Passport Files and the Candidates

Yesterday, Barack Obama received a gift. Today, he learned that he'll have to share it.

The Obama campaign could have milked the breach of Obama's passport file by State Department contractors to paint Obama as a victim, singled out by the evil government. The campaign could play into the paranoia of voters and push the corruption of government angle. More importantly, the new scandal could take the issue of his connection with the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all of Obama's accompanying missteps off the front burner.

However, with the revelation that the passport files of Hillary Clinton and John McCain were also breached, Obama no longer has exclusive rights to that particular victimhood.

WASHINGTON -- State Department employees snooped through the passport files of three presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain — and the department's inspector general is investigating.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the violations of McCain and Clinton's passport files were not discovered until Friday, after officials were made aware of the unauthorized access of Obama's records and a separate search was conducted.

The incidents raise questions as to whether the information was accessed for political purposes and why two contractors involved in the Obama search were dismissed before investigators had a chance to interview them. It recalled an incident in 1992, when a Republican political appointee at the State Department was demoted over a search of presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport records. At the time, Clinton was challenging President George H.W. Bush.

McCormack said one of the individuals who accessed Obama's files also reviewed McCain's file earlier this year. This contract employee has been reprimanded, but not fired. The individual no longer has access to passport records, he said.

"I can assure you that person's going to be at the top of the list of the inspector general when they talk to people, and we are currently reviewing our (disciplinary) options with respect to that person," McCormack said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with all three candidates on Friday and expressed her regrets. In the meantime, State Department officials headed to Capitol Hill to brief the candidates' staffs.

...In Clinton's case, an individual last summer accessed her file as part of a training session involving another State Department worker. McCormack said the one-time violation was immediately recognized and the person was admonished.

Obama's records were accessed without permission on three separate occasions — Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and as recently as last week, on March 14.

McCormack declined to name the companies that employed the contractors, despite demands by a senior House Democrat that such information is in the public interest.

"At this point, we just started an investigation," he said. "We want to err on the side of caution."

McCain, who was in Paris on Friday, said any breach of passport privacy deserves an apology and a full investigation.

"The United States of America values everyone's privacy and corrective action should be taken," he said.

It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age, Social Security number and place of birth, which is required when a person fills out a passport application.

Aside from the file, the information could allow critics to dig deeper into the candidates' private lives. While the file includes date and place of birth, address at time of application and the countries the person has traveled to, the most important detail would be their Social Security number, which can be used to pull credit reports and other personal information.

It's the Social Security number, stupid.

Get access to a person's SSN and you can tap into a wellspring of personal information.

This reminds me of the scandal involving the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chaired by Sen. Chuck Schumer.

In July of 2005, Lauren B. Weiner, a staffer working for Schumer, sought the Social Security number of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele and U.S. Senate Republican candidate. She used it to access his credit report and personal financial records. She set up a fake email account and answered a series of questions to impersonate Steele, all to obtain his financial information. It was an incredible breach of privacy by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Now, of course, Steele was running for the Senate, not to be President of the United States, but there wasn't a Congressional investigation into the activities of the Committee chaired by Schumer.

Clearly, what Weiner did was illegal. She managed to cut a deal. Under a plea agreement in U.S. District Court, Weiner was sentenced to do 150 hours of community service within a year, avoiding any jail time.

Obama is demanding a Congressional investigation into the breach of his passport file.

Certainly, there should be an investigation into the inappropriate accessing of files of citizens.

The State Department said the Justice Department would be monitoring the probe in case it needs to get involved.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the case has not yet been referred to the Justice Department for investigation, and indicated prosecutors likely would wait until the State Department's inspector general concludes its inquiry. But Mukasey did not rule out the possibility of the Justice Department taking an independent look at the passport breach.

Was the breach just "imprudent curiosity"? It's possible. It's also possible that it was done for reasons other than to satisfy curiosity.

In any case, the improper viewing of personal files is unacceptable.

Shut Up, Chuckie!

Chuck Schumer continues to run his mouth. So what else is new?

Today's he's babbling about the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Obviously, Chuckie has been sent out to work the lib media and put Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on defense.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly canceled travel plans Tuesday amid growing calls for his ouster over the firings of eight federal prosecutors during a White House-directed housecleaning of U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales also accepted the resignation of his top aide, Kyle Sampson, who authorities said failed to brief other senior Justice Department officials of his discussions about the firings with then-White House counsel Harriet Miers. Miers resigned in January.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, who is leading a Senate investigation of the firings, called for the second time in three days for Gonzales to step down. Additionally, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Gonzales "ought to be shown the door — he ought not to be in this administration. We have got to end corruption in our government. It is not OK to be corrupt."

Chuckie says, "It is not OK to be corrupt."

Really?

Then why is it OK for Dems to be corrupt?

Why does Chuckie give himself a pass when it comes to corruption?

Let's go back to a year ago and look at Chuckie's hypocrisy--

John Wagner of the Washington Post is incompetent as a journalist, or maybe he's just having a bad day.

Today, he writes about the charges Lauren B. Weiner will face because she allegedly "fraudulently [obtained] a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele," Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Wagner writes:

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under
federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Notice that he says, "both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates."

Hey, Wagner! That may be the case, but it was the Dem operatives that acted illegally. Weiner was not engaged in "typical" opposition research, unless such research is typically illegal.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

Republicans seized on the incident when it came to light in the fall as evidence of how seriously Democrats are taking Steele's candidacy, an idea they sought to further
yesterday.

"This sort of dumpster diving shows Marylanders that Democrats are willing to engage in this campaign from the gutter," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, which was heavily involved in recruiting Steele to run. "It's unfortunate that the lieutenant governor and his family have had to endure it."

Oh, poor baby Lauren. She made a mistake and violated the privacy of Lt. Gov. Steele. Oops!

The big, bad Republicans, on the other hand, "seized on the incident" and continue to exploit it.

This is a textbook example of blaming the victim.

Do you detect any bias in Wagner's account?

Personal finances were considered fertile territory for researchers looking into Steele, who acknowledged financial difficulties when he ran for statewide office in 2002. Sources familiar with the episode said Steele's credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

The letter to Steele says Weiner "will be charged with accessing a computer without authorization and thereby obtaining information contained in a file from a consumer reporting agency on a consumer." The act is a violation of a section of the U.S. Code titled "Fraud in Connection With Computers." The penalty could range from probation to six months in prison.

I have a question for Wagner:

How can you possibly write about this incident and the DSCC without mentioning the chairman of that committee when the illegal activity took place?

It's Senator Chuck Schumer!

When this matter finally came to light, it was downplayed by lib media outlets. That's understandable, especially given that the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media had just launched their orchestrated "Culture of Corruption" campaign against Republicans.

In September 2005, Edward Morrissey wrote a great piece for the Weekly Standard. He revealed the hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer and the failure of the mainstream media to hold him accountable for the illegal activites of the DSCC.

Morrissey noted the irony in the fact that this corruption and illegal violation of Steele's privacy occurred under the watch of the co-author and sponsor of the "Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill, introduced in April of [2005] to discourage the kind of actions that Barge and Weiner took on Schumer's behalf."

He wrote what Schumer said then about possible privacy abuses:

[O]ur comprehensive measure focuses on making sure that your personal information isn't surfing the Internet without your permission and that companies handling your Social Security number and other sensitive information should come under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission immediately.

Morrissey went on to ask, "Who knew that within weeks of uttering this statement, his staff at the DSCC would have provided such a compelling example of the problem?"

Morrissey concluded:

Keeping two staffers on paid leave of absence after breaking federal laws on privacy--especially when data privacy happens to be a specialty of Senator Schumer--does indicate a casual approach to practicing what Schumer preaches.

It certainly does.

The hypocrisy of Schumer should have been pounced on by the press. It wasn't.

The fact is the mainstream media fails to inform the public in a fair and balanced fashion. Again and again, we see examples of the lib media pushing the lib agenda rather than accurately and adequately reporting the news.

Wagner's March 16 article about Weiner's violation of Steele's privacy and the Schumer connection is a glaring case in point.

Read more here.

The bottom line:

Schumer should shut up about corruption and firings and resignations. He's a hypocrite.

He's dirty.

MLK Party, Racism, and Selective Outrage

Students at Tarleton State University celebrated the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday by throwing a party.

It didn't highlight King's contributions to American society and human rights.

No, this gathering wasn't the sort of observance that we've come to associate with the holiday. This party in Stephenville, Texas focused on mocking African American stereotypes.

Last week, while the nation paused to remember the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a group of students at a Texas college outside Fort Worth marked the day by throwing a party that featured black stereotype costumes — including a student dressed as Aunt Jemima — a main course of fried chicken and cases of malt liquor.

The insensitivity didn't end there. The students then brazenly posted their party photos on the popular Web site Facebook.com for all the world to see.

School administrators at Tarleton State University in Stephenville told FOXNews.com they are investigating an off-campus Martin Luther King Jr. Day student party held on Jan. 15 that the school's president called "reprehensible."

"I am personally insulted by these photographs and am disappointed that Tarleton students have demonstrated such insensitivity," university President Dennis P. McCabe wrote in a letter to students and faculty posted on the school's Web site Wednesday.

"I regret that any of our students have been hurt by the display of these photographs. The students involved have removed them and have expressed regret over offending their fellow students."

"I feel like there is no excuse for this type of ignorance," Donald Ray Elder, president of the school's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, told the Associated Press.

Photographs posted on students' personal Facebook pages showed party attendees donning Afro-style wigs, fake gold jewelry, 40-ounce bottles of alcohol in brown paper bags and mock silver teeth. The photos have now made their way around the Web via TheSmokingGun.com.

In one picture, a student dressed as the character Aunt Jemima holds a bottle of maple syrup in one hand and a bottle in a brown paper bag that appeared to contain malt liquor.

These students are dunces.

Their insensitivity is shocking. It's also shocking that they slapped the photos up on Facebook.

The partygoers obviously had no shame about how they behaved, none whatsoever.

The faces are so clear and readily identifiable.

Their parents must be horrified, or not. Who knows?

The students should be humiliated.

Can you imagine one of the students pictured going to a job interview?

"You look familiar. Oh, now I remember. You dressed up like Aunt Jemima on MLK Day. I don't think you're right for our company."

These students aren't going to have the opportunity to do public apologies, like Michael Richards did after his outburst.

Will they go to therapy, like Grey's Anatomy star Isaiah Washington after his use of an anti-gay slur to another cast member?

I doubt it.

I think expressions of racism and the use of stereotypical slurs are inexcusable. It's not a matter of being politically correct or overly sensitive.

It's just inappropriate. Case closed.

I don't think it's amusing to degrade other human beings. I condemn all such behavior.

Whether its spouted by college students or celebrities, there's no place for it in a civilized society, ANYWHERE.

But that's not the case. Racism is accepted by some in certain instances. In fact, it's condoned and encouraged.

Some examples:


Wolf Blitzer
Artist: Billmon
(Image from NewsBusters and Hot Air )



Michael Steele -- "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House"
Artist and caption author: Steve Gilliard


"Joe Lieberman"
Artist: Jane Hamsher, posted on The Huffington Post

Why does the Left get a pass when it comes to these despicable depictions?

There are so many examples of the Left's glaring racism.

Here are a few more:

--USA Today doctors a photo of Condoleezza Rice.

--Condoleezza Rice is belittled on a math final at Bellevue Community College.

--Michael Steele is labeled an Uncle Tom and pelted with oreos.

--Former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee spews anti-Semitic remarks on the radio.

--Clarence Thomas is deemed "a black man who deserves an asterisk" by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

--Trey Ellis plays shrink in a racist attack on Claude Allen.

--MoveOn.org hosts anti-Semitic remarks about Joe Lieberman.

--Chris Matthews repeatedly employs ethnic stereotypes to refer to Joe Lieberman.

The fact is a thinly-veiled bigotry routinely runs through the Left's commentary.

Leftists fail to condemn anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.

They fail to condemn Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, etc., for their racial and ethnic slurs. Catholic-bashing is a favorite pastime for them.

This is unacceptable.

It's unacceptable from college students, from Kramer, from politicians and African American leaders.

I think the same outrage and disgust that people are directing at the Tarleton students should be applied to the libs, and anyone else, who feel free to engage in similar overt racism.

No excuses.

The students at that MLK Day party disgraced themselves, their parents, and their university.

Their "fun" is a sad reflection of the racism that exists in many corners of America, among the uneducated as well as the supposedly sophisticated and enlightened elite.

The time is long overdue to overcome.

___________________________

Read the letter from the university's president, Dennis P. McCabe.

Liberal Racists: The Blackface Gallery

Wolf Blitzer
Artist: Billmon
(Image from NewsBusters and Hot Air )



Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters posts that the libs are employing their racist tactics again.

He writes:

Daily Kos alumnus Billmon...has used Photoshop to disparagingly blackface someone. In this case, the proprietor of the Whiskey Bar blog has likened CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer to a minstrel...all due to the Situation Room host's reference to Lynne Cheney. The following is taken directly from Billmon’s blog entry on October 29:

BLITZER: I have been covering the Cheneys for many years, including on a day-to-day basis when he was the defense secretary during the first Gulf War and I was CNN’s Pentagon correspondent . . . I was surprised when she came out swinging on Friday, surprised . . . at her sniping at my patriotism.

Wolf Blitzer
CNN Late Edition October 29, 2006

Translation: Oh Lawdy! Massa's wife so mad she even beatin' on us house slaves now. What dis ol' world comin' to?

Why do these libs get a pass when it comes to their overtly racist behavior?

The Washington Post went bonkers for days because George Allen said, "Macaca."

Allen's alleged use of the N-word became The Post's obsession.

Granted, Billmon isn't a candidate for the Senate. The fact that he created a despicable photoshop image isn't worthy of any publication's front page.

However, the Left's racism is definitely a pattern worth noting and should be reported by the oh so enlightened, tolerant liberal media.

Other instances of Leftist creativity:


Michael Steele -- "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House"
Artist and caption author: Steve Gilliard



"Joe Lieberman"
Artist: Jane Hamsher, posted on The Huffington Post


There are so many examples of the Left's glaring racism.

Here are a few more:

--USA Today doctors a photo of Condoleezza Rice.

--Condoleezza Rice is belittled on a math final at Bellevue Community College.

--Michael Steele is labeled an Uncle Tom and pelted with oreos.

--Former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee spews anti-Semitic remarks on the radio.

--Clarence Thomas is deemed "a black man who deserves an asterisk" by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

--Trey Ellis plays shrink in a racist attack on Claude Allen.

--MoveOn.org hosts anti-Semitic remarks about Joe Lieberman.

--Chris Matthews repeatedly employs ethnic stereotypes to refer to Joe Lieberman.

The fact is a thinly-veiled bigotry routinely runs through the Left's commentary.

Leftists fail to condemn anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.

They fail to condemn Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, etc., for their racial and ethnic slurs. Catholic-bashing is a favorite pastime for them.

Nevertheless, the Left puts on a holier-than-thou attitude and paints the Right as racist.

Go figure.

I guess it's true that the Democratic Party really is a "big tent party."

Racists are welcome, as long as they are radical Leftists.

I'm quite confident that the creator of a blackface Nancy Pelosi image would NOT be sheltered by the Dems' tent.

Strong elements of racism permeate the Left. That is the ugly truth.


HYPOCRITES

Michael Steele and Ben Cardin Debate

On Meet the Press, Tim Russert moderated a debate between the candiates for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, Rep. Ben Cardin (D) and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R).

Actually, that's not true.

Russert debated with Steele. Russert shilled for the Democratic Party.

Transcript

It's clear to me why Russert was so aggressive with Steele. He was an attack dog because Cardin is such a terribly weak candidate.

The first twenty minutes of the program was spent on Iraq.

Steele's position was measured and intelligent. He said that when we leave Iraq we must make sure that we leave behind "an ally, not an enemy."

Cardin kept contradicting himself and looking absolutely ridiculous.

Cardin is demanding that troops be redeployed from Iraq by the end of 2007; but then he said that he's against timetables.

It really was laughable.

Did Russert point out how silly Cardin was being?

Just barely.

Basically, Russert gave Cardin a free pass with very few challenges.

Steele said that Cardin needed to consider what Iraq would look like on the last day when the last soldiers withdraw.

Cardin blathered on and on about Steele's website. He said that Steele had buried "168 words" on his Iraq position.

Repeatedly, Cardin talked about the inadequacy of Steele's website. He said that Steele had only 168 words and no plan for Iraq. He charged that Steele had made no major speeches and held no major events on Iraq.

Steele kept asking for Cardin's Iraq plan. Cardin responded with the same "168 words" mantra.

It was embarrassing.

Then, Russert questioned Steele about being a Republican.

Russert adopted the tactics that so many Dems have disgracefully used against the African-American candidate. Although he didn't come right out and say it, Russert attempted to use Steele's race to turn other African-Americans against him.

Steele said jokingly, "I've been outed. I'm a Republican."

That's right, Russert. No one knows that Steele is a Republican.

Russert tried to attack Steele by showing a clip of Steele speaking positively about President Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Russert put up a passage quoting Steele speaking favorably about Karl Rove.

Ooooooooh! Scary!!!

REAL African-Americans wouldn't say that stuff; only an Uncle Tom like Steele would. At least Russert didn't pelt Steele with oreos, like other "tolerant" libs have done.

Russert asked Steele, "Are you running as a proud Bush Republican?"

Steele responded to Russert's idiocy, "I'm running as a proud Republican."

Score one for Steele.

Steel went on to say that he considers himself to be a "Lincoln Republican."

Score another for Steele.

The increasingly desperate Russert then held up a bumper sticker -- "Steele Democrat."

He claimed that's false advertising.

How utterly lame!

Steele challenged Russert, "Have you heard of "Reagan Democrat"?

The impotent Russert then complained that Steele doesn't have a "Steele Republican" bumper sticker.

Steele laughed it off and said that would be a good idea. He thanked Russert for the suggestion.

Steele asked why he seems to be the only candidate who's expected to constantly label himself as a Republican.

The racial component of Russert's questioning was very apparent.

Russert asked Steele, "Would you be a reliable vote for President Bush?"

He said, "I would be a reliable vote for the people of Maryland."

Very good. Point for Steele.

If Russert was fair and balanced, he would have focused on Cardin's allegiance to radical Dems.

Why didn't Russert ask whether or not Cardin would be a reliable "weak on terror," "higher taxes," liberal vote in the Senate?

***Bias alert***

Russert took a break from his ineffective pounding on Steele and turned to Cardin.

Cardin has made it clear that he wants to "investigate the President."

Russert wondered, "Investigate about what?"

Cardin blustered for a while about the NSA wiretapping program. You know, the one that allows our government to monitor international calls to terrorists, the one that has no doubt played a role in preventing another massive terrorist attack on our soil in the five years since 9/11.

Of course, Russert didn't say a word about the misrepresentation of that program as domestic eavesdropping and how those opposing it are aiding and abetting our enemies, the terrorists.

Russert asked Cardin if he would consider impeachment? Cardin answered that he'd "consider an investigation."

Very lame.

Next issue: Stem cell research

Russert showed Cardin's repulsive Michael J. Fox ad.

Then, he showed Steele's terrific ad on stem cell research that features his own sister. She happens to be afflicted with MS.

Of course, he loves his sister. Clearly, Steele wants to find treatments and cures for diseases, to help her and all others who are suffering. He wants to follow the most promising medical research in the most ethical manner.

In short, Steele made clear that he DOES support stem cell research.

Steele said there's "only one person at this table who's voted against stem cell research, and that's Ben Cardin."

Steele was referring to a bill in the House that Dems refused to back.

The pasty Cardin blew a gasket, but his face didn't redden. (I didn't think he had any gaskets left to blow.)

The discussion drifted off into a debate about the bills in the House and the Senate and was a waste of time.

Still on stem cell research, Russert went after Steele, trying to make the case that his position was morally inconsistent.

Russert questioned Steele, "Should you close down fertility clinics?"

They routinely discard embryos.

Steele said that it isn't necessary at all to close down clinics. However, he would recommend looking into ways to deal with embryos that aren't used, such as setting up adoptions for those embryos (Snowflake babies) and other options.

Russert wouldn't let up. "How can you tolerate or allow embryos being discarded by clinics?"

Steele had already answered that.

Again, Russert pushed, "Would you forbid fertility clinics from destroying embryos?"

What an idiotic question! It's so extreme!

(I wonder where Russert stands on the issue. He's a big time lib, but he also claims to be a big time Catholic. How does he deal with his support of the destruction of embryos? I'm curious.)

Momentarily, Russert turned to Cardin and asked him about cloning.

Cardin said, "Human cloning is not acceptable."

(Allow me to digress and point out that my current governor, Jim Doyle, wants Wisconsin to lead the nation in human cloning. Republican Mark Green is against creating human life for the sole purpose of harvest and destruction.)

Cardin repeated this campaign season's BIG LIE -- that Dems support stem cell research and Republicans are against it.

He sounded like a fool, as all the Dem LIARS on stem cell research do, including Michael J. Fox.

Russert turned the debate to abortion.

He tried to sink his teeth into Steele again.

"Would you vote for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion?"

"Would you 'HOPE' that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade?"

Steele said that he believed in stare decisis and declared, "It's a matter for the states."

Russert got a little tough on Cardin by pointing out that he voted AGAINST parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

Cardin babbled incoherently. He said that parents should be involved in making decisions for their children and then he turned around and argued that they shouldn't be notified if their children want abortions.

He referred to abortion as medical care.

I'd put the procedure in a different category.

Russert brought up Cardin's support of partial birth abortion. Russert didn't make a big deal out of it because it's consistent with the position of his allies, the Dem party leadership (Nancy Pelosi) and Dem presidential wannabes (Russ Feingold).

Next issue: The Supreme Court

To Steele: "Is there anyone on the Supreme Court that you would have voted against?"

HAHAHAHA

Unbelievable!!!

Why didn't Russert ask if there has ever been an American president that Steele would have voted against?

It's a silly hypothetical.

Steele said it was a "gotcha" question. He remarked, "That's living in the past."

He said it's a "Woulda, shoulda, coulda" and laughed at Russert's nonsense.

Russert was obviously setting up an opportunity for Cardin to appeal to Dems. He said he would have voted against Samuel Alito and he would have voted against Clarence Thomas.

Russert asked Steele if he still considers Clarence Thomas a hero?

Can you hear the whispers, "Uncle Tom, Uncle Tom"?

Steele said that although he has some disagreements with Thomas, he admires him as the only African-American on the Supreme Court.

(That reminds me. Did Bill Clinton nominate any African-Americans to the Supreme Court? Did he? NO. The "first black president" didn't seize that opportunity.)

In a transparent effort to discredit Steele with African-American voters, Russert tried to say that Steele didn’t support affirmative action.

Steele corrected Russert and clarified his position. He DOES support affirmative action but with improvements to the system. Steele noted that NBC and other networks do not have African-Americans in upper management.

That had to hit Russert right between the eyes. Score another one for Steele.

When Russert questioned Cardin, he said simply, "Affirmative action?" Wow. What tough, probing questioning!

Cardin rambled a bit and then it was back to Steele.

On "runaway spending" in government, Russert demanded that Steele specify which programs he would cut?

Steele didn't hesitate to say that everything was on the table. Programs need to be judged on their merits and cuts made accordingly.

Naturally, Cardin babbled in a noncommittal fashion.

Much to Cardin's relief, Russert said, "We're out of time."

In sum, Steele was poised, confident, and intelligent. Cardin was the mirror opposite of Steele, fumbling and floundering.

Russert tried to crack Steele, but he failed miserably.

There is no question that the debate highlighted that Steele is the superior candidate, much to Russert's chagrin, I'm sure.

Bottom line:

Russert is a shill for the Democratic Party.

Cardin is a bumbling incompetent.

Michael Steele should be elected to the U.S. Senate.

_________________________________

The Washington Post covers the Steele - Cardin/Russert debate.

The spin is fascinating.

Matthew Mosk and Ann E. Marimow write that Steele was on defense. That's not how I saw it at all, not even close.

Steele was completely in control.

Michael Steele, Ben Cardin, and Maryland's Party of Diversity

Republican Michael Steele and Steele Democrats

The Democrats are supposedly the Party of the Big Tent. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the voice for all colors, creeds, and classes.

If that's so, why is Maryland's Dem ticket so white? Why can't the Big Tent come up with some candidates representative of all those colors?

The Maryland Republicans, often cited by Dems as the party of the rich, the male, and the white, are running African-American candidates in three top races.

Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the FIRST black in Maryland to win statewide office, is running for the U.S. Senate.

The Republican Party of Maryland is also fielding two black WOMEN candidates. Anne McCarthy is running for comptroller and Kristen Cox is running for lieutenant governor.

So what's with the Dems? They don't walk the talk in Maryland.

From that fair and balanced publication that called for Dennis Hastert's resignation, The Washington Times:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday said that Maryland's Democratic ticket should have had a black or other minority at the top, but added that the national party isn't to blame for the lack of diversity.

"I do think there should be more diversity on this ticket," Mr. Dean said during a visit to the Maryland Democratic Party's campaign headquarters in Hyattsville.

However, Mr. Dean said that the national party bears no responsibility for Maryland's Democratic ticket, which offers four white men for the state's top offices -- the U.S. Senate, governor, attorney general and comptroller.

Way to lead the party, Dr. Dean!

That "Don't blame me" strategy shows real backbone and vision.

"We don't interfere in primaries," he said of the DNC.

BS.

Let's be honest. Dr. Dean assumes that he's got the African-American vote in his pocket.

The Dems act as if the African-American vote is a given. They take it for granted.


Arrogant Dr. Dean

The Washington Times yesterday reported that black business owners and religious leaders have expressed discontent with the Maryland Democratic Party's lack of black statewide candidates and said it will encourage support for Republicans -- especially Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's run for the U.S. Senate.

In addition, the Baltimore Sun reported Thursday that Maryland's 10 black state senators met last week with U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, the Democratic nominee for the Senate, and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, the Democratic nominee for governor, to complain about the lack of diversity at the top of the statewide ticket.

State Sen. Ulysses Currie, a black Democrat from Prince George's County, blamed a lack of discipline by the national party for the lack of diversity among the top nominees on Maryland's Democratic ticket.

The Dems rely on the black vote. They rest assured that they'll get it.

Clearly, it's an ominous sign when black Dem leaders are ticked off with their party.

Black business and religious leaders encouraging others to vote Republican -- That has to scare Dr. Dean and Maryland Dems.

Sure, he's putting on a brave face, but he must be afraid that black voters in Maryland aren't automatically going to vote Democratic this November.

Dean goes on:

..."Yes, we need more diversity. I'm pushing that very hard. I know [state party Chairman] Terry Lierman's pushing that very hard," Mr. Dean said. "But on the other hand, we've got four weeks left until this election. We need to do what's right for America, and what's right for America is to make sure we get rid of this rubber-stamp Congress."

A couple of things--

Dr. Dean claims to be pushing diversity "very hard."

Didn't he just say that the national party isn't responsible for Maryland's Dem ticket, washing his hands of the diversity issue? (Yes.)

Apparently, Dr. Dean's hard pushing isn't effective.

Furthermore, notice how the Dr. changes the subject.

He says, "We need to do what's right for America, and what's right for America is to make sure we get rid of this rubber-stamp Congress."

The topic is diversity, Dr. Dean. Pretending that the diversity problem in Maryland's Dem party doesn't exist won't make it go away.



Dr. Dean is counting on voters to ignore the fact that the Democratic Party doesn't fulfill its promises.

I think it's funny that the Dr. talks about a "rubber-stamp Congress."

The Dems count on African-Americans being a rubber-stamp for them, no questions asked.

Clearly, the Dems take the African-American vote for granted. Their arrogance is troubling. Even more troubling is their condescension.

So how do the Dems respond to the tightening race between Steele and Cardin?

They go to that dog-eared page in their playbook and start laying the groundwork for charges of election irregularities and disenfranchisement.

From that fair and balanced, macaca-obsessed publication that staged a smear campaign on George Allen, The Washington Post:

U.S. Senate candidate Benjamin L. Cardin yesterday voiced a lack of confidence in Maryland's voting system and worried that the problems that plagued the primary election could discourage voters from turning out in November.

"I am not convinced that they know how to run this election so that voters will not be inconvenienced to a point where they don't participate," Cardin (D) said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

Cardin's comments came on the day that state elections Administrator Linda H. Lamone announced that Maryland would continue using an electronic voter check-in system that repeatedly froze and rebooted without warning on primary day, confusing election judges and delaying voters across the state.

"After rigorous review and testing of the proposed solutions offered by Diebold Election Systems" -- the equipment's manufacturer -- "we are satisfied the issues experienced with the electronic poll books in our primary election have been resolved satisfactorily," Lamone said in a statement.

Cardin blamed the primary day foul-ups less on technology than on human error. Maryland election officials went to the polls without properly testing the machinery, he said.

"When we go to war, we don't try the equipment out for the first time in battle, so why are we surprised when we try voting equipment out for the first time that you have problems?" he asked. "The failure was not doing a full test ahead of time."

He expressed particular concern about how the glitches would affect voter participation next month as he seeks to drive up turnout in his bid to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). The Baltimore congressman called turnout his "biggest challenge," in particular in heavily Democratic Prince George's and Montgomery counties.

Frankly, that's disgusting.


Ben Cardin in search of the race card

Cardin is trying to generate support for his campaign by crying foul and disenfranchisement.

The guy is running scared.

When in doubt, plant the seed that the election results will be unreliable.

That's a typical Dem move. IT'S GETTING OLD.

Cardin's biggest challenge isn't turnout hampered because of some technological glitches.

His biggest challenge is Michael Steele -- a very appealing, strong, and competent candidate.

The Racist Right

Max Blumenthal has a piece up at The Huffington Post trumpeting the racism of the American Right.

He yammers on and on.

Oooooooooh. The racist Right. Where have I heard that before?

I find his stance so hypocritical.

Highlighting the racism of the Right is an open invitation to highlight the glaring racism of the Left.

Just a few examples:

--USA Today doctors a photo of Condoleezza Rice.

--Condoleezza Rice is belittled on a math final at Bellevue Community College.

--Michael Steele is labeled an Uncle Tom and pelted with oreos.

--Former Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee spews anti-Semitic remarks on the radio.

--Clarence Thomas is deemed "a black man who deserves an asterisk" by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

--Trey Ellis plays shrink in a racist attack on Claude Allen.

--MoveOn.org hosts anti-Semitic remarks about Joe Lieberman.

--Chris Matthews repeatedly employs ethnic stereotypes to refer to Joe Lieberman.

And then we have the most recent example: WUSA reporter Peggy Fox probing George Allen about his Jewish roots in a debate between him and Jim Webb.

It was a blatant attempt to turn Red State Virginia voters against Allen.

That's particularly troubling because of the assumptions that Fox makes.

1. She assumes that being of Jewish heritage is a negative.

2. She assumes that Virginians are racists and will be swayed by their deep-seated anti-Semitism, not wanting to vote for Allen because of his Jewish background.

Here is the transcript of their exchange.

The way Fox grilled Allen was disgraceful.

What does Allen's pedigree have to do with this election?

Are the people of Virginia electing someone to represent them in the Senate or are they passing judgment on someone's background and endorsing a religion?

Allen is a Christian, a Presbyterian. So what?

How is that relevant?

And what does his mother or grandfather have to do with this election?

If Allen's mother were a wiccan, what difference would that make?

She isn't the candidate.

The fact is a thinly-veiled bigotry routinely runs through the Left's commentary.

They fail to condemn anti-Semites like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan.

They fail to condemn Howard Dean, Joe Biden, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, etc., for their racial and ethnic slurs. Catholic-bashing is a favorite pastime for them.

Nevertheless, the Left puts on a holier-than-thou attitude and paints the Right as racist.

Fox claimed that her question to Allen was about honesty, "Honesty, that's all."

Let's be honest.

Elements of racism permeate the Left. That is the ugly truth.

CONSERVATIVE AFRICAN AMERICANS?

What the Democrats have long feared is coming to pass.

According to a poll, African Americans are willing to support a conservative African American candidate.

These citizens have broken ranks and asserted their independence from the Dems.

Matthew Mosk of The Washington Post delivers the news that is sure to send the Dems into a panic.

An internal document prepared by a top Democratic strategist warns that a majority of African American voters in Maryland are open to supporting Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele and advises the party not to wait to "knock Steele down."

The 37-page report says a sizable segment of likely black voters -- as much as 44 percent -- would readily abandon their historic Democratic allegiances "after hearing Steele's messaging."

"Governor Ehrlich and [Lt. Gov.] Michael Steele have a clear ability to break through the Democratic stronghold among African American voters in Maryland," says the March 27 report by Cornell Belcher, polling consultant for the Democratic National Committee, which bases its findings on a survey of 489 black voters in Maryland conducted last month.

The report, given to The Washington Post this week, drills into a topic that has emerged as a key focus of this year's U.S. Senate contest in Maryland: race.

Imagine.

African American voters are open to voting for a conservative!

The point of the Dems' 37-page report: Be worried. Be very worried.

Did it ever occur to the Dems that if they want to count on the votes of African Americans, they need to offer them ideas that produce positive RESULTS for the community?

Obviously, when it come to the African American community, the Dems' have a record of broken promises a mile long. The Dems have shown themselves to be ineffectual.

...In an interview in his State House office yesterday, Steele clutched the DNC report like a football coach who just got his hands on the opposing team's playbook. He said a copy "landed on our doorstep" in the past week.

"This explains everything," he said. "They're afraid of what I represent. They're afraid of the fact that African American voters have options, and I'm one of them."

Steele focused on two aspects of the document: the finding that a high percentage of black voters have connected with his message and the recommendation that the Democrats attack him early.

"Voters need to know they're trying to make me into something I'm not," Steele said.

Drudge has a copy of the summary of the Dems' "strategery" to deal with African Americans that are choosing to support Republicans.

Here.

I can't imagine the Dems becoming even tougher on Steele. Their attacks have already been so extreme that they've acted illegally and unethically.

As part of the Dems' opposition research, staffer Lauren B. Weiner on Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has illegally used Steele's Social Security number to access his credit report and personal financial records.

Weiner committed computer fraud by setting up a fake email account and answering a series of questions to impersonate Steele, all to obtain his financial information in hopes of uncovering some dirt the Dems could use against him.

Back in November, The Washington Times revealed some extremely disturbing instances of bigotry and harassment by the Democrats directed at Steele. Even worse, the Dems rationalize their inexcusable behavior as appropriate.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks
against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

...State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

The Dems' plan to manage the Steele problem states:

• Democrats must be aggressive. Steele is a unique challenge. Democrats cannot affort to wait until after the primary election to knock Steele down. A persuasive campaign should start as soon as possible to discredit Steele as a viable candidate for the community.
• 
  Connecting Steele to National Republicans, especially on issues such as Medicare reform and Social Security privitization, can turn Steele into a typical Republican in the eyes of voters, as opposed to an African American candidate.

How much more aggressive can the Dems get?

They've broken the law by impersonating Steele on the Internet, and illegally obtained his financial records.

They've used the "Uncle Tom" epithet and pelted Steele with Oreos and depicted him in black-face.





I hope that ALL Americans think for themselves when it comes to voting, and are not swayed by labels.

Why would anyone cast a vote based on some traditional voting habits?

I don't get that. That's not really exercising one's right to vote.

Being pressured to follow the crowd or the expectations of one's community is a form of disenfranchisement.

It's un-American.

The Dems Pretend to Have a Plan

Finally!

The Dems are unveiling their plan on national security, a position paper outlining what they stand for.

It appears to be little more than the same old, same old. Empty promises. No substance. Lame rhetoric.

I imagine they are hoping that no one will notice their vacuousness.

How foolish!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Democrats promise to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader. They do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.

Let's not forget that the Dems had bin Laden. He was there for the taking and they blew it.

President of the Republic of the Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, offered bin Laden to Bill Clinton in 1997.

From the PBS program "Hunting Bin Laden," an installment on Frontline:

INTERVIEWER: The New York Times reported that in February of 1997 that you sent President Clinton a personal letter to allow US intelligence and counter-terrorism people to come here to the Sudan, to have access to anything they wanted, to stop terrorism.

BASHIR: That is true. I have sent a letter like this to President Clinton, until this moment we did not get any response to that.

INTERVIEWER: You have ambassadors in the United States. Have they asked?

BASHIR: It is our ambassador who took the letter and handed it there and tried to follow-up the matter with the White House ... . But nothing came and it was turned down.

So now we're to believe that the Dems will "eliminate" bin Laden. Yeah, right. That promise is guaranteed to be broken.

The Dems should have "eliminated" bin Laden when the president of Sudan asked Clinton to take him. Bin Laden was a known enemy of the U.S. and they failed to "eliminate" the threat he posed to Americans.

The elusive bin Laden was in the palm of Clinton's hand and he did NOTHING.

Their plan for troop redeployment seems as elusive as bin Laden.

The Dems obviously were too afraid to set a timeline, even though they keep pressuring the Bush Administration to present a timeline for withdrawal. The Dems also provide no deadline for American troops to be out of Iraq completely.

"We're uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart and will provide the real security George Bush has promised but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.

First, I don't think the Dems are uniting. The likes of Feingold and Murtha certainly can't be happy with such a meaningless agenda.

Second, when it comes to national security, the Dems are not tough and they are not smart. (See Clinton's failure to deal with bin Laden.)

The safety of the American people should not be in the hands of Harry "We killed the Patriot Act" Reid.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Democrats are offering a new direction _ "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

The Dems have demonstrated over and over again that they are not the party of "real national security." It seems that at every turn they try to undermine the War on Terror, through their words and deeds.

..."The Democrats are going to take back the security issue," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Ah yes, Chuckie is the chair of the DSCC.

That would be the committee with staffer Lauren B. Weiner, the woman who illegally used the Social Security number of U.S. senate candidate Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele to impersonate him and pry into his financial records. Weiner went so far as to set up a fake email account under Steele's name to access his private information.

I consider that to be domestic spying and definitely unconstitutional. Did Weiner have a warrant? Steele is no terrorist, but he is a strong Republican candidate. I guess to the Dems Steele is as threatening as a terrorist, so Weiner conducted a warrantless search. Maybe it would be more fitting to call it fraudulent.

Talk about eroding civil liberties!

The Dems don't have the security issue. The Dems are appeasers. They are weak on national security.

I know this is painful, but think of what Carter did to the country. Think of what Clinton did. The Dems cannot be trusted to protect America. It's as simple as that.

...Overall, the Democratic position paper attempts to make the case that the Bush administration's "inadequate planning and incompetent policies have failed to make Americas as safe as we should be."

It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.

The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's tired rhetoric. There's no plan from the Dems, only a history of making disastrous national security decisions.

Empty political rhetoric does not make Americans safer.

We don't need snake oil.
_______________________________

I saw this on the DNC website -- The Filthy Four.

After a weekend of buzzer beaters, blowouts, heartbreak, and euphoria, the "Unsweet Sixteen" has been whittled down to the "Filthy Four." There are no feel good cindarella stories in the field, just a collection of the corrupt. Here are the finalists and how they got there.



Read the details of the brackets.

It's so ugly and it's on the DNC site, not some wacko, Lefty blog.

The Dems are not the party of ideas.

They have a lot of anger. That's about it.

Weiner Cuts a Deal

Some news from the Dems' Culture of Corruption:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A former Democratic staffer pleaded guilty today to computer fraud for snooping on Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

Under the plea agreement in U.S. District Court, Lauren B. Weiner, 25, avoids jail time, but she has a year to do 150 hours of community service.

Steele -- a Republican running for U.S. Senate -- was notified by Democrats in Washington that a staffer used Steele's Social Security number to obtain his credit report last year. Weiner was fired from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee after the breach was discovered.

Why is Chuck Schumer, the chairman of the DSCC, never mentioned in the Weiner story?

How can one possibly write about this incident without mentioning the chairman of that committee? The illegal activity took place on Schumer's watch.

Weiner sought the Social Security number of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele and U.S. Senate candidate and used it to access his credit report and personal financial records. That's not an "Oops, it was an honest mistake" sort of thing.

Read the statement of the offense.

You'll see just how egregious her actions were. She set up a fake email account and answered a series of questions to impersonate Steele, all to obtain his financial information.

I don't think community service, even 150 hours, is a severe enough punishment.


As far as the Schumer connection goes, I don't think there's some sort of coverup and he personally instructed Weiner to break the law.

HOWEVER, if a prominent Republican chaired a committee and a staffer was involved in such immoral, illegal tactics, that Republican would be crucified.

The Dems talked like President Bush personally put the Abu Ghraib prisoner on a leash; yet Chuckie's chairmanship isn't included in these Weiner updates.

This AP report is another example of its lib bias.

Read this partisan hit piece from the Associated Press. It's not an opinion column. It's the AP's idea of news. Unbelievable.

The Associated Press, ABC, Dick Gregory, Helen Thomas... Every day the lib media look worse and worse.

IT'S YOU, CHUCKIE!

John Wagner of the Washington Post is incompetent as a journalist, or maybe he's just having a bad day.

Today, he writes about the charges Lauren B. Weiner will face because she allegedly "fraudulently [obtained] a credit report on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele," Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Wagner writes:

The episode, which happened last July, came as both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates for one of Maryland's marquee races this year, the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D). Opposition research is typical in contested statewide races, but it is illegal under federal law to obtain a credit report under false pretenses.

Notice that he says, "both parties started digging into the backgrounds of opposing candidates."

Hey, Wagner! That may be the case, but it was the Dem operatives that acted illegally. Weiner was not engaged in "typical" opposition research, unless such research is typically illegal.

Whitney C. Ellerman, an attorney for Weiner, said his client plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor under an agreement with prosecutors that could result in the charge being dismissed in a year.

"She basically made a mistake, and she is accepting responsibility for that mistake," Ellerman said. "She wants to get on with her life."

Ellerman said Steele's credit report was destroyed and not disseminated to anyone.

Republicans seized on the incident when it came to light in the fall as evidence of how seriously Democrats are taking Steele's candidacy, an idea they sought to further yesterday.

"This sort of dumpster diving shows Marylanders that Democrats are willing to engage in this campaign from the gutter," said Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in Washington, which was heavily involved in recruiting Steele to run. "It's unfortunate that the lieutenant governor and his family have had to endure it."

Oh, poor baby Lauren. She made a mistake and violated the privacy of Lt. Gov. Steele. Oops!

The big, bad Republicans, on the other hand, "seized on the incident" and continue to exploit it.

This is a textbook example of blaming the victim.

Do you detect any bias in Wagner's account?

Personal finances were considered fertile territory for researchers looking into Steele, who acknowledged financial difficulties when he ran for statewide office in 2002. Sources familiar with the episode said Steele's credit report was obtained with the use of his Social Security number, which was found on a public court document.

Weiner and Katie Barge, then the DSCC's director of research, resigned after their superiors learned of the incident, which drew the FBI's attention. The DSCC is the arm of the national Democratic Party that works to elect U.S. senators.

William Lawler, an attorney for Barge, said it is his understanding from prosecutors that neither his client nor the DSCC will be charged.

"We're pleased to see this matter come to a conclusion," DSCC spokesman Phil Singer said last night. "Our thoughts are with Lauren. She is a fine person who made a mistake."

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, would not comment on the case or why the office is apparently not charging Barge, who was Weiner's boss at the DSCC.

The letter to Steele says Weiner "will be charged with accessing a computer without authorization and thereby obtaining information contained in a file from a consumer reporting agency on a consumer." The act is a violation of a section of the U.S. Code titled "Fraud in Connection With Computers." The penalty could range from probation to six months in prison.

I have a question for Wagner:

How can you possibly write about this incident and the DSCC without mentioning the chairman of that committee when the illegal activity took place?

It's Senator Chuck Schumer!

When this matter finally came to light, it was downplayed by lib media outlets. That's understandable, especially given that the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media had just launched their orchestrated "Culture of Corruption" campaign against Republicans.

In September 2005, Edward Morrissey wrote a great piece for the Weekly Standard. He revealed the hypocrisy of Chuck Schumer and the failure of the mainstream media to hold him accountable for the illegal activites of the DSCC.

Morrissey noted the irony in the fact that this corruption and illegal violation of Steele's privacy occurred under the watch of the co-author and sponsor of the "Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill, introduced in April of [2005] to discourage the kind of actions that Barge and Weiner took on Schumer's behalf."

He wrote what Schumer said then about possible privacy abuses:

O]ur comprehensive measure focuses on making sure that your personal information isn't surfing the Internet without your permission and that companies handling your Social Security number and other sensitive information should come under the watchful eye of the Federal Trade Commission immediately.

Morrissey went on to ask, "Who knew that within weeks of uttering this statement, his staff at the DSCC would have provided such a compelling example of the problem?"

Morrissey concluded:

Keeping two staffers on paid leave of absence after breaking federal laws on privacy--especially when data privacy happens to be a specialty of Senator Schumer--does indicate a casual approach to practicing what Schumer preaches.

It certainly does.

The hypocrisy of Schumer should have been pounced on by the press. It wasn't.

The fact is the mainstream media fails to inform the public in a fair and balanced fashion. Again and again, we see examples of the lib media pushing the lib agenda rather than accurately and adequately reporting the news.

Wagner's March 16 article about Weiner's violation of Steele's privacy and the Schumer connection is a glaring case in point.

Dem Damage Control

Lt. Governor, Michael S. Steele

Put this one in the damage control file.

Obviously, some Maryland Dems have realized that spitting racial venom at U.S. Senate candidate Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and pelting him with Oreos maybe wasn't such a good idea after all.

Now, they are trying to wipe up their mess and sweep up the cookie crumbs.

ANNAPOLIS -- The Maryland Democratic Party has been relentless in criticizing Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his run for U.S. Senate, but party officials say that won't stop them from paying homage to the conservative Republican during Black History Month.

"Michael Steele is an important figure in African-American history in Maryland. There is no question about it," said Derek Walker, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

"We should be proud of the achievements of African-Americans, regardless of what party they are from or what their background is," he said.

Mr. Steele, the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland, will be celebrated Monday as part of the state Democratic Party's campaign to honor a black Marylander each day this month, Mr. Walker said.

The party distributes a daily e-mail spotlighting the day's honoree.

When told of the party's plans, Mr. Steele said it sounded like a joke -- but added that he would be appreciative if the Democrats truly mean to honor him.

"I appreciate the honor, and I thank them for it," the lieutenant governor said.

In recent days, Democrats have scolded Mr. Steele for not taking a public stance on the nomination of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., for opposing the $1 increase to Maryland's minimum wage, for not criticizing President Bush's budget proposal and for being allied with congressional Republicans who received low civil-rights scores from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

"We'll see what the next e-mail they send out looks like," Mr. Steele said.

Some black Democratic lawmakers said it is about time their party credited Mr. Steele for raising the profile of black Marylanders in state politics.

"I think it is a great idea," said Delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr., Baltimore County Democrat. "Michael Steele is an honorable man."

...Racial issues have overshadowed Maryland's Senate race -- one of the most closely watched contests in the nation -- as the Democratic Party struggles to shore up black votes lost to Mr. Steele and the Republican Party that backed him in 2002.

Black Democratic lawmakers said racially tinged attacks against Mr. Steele are fair because he is a conservative Republican, and key Democratic leaders -- such as gubernatorial candidates Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley and Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan, both white -- declined to repudiate their comments.

Steele is not only an honorable man, he's a very gracious man.

Rather than refusing to accept the Democratic Party's honor as a hypocritical stunt, citing all the vitriol they've directed his way, Steele thanked them.

That speaks volumes about Steele's character.

Likewise, how the Dems have lambasted Steele speaks volumes about them. Their efforts to counter the unforgivable racial attacks and the Party's failure to condemn them by honoring Steele for a day also says a lot.

It says that some of them are unscrupulous pretenders, eager to do what is politically expedient, not what's right.





Read more.

Dem leaders in Maryland are certainly trying to change their tune.

If I were a Maryland voter, I'd consider the Dems' latest move to be way too little, way too late.

Oreos for Uncle Tom

UPDATE, January 30, 2009: Republicans Pick Steele as Next Party Chairman

Read below how Michael Steele has been treated by DEMOCRATS.
________________

Examples of liberals exhibiting racial intolerance seem to be popping up everywhere.

I thought that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial remark, referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a black man with an asterisk, was racist and shockingly inappropriate.

That shock was mild compared to my reaction to how Democrats, especially black Democrats, have treated Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, candidate for the U.S. Senate.

A particularly troubling aspect of this is that liberals are condoning, and in some cases carrying out, racial attacks. They consider it socially acceptable to be a bigot when it comes to mistreating black conservatives.


Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele

What is wrong with these people?

The Washington Times reveals some extremely disturbing instances of bigotry and harassment directed at Steele.

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

What a disgusting double standard!

"Racially tinged attacks" are unfair under any circumstances.

Period.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.



Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

If a Dem candidate were targeted by a Republican in this fashion, you can be sure that the MSM would be all over it. There would be rallies and candlelight vigils to draw attention to the story. The Congressional Black Caucus would stage a press conference.

Instead, because a black conservative was the target, there is silence.

Where is Jesse Jackson?

He made a beeline to stand at the side of Hugo Chavez, but he steers clear of Steele.

Weird.

..."There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

"Pointing out the obvious"?

Is calling Steele an "Uncle Tom" merely stating the obvious???

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

I strongly disagree with Gladden.

Racism is not democracy. Running for public office does not mean that one must submit to being pelted with Oreos. There is no justification for such juvenile, disrespectful behavior.

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

With all due respect, that's lame. Being a conservative does not invite racial epithets to be hurled one's way.

Siler Marriott is entitled to judge Steele's views. She is not entitled to demean him by slinging inflammatory, anti-social terms.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Just because Steele does not share the political views of many public blacks does not mean that it is acceptable for people of any race to attack him with hate speech and assault him physically.

I would think that blacks would respect Steele's right to believe what he wants to be believe. They shouldn't threaten Steele on the grounds that he is in the political minority in the black community.

If anything, I would expect liberals to demand that extra care should be taken to assure that his rights are protected because of his minority status.

Compare the rampant charges of racism after Hurricane Katrina with these statements about Steele coming from black officials. A very unflattering inconsistency is evident.

Do you think Martin Luther King would approve of the treatment that Steele has received from liberals?

I don't.

While it's perfectly legitimate for any American of any skin color to disagree with Steele's politics and express that disagreement in a civil fashion, it is not appropriate to resort to tactics that are deemed socially and morally objectionable.


It is a sad, sad thing that on the day that the nation celebrated the life of Rosa Parks and laid her to rest, there are so many liberal blacks attempting to undermine the right of an individual to freely choose and abide by a political philosophy.

Black Americans should not be shunned by anyone for adopting conservative views.

Is that what the civil rights movement was about?

Don't black conservatives deserve to be treated with the dignity that God gave to every human being?

Did Rosa Parks fight for equality for blacks or just liberal blacks?

In effect, these bigoted liberals are trying to keep Steele and conservative blacks at the back of the bus. Using racial slurs and shooting Oreo bullets in an attempt to stiffle them is disgraceful.

As citizens of this country, we are free to think for ourselves, regardless of race. As free human beings, that is our right.

It is hateful to say that Michael Steele and other black conservatives, like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell, aren't really black simply because they are exercising their free will.

It's wrong.

Sadly, there is still a lot of overcoming to be done.


A military honor guard leads the flag-draped casket of Rosa Parks out of the Greater Grace Temple in Detroit, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005.

Leftists Don't Care About (Conservative) Black People

THE QUESTION: In America, 2005, when is it socially acceptable to be racist?

One would think that the answer would be that it's never socially acceptable to be racist.

That's not true.

THE ANSWER: It is socially acceptable for Leftists to employ racist comments and use derogatory racial imagery when referring to black conservatives.

Two recent examples illustrating this rule deal with doctored photos.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

As reported by Michelle Malkin, and originally discovered by From The Pen, USA Today ran a doctored photo of Rice on October 19, 2005, with the article, "Rice won't rule out U.S. troops in Iraq in 10 years."



Her eyes look rather piercing, don't they?

Yesterday, after receiving complaints, USA Today pulled the doctored picture of the demonized Condi, replaced it with the original, and printed an explanation for the altered photo.

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.



Editorial standards? What editorial standards? Does USA Today operate under standards set by Michael Moore?

Clearly, that photo was not altered in order to "optimize its appearance." The editor has an agenda and it's not pro-Condi.

If a liberal African-American woman were given that sort of treatment to "optimize" her appearance, there would be an outcry. Shouts of racism would be echoing across the country. It would be the lead story on news broadcasts and plastered on the front pages of publications.

The fact is there is a sinister acceptance of racism when it's directed at conservatives.

I suppose Rice got off relatively easy this time. Only her eyes were photoshopped to make her look possessed by a demon. The USA Today editor managed to exercise enough control to stop before going any further and dressing her like Aunt Jemima.

If you recall, it was about a year ago when John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, WI, called Rice an "Aunt Jemima," saying that she had only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Of course, Sylvester is an idiot. He claimed, "[T]hey’re using her for an illusion of inclusion."

How did the Madison branch of the NAACP respond to this outrageousness? Linda Hoskins said she could not comment on Sylvester’s remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.

Right. Hoskins thought that he might have used the term in a flattering way. Sure.

For his part, Sylvester refused to apologize for his racist remarks. Instead, he planned a giveaway of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup, adding, "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima."

MARYLAND LT. GOV. MICHAEL S. STEELE

This example is breathtaking in its racial insensitivity.

The News Blog has the following photo and story about Michael Steele:


I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House

Steele Vows to Link Democrats, GOP
Lt. Governor Makes Senate Race Official

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page B09

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele formally launched his bid for U.S. Senate yesterday, standing on his own for the first time since a successful political partnership with Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. catapulted him to statewide office.

With Gov. Ehrlich (R) sitting in the front row and a crowd of supporters cheering in a Prince George's Community College field house, Steele kicked off what promises to be a bruising 2006 campaign for the seat being vacated by five-term Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D).

Steele delivered a rousing populist speech that never mentioned his Republican Party affiliation and appeared to take swipes at both parties, including the same Washington insiders who urged him to enter the race and financed his exploratory committee.

The first black to win statewide office in Maryland, Steele, 47, promised that he would make history again by being a bridge -- "a bridge of steel" -- between Democrats and Republicans, between Capitol Hill and Main Street.

"A bridge that not only brings both parties together but, more importantly, brings all of us closer to one another," he said.
...................

Instead, Steele gave the first glimpse of the delicate line he will attempt to tread as he seeks to marshal support in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans on voter rolls by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 and where a new poll shows President Bush's support among blacks at just 3 percent.

Republicans are seeing Steele as their best hope in years for a Senate seat. But even among Ehrlich loyalists, there were mixed views about Steele's ability to pull it off.

"He would need a perfect storm," said Richard E. Vatz, a professor at Towson University.

"An uphill battle," said Richard Hug, Ehrlich's chief fundraiser.

Ehrlich's people are already abandoning Simple Sambo.

And if he thinks he can win Baltimore and the DC suburbs, he's on crack. Black people will not only not vote for him, but regard him with contempt. When he said it was no big deal that Ehrlich held an event in a restricted country club, he showed himself to be Simple Sambo, untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, his bossman's people look like they're gonna let him sink, not swim.

When your boss's money people are laughing at you in print, well, Simple Sambo has a long way to go.

Wait? The 2 percent poll wasn't an outlier like so many people said? Wow. It would really suck to be facing a DC jury and working for the White House, wouldn't it?

I get the feeling the grand jury would have charged them with unicorn theft if they could.

This blog entry is one of the most despicable things I've read. It belongs on a Neo-Nazi site.

The blogger behind this entry is Steve Gilliard, an African-American. Apparently, because of his skin color, he believes that he has immunity to racially slur Steele. Because he is slurring a black conservative, liberals and African-American groups don't object.



Bill Bennett was called a racist and criticized for saying things that he didn't say. Dems rushed to the Senate floor to condemn him.

Louis Farrakhan gets to plant theories about the U.S. government bombing levees in New Orleans to flood black neighborhoods, with no loud complaints from the Dems or African-American leaders.

Kanye West spews anti-Bush, race-baiting comments on a live NBC telethon for Hurricane Katrina relief and the Leftist media praise him for speaking the truth.

Where is the condemnation for the racist attack on Steele?

Where is the condemnation for the repeated racial attacks on Rice?

Cue the crickets.

I guess it would be valid to say that Leftists don't care about black people. Make that CONSERVATIVE black people.

It sickens me that liberals are willing to accept the most disgusting racist attacks as long as conservatives are in the crosshairs. They'll rationalize anything if it furthers their agenda.

The depth of the hypocrisy of Leftists is truly jaw-dropping.