutts allegedly killed his BABY DAUGHTER, not his fetus.

These word games are a joke.

Chloe was a living baby girl a month ago.

She would have been a living baby girl today.

She should have been a living baby girl a month from now.

A woman and her fetus weren't killed.

A mother and her baby daughter were murdered.



Flowers and stuffed animals are placed near the area where Jessie Davis' body was recovered at the Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio June 25, 2007. A Canton police officer Bobby Cutts Jr. faces two murder charges for killing his pregnant girlfriend Davis and her unborn daughter. REUTERS/Ron Kuntz (UNITED STATES)

Supreme Court Disappoints Feingold

Russ Feingold is disappointed in yesterday's Supreme Court decision in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life.

Read his statement here.

“While I am disappointed in today’s ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, it does not affect the Court’s decision four years ago in McConnell v. FEC that banning unlimited "soft money" contributions to the political parties is fully constitutional. The new decision also does not overturn the McConnell ruling that the issue ad provision of the McCain-Feingold law is constitutional. Unfortunately, the test that the Court sets out for challenges to the law by those who wish to run specific ads -- whether the ads in question are the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” and are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” -- seems susceptible to easy manipulation by groups intent on spending corporate and union money to influence elections.

“It remains to be seen whether this new test will prove as hollow as the old “magic words” test, which the McConnell court called “functionally meaningless.” The FEC should not allow today’s decision to open the door for a return to the pre-McCain-Feingold days of phony issue ads and unlimited corporate and union spending on campaigns. If that is the result, the Court will have done the country a great disservice.”

Personally, I think the Court does the country a great disservice when it rules to infringe on our civil liberties.

Chief Justice Roberts said it best, "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Feingold can be disappointed that the Court refused to dismiss the First Amendment.

He and John McCain can cry on each other's shoulders.

Eventually, Feingold will have to suck it up and get over his disappointment.

Maybe setting a new deadline for America's withdrawal of troops from Iraq will cheer him up. That always seems to give him a boost.

His current deadline for troop withdrawal is March 31, 2008.

How about February 29, 2008?



That would be extra special!

It might take a bit of the sting out of this slap from the Supremes.

Milwaukee's Neighborhood Crime Initiative -- Week 4

The Milwaukee Police Department released numbers reflecting the efficacy of the Neighborhood Crime Initiative.

There's good news.

Deputy Police Chief Brian O'Keefe said shootings are down 15 % compared to this time last year city wide, not just in the most-violent areas targeted by the extra patrols. Police have not identified the specific neighborhoods affected by the initiative.

"Their (NSI officers') presence has had a nice deterrent effect. With shootings down city wide, it doesn't look like we're displacing crime into other areas," O'Keefe said.

He also said the number of firearm seizures were up 20% from the year before, thanks in part to boosted training for officers on how to deal with armed defenders.

The department released the following numbers for the program's fourth week, which ended Sunday:

*137 people arrested
*15 firearms recovered
*42 drug charges
*104 traffic warning
*17 curfew violations, and two parental warnings
*27 loud music citations
*57 parking citations
*1 citation for public drinking

Why doesn't the department release the SPECIFIC numbers for violent crimes -- armed robberies, non-fatal shootings, and homicides?

That's become a pattern.

Especially with shootings down 15%, I don't understand why the number isn't among the other figures.

I also don't get why the numbers for homicides and armed robberies aren't released.

I'm glad that the Neighborhood Crime Initiative has had a "nice deterrent effect."

So let's see all the numbers.

Bong Hits 4 Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg

In more Supreme Court of the United States news, the right of school administrators to keep students from promoting illegal drug use was upheld.

Naturally, libs are troubled by that as a limitation on the free speech of students.

From The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court affirmed wide authority for school administrators to regulate students' speech today, allowing principals to punish pupils who make any in-school speech or demonstration that may "reasonably be viewed" as promoting illegal drug use.

The finding came in a case in which a Juneau public high school teacher gave Joseph Frederick a 10-day suspension for unfurling a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" as the school was gathering outside to watch the Olympic Torch Relay pass in 2002. Joseph, who has since graduated, sued the suspension was a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.

Though the Banner's message was admittedly ambiguous, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court majority that the school's principal, Deborah Morse, was not wrong to conclude that it promoted the use of an illegal substance, which was contrary to the Juneau school system's policy.

The dangers of illegal drug use are "serious," Roberts wrote, and the "First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers," Roberts wrote.

To those conservatives frustrated with President Bush: The nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court was a tremendous accomplishment of his administration.


The "First Amendment does not require schools to tolerate at school events student expression that contributes to those dangers (illegal drug use)."


Exactly.

...Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.

Stevens wrote that Frederick had raised a "nonsense banner," which advocated nothing, legal or illegal, and that the court's opinion could be read to permit broad censorship.

Stevens is clueless.

"Bong hits" advocates nothing?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

I don't think schools should be forced to allow students to promote the use of bongs.

I see no problem with a banner that read "Bong hits 4 Jesus" being removed from a school-sponsored and supervised event. In fact, I would consider the principal derelict for allowing the student to go unpunished after he defied warnings to put it away.

Would the people upset about the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner being taken down also condone kids unfurling a racist banner?

Would people whine if school administrators removed a banner that read, "N-word 4 Jesus"? How about one that read, "I hate gays"?

Would administrators be seen as treading on the students' right to free speech in that case?

I highly doubt it.

Free speech must be exercised responsibly.

Schools, even public schools, are in the business of teaching students to become functioning, productive members of society, correct?

Administrators would be failing in their mission if they set no limits for students, including limits on their freedom of expression.


Joseph Frederick can raise his banner somewhere else, not at a school event.

Supremes Rule AGAINST McCain-Feingold

The U.S. Supreme Court handed Wisconsin Right to Life a victory.

It has to bug liberals that a group promoting the Culture of Life has scored a win.

All those self-proclaimed lib elite sophisticates supposedly in favor of any and all free speech must be disappointed that the First Amendment rights of a group like Wisconsin Right to Life are protected, too.

The "free speech for some (libs)" crowd must be foaming at the mouth.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

FOUR justices were in favor of limiting the First Amendment rights of Wisconsin Right to Life.

FOUR justices argued against the First Amendment.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

True, Roberts and those "conservative allies" actually believe in upholding that inalienable right of liberty.

How dangerous!

Give me a break.

...On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.

The ads could have been run, Souter pointed out, had they been paid for out of the group's political action committee, which is subject to federal campaign finance limits. Or Feingold's name could have been omitted, he said.

"Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities...that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations," Souter said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

Translation: The libs on the Court put the lame McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act ahead of the First Amendment.

The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the senators.

To those claiming that I blindly agree with any stance taken by the Bush administration: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE URGED THE COURT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH.

But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

I love that.


"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."


Spoken like a true patriot.

Feingold, constant whiner about the PATRIOT act trampling on civil liberties, is the censor.
_____________________

Read the decision here.

Read it and weep Russ Feingold and John McCain.
_____________________

Read the press release from Wisconsin Right to Life.

VICTORY!
_______________________

McCain reacts.

“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”

Waiting for Feingold to comment...

Fairness According to Dianne Feinstein

The libs' war on conservative talk radio is heating up.

Yesterday morning on FOX News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed Republican Sen. Trent Lott and Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Transcript

He began the interview with the talk radio controversy topic.

When Wallace confronted Lott with his infamous remarks, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem," Lott squirmed. He backpedaled big time. His efforts were ineffective.

LOTT: Dianne and I were just talking about that. One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it's introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor. We never bother to explain what we're trying to do and what is in it.

I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration. Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and the good things that were in it.

So the onus is not on them, it's on us to do a better job of communicating what we're trying to do.

And I just want to make — you know, look, I've been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don't think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it's caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.

WALLACE: But, Senator, I'm not going to let you off the hook quite that easily. Take a look at this. You said this also last week. "I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

Now, I talked to some of the talk radio people, and they say you make it sound like they're leading around their listeners like a bunch of sheep. They say look, they know what's in the bill, their listeners know what's in the bill, and they don't like it.

LOTT: Well, let me tell you why I said that. As a matter of fact, I do talk radio in my own state in particular, but others, and I'm sure Dianne does, too.

I was doing one interview, and the talk radio host said, to his credit, "What are you trying to do here?" And I explained that we were trying to improve a bad situation. And that's a summation of it.

Then he said, "Well, tell me four things in this bill that you think are significantly better than the current law." So I ticked them off. He said, "That's in there?" I said, "Yeah."

See, that's the point. It's not that they're maliciously trying to, you know, distort it. And this is a complicated bill with a lot of moving parts. Some of it I don't like.

Translation: Talk radio personalities and their listeners aren't acting with malice; they're acting in ignorance.

Lott wants to make amends with the massive conservative talk radio audience. Insulting the audience's intelligence isn't the way to do it.

Who's acting maliciously in this case?

Clue: It's not the voters and it's not radio hosts.

Wallace then brings Feinstein into the conversation.

She puts her giant foot in her giant mouth, and argues against free speech rights and the free market.

Wasn't John Ashcroft supposed to be the enemy of civil liberties?

Didn't past and present members of the Bush administration supposedly strip Americans of their rights? Bush the dictator. Bush the oppressor.

All the libs whined about losing their rights. Boo Hoo.

What Dianne Feinstein had to say yesterday morning sounds like more of a REAL threat to our civil liberties than what the Bush Administration has done to combat terror.

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened.

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Feinstein reveals the Dems' true colors.

Last week, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer tried to dismiss suggestions that they were plotting to silence the voices of Americans and take down conservative talk radio.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Well, that was a load!

Feinstein clarified the Democrats' agenda regarding the fairness doctrine very nicely.

Fairness according to Feinstein is some sort of contrived limits on what the people will be allowed to say and hear.

Is that what the Democrats stand for?

Do they really want to be seen as the party that restrains free speech?

Do they want to regulate the free market and prevent the people from choosing what they want on radio?

Is that what Feinstein wants to be "looking at"?

She danced around the issue a bit, but the heart of the matter was crystal clear.

Feinstein and her fellow Dems would love to tread on us.

This push to shut up conservatives under the guise of fairness, an obviously advantageous goal for the Dems, reveals something else.

This is yet another example of the radical Left pulling the strings of the Dems.

Feinstein and her cohorts are in the uncomfortable position of having to appease the very vocal extremist libs wanting to shut down the talk radio behemoth while not alienating the majority of freedom-loving Americans that rightfully see the injustice of such a move.

Feinstein needs to be careful, as do the other Dems on board with this assault on free speech.

They seem to be going down the path that Hugo Chavez chose.

No doubt that makes extremists like Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover happy.

But I don't think it plays well outside of socialist circles.