Why won’t the Democrats impeach President Bush?

For the last few years, the President, as we all know, has been accused by Democrats of all sorts of underhanded, nefarious, “illegal” actions. The “Impeach Bush” site lists the following:

Summary of Known Impeachable Offenses

Bush lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Bush conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens.
Bush violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war.
Bush violated International Law by invading a sovereign country for illegal purposes.
Bush held prisoners without formal charges and without legal representation.

Their “grounds for impeachment” are listed here.

Now, I know you won’t find the names of anyone from Congress on that page, but House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (who admitted to ethics violations at the end of the year last year but has not been punished by the House leadership) has been one of many Democrats who has been salivating for years at the prospect of impeaching the President and even introduced, back in December of 2005, a resolution to begin impeachment proceedings – a resolution that was co-sponsored by 38 House Democrats. He introduced this knowing it wouldn’t go anywhere at the time, because the House was controlled by Republicans. He and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi both tried to claim prior to the 2006 elections that they would “not” be impeaching President Bush, even though they are two of many Democrats who have accused the President of at least one, if not more, of what the Impeach Bush site has accused the President of doing.

Now today comes word from La Pelosi herself that well, yeah, if she was in the Senate, she’d “probably advocate” impeaching the President:

If she were not in the House–and not Speaker of the House–Nancy Pelosi says she “would probably advocate” impeaching President Bush.

But given her current role as party leader, at a breakfast with progressive journalists today (named after our great friend Maria Leavey) Pelosi sketched her case against impeachment.

“The question of impeachment is something that would divide the country,” Pelosi said this morning during a wide-ranging discussion in the ornate Speaker’s office. Her top priorities are ending the war in Iraq, expanding health care, creating jobs and preserving the environment. “I know what our success can be on those issues. I don’t know what our success can be on impeaching the president.”

Slick, Nancy, real slick. What’s she’s really saying here is that she’s not going to pursue impeaching the man who is supposedly guilty of lying to the American people in order to wage war and who is also supposedly guilty of spying on Americans for political purposes because there’s no support for it in the polls – and she and Democrats want to retain their power instead.

But she’d advocate it if she was a Senator, because in the Senate she wouldn’t have to worry about backlash from the Nutroots for not following through because the Senate is not where impeachment proceedings start, and she knows it.

In summary, the woman who vowed to ‘clean up Washington, DC’ would rather Democrats stay in power than to impeach a president for offenses they feel are, well, impeachable.

What a bleeping cop out.

“Leaving partisanship at the front door”?

Remember this?

Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the would-be Speaker of the House, savored their victories on Wednesday but struck conciliatory tones, promising to work in a bipartisan way with congressional Republicans and the president.

“This is not a juggernaut just slicing through town,” Reid said. [11/2/06]

Riiiight. Check out this “Senate voting with party” list – who are the top ten most partisan members in the Senate?

All Dems.

Of course WE knew they wouldn’t act in a “bipartisan manner” but they convinced the American people they would. Just another in a long list of broken campaign promises they made in order to grab power.

That said, partisanship in Washington, DC is not a bad thing (who wants everyone agreeing all the time?) but promising to act in the ‘spirit of bipartisanship’ in order to promote ‘change’ in Washington, DC without having any intentions of really doing it is not just bad – it’s a bald-faced lie.

Meet the new boss, same as the … well, you get the picture.

More: Via the comments section, ST reader GWR spots an even more glaring example of Dem partisanship:

Take a look at the corresponding list of “House voting with party”. Except for congressman Norwood of Georgia – who died five months ago – the top 183 most partisan members of the House are all Dems.

To the left, “bipartisan” means you do it their way, not reaching a middle ground.


The real Che Guevara

Think the far left cult-worshippers of Che Guevara will change their tunes once they read this?

(CNSNews.com) – Che Guevara, who aided Fidel Castro in his rise to power in Cuba in the late 1950s and early 1960s, is today an icon of liberal culture worldwide. His picture and image adorn countless products, from posters to t-shirts to CD cases to bikinis.

Robert Redford made a 2004 movie about Guevara, “The Motorcycle Diaries,” which won media praise and an Academy Award. Two more Guevara movies are due for release in 2008.

Yet the liberal-left and Hollywood are perpetuating myths, if not outright lies, about Guevara, according to author Humberto Fontova in his book, “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.”

Fontova discussed with Cybercast News Service his new book and what he describes as the real Guevara – the man who directly helped Castro put into place a communist regime responsible for at least 102,000 deaths and which has cycled 500,000 people through its gulag.


Cybercast News Service: When academics and Hollywood and establishment media promote untruths about Guevara and Cuba, is it ignorance, or that they’re sympathetic towards Castro, or both?

Humberto Fontova: It’s a combination and reflexive anti-Americanism. You have to remember that, well before Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were the emblems of anti-Americanism, the worldwide emblems. Basically, the Cuban revolution and everything associated with it – and Che Guevara is the primary symbol of that – is the handiest club to pick up and whack the U.S. on the head.

Cybercast News Service: What do you consider to be some of Guevara’s greatest crimes or offenses that people today should know about?

Humberto Fontova: He was the chief executioner. He performed for the Cuban revolution what Heinrich Himmler performed for the Nazis. Everything Che Guevara did was directed by Fidel Castro. Early on, when they were in the mountains, Castro realized that Che seemed to relish executing little farm boys. There were executions carried out, carried out in the mountains, of so-called informers. I interviewed many people who witnessed those executions. There was no due process.

Che Guevara wrote a letter to his father in 1957 and to his abandoned wife. In the letter to her, he wrote, “I’m here in Cuba’s hills, alive and thirsting for blood.” Then, to his father, “I really like killing.” The man was a clinical sadist, whereas Fidel Castro you could describe as a psychopath in that the murders did not affect him one way or the other. It was a means to an end – the consolidation of his one-man rule. Che has a famous quote, where he wrote, a revolutionary has to become “a cold killing machine.” The thing was, Che Guevara was anything but cold. He was a warm killing machine. He relished the slaughter.

Cybercast News Service: Are there reliable estimates on the number of people killed by Guevara or killed as a result of his policies or orders?

Humberto Fontova: He was put in charge of the execution squads in early 1959. He stayed in charge of the prison where most of the executions took place in Havana. And in the months he was in charge there, about four months until July 1959, the estimates run from 500 to 1,182 men and boys sent to the firing squad without due process. But the system he set in place for the executions … in that system of justice, according to “The Black Book of Communism” – the definitive source – by the mid-sixties, 14,000 men and boys had been executed in Cuba. That was the year, December 1964, when Che Guevara … addressed the General Assembly, and he said: “Executions? Certainly we execute. And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary!” So, in other words, he still claimed the system. It was still his system at work.

This is a fascinating read, part of a 2 part interview – the other part, I presume, will be published tomorrow.

I suspect that Che fans (of which there are many) know the depth of Che’s depravity already. Just like they know how ruthless Fidel Castro is, and any number of other thugs whose faces they, oddly, use as symbols of freedom – especially when marching against the ‘oppressive’ US under the “reign” of “King” George W. Bush.

It’s very revealing having a conversation with supporters of the likes of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. When you ask them what they like so much about Cuba, they talk about the healthcare system there (Jules Crittenden has had this conversation, too) and how ‘wonderful’ it is (see useful idiot Michael Moore for more on that, and then for a dose of reality on Cuban healthcare, go here). I typically respond “yeah, outside of its rampant human rights abuses, including locking up and punishing journalists who don’t toe the official Cuba line, then sure – it’s a wonderful place to be.” Some of the human rights abuses that are on record as happening in Cuba are some of the same types of abuses that Cuba-admirers (who usually include a high number of rabid anti-war protesters) baselessly claim the US engages in routinely on its own soil.

This is the number one reason why I don’t take rabid anti-war Bush haters in this country seriously, because I know so many of them are lacking a very important component when it comes to critical thinking and deductive reasoning when comparing the rights they have here versus the ‘rights’ oppressive countries supposedly have. That component?

A clue.

Then again, it could be that many of them are well aware that this administration isn’t engaging in the human rights abuses they claim it is. They’re just leveling charges as often as possible in hopes that eventually something will stick. As I’ve written before, it’s not so much whether or not the charge is true so much as it is about the “seriousness” of the charge. Whatever it takes to bring down the admin, right?

Hat tip: EU Referendum

Update on Chief Justice Roberts’ condition

Via Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suffered what doctors are describing as a “benign idiopathic seizure,” causing him to fall Monday at his summer home in Maine.

He is staying in Penobscot Bay Medical Center overnight for observation, court officials told FOX News.


A benign idiopathic seizure means the episode appears to be harmless and “of no known cause.” Steven Garner of New York Methodist Hospital said if Roberts has a previous history of seizures, Monday’s incident may be less serious than a newly-emerging problem.

“We just may have a malfunction in the circuits, the way that brain cells talk to one another,” said Garner, who did not examine Roberts. Garner said taking medication, drinking alcohol or certain periods of stress can all bring on seizures.

According to Arberg, Roberts had a similar episode in 1993. The White House described the January 1993 episode as an “isolated, idiosyncratic seizure.” In 2001, Roberts described his health as “excellent,” according to Senate Judiciary Committee records.

Larry Robbins, a Washington attorney who worked with Roberts at the Justice Department in 1993, said he drove Roberts to work for several months after the incident. Robbins said Roberts never mentioned what the problem was and he never heard of it happening again.

Garner added that the report that doctors have said they have “no cause for concern” suggests Roberts does not have a tumor, but that the cause of the seizure should be investigated. He said Roberts could need to wear a heart monitor overnight to track whether surges are being directed to his brain.

Sounds like he’s going to be fine. Welcome news for most of us, but unfortunately not for some jerks.

Update: The AP reports that Roberts has left the hospital.

Odds -n- ends

Some misc. links of interest:

— There are some troubling developments on the earmark reform front – especially in the Senate. Robert Bluey has the details on how Democrats in the Senate are trying their best to water down the bill to the point that it’s essentially meaningless. Not exactly shocking, considering who their leader is.

— Fred Thompson’s fundraising efforts fell short of the expectations of many, as Mike Allen at The Politico reports. However, don’t despair, Fred fans, as a source close to the Thompson camp puts things in context (emphais theirs):

(1) In his first exploratory month, Thompson raised well over $3 million – more than 10x what Giuliani did in his first month and about 3x McCain. Here’s the initial exploratory month (from the time they started taking money) for GOP candidates…

· Giuliani – total raised in first month (Nov. 15-Dec. 15): $258,660
· McCain – total raised in first month (Nov. 14-Dec. 14): $1,130,351
· Romney – raised more money in his first month, but largely because he organized his big-dollar donors ahead of time to give himself a bit splash and he “loaned his committee at least $850,000 weeks before filing his statement of candidacy on Jan. 3“.

(2) Under FEC rules, you are not allowed to raise funds “in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities”. Thompson has raised an appropriate amount for an exploratory phase. Note, however…

· One month ago, the DNC attacked Thompson (in the Politico) for potentially raising more money than he’d need for the exploratory period and said they’d “argue aggressively” against him. The DNC rolled out that hit piece at Daily Kos claiming that Thompson was “Raising Funds Beyond What You Need To “Explore”” and the liberal activist outlet CREW said Thompson “appears to have raised far more money than necessary…”

· After being attacked for raising “too much” money, Thompson is now being attacked for not spending his entire Exploratory focus on raising money.

(3) So far we’ve utilized no direct mail or telephone fundraising, and we have a burn rate below 20% – far below the other candidates.

Some food for thought, anyway. Just remember, though: The goal had been to raise $5 mil.

— Bad news, via MSNBC’s First Read:

NBC News, MSNBC, MSNBC.com and the New York Times today announced a new partnership, collaborating on national political coverage for the 2008 election. Reporting, articles and video from the organizations will be posted on each others’ Web sites.

Great. This means that election coverage will be slanted even more to the left than what it already is. Sigh.

— Several House Democrats will be introducing a resolution tomorrow calling on the House Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

–Iraq’s soccer captain, fresh off the Asia Cup victory, wants America to leave Iraq, and wishes the US had never invaded Iraq (an expression not unfamiliar to Iraqi soccer players, as you may recall). In any event, it was an odd statement to make, considering what used to routinely happen to Iraqi soccer players who didn’t perform well under Hussein’s rule. I’m glad to see that for at least one day, Iraq was unified, but I didn’t get weepy over it, because I figured eventually we’d hear about at least one player’s hatred of the US’ ‘occupying’ of Iraq.

— Not a good sign: Republican Senator Ted Stevens’ home was searched today by the IRS and FBI, as part of an ongoing public corruption investigation.

— McDonald’s has taken the high road and dropped raunchy rapper “Twista” from its summer concert series. Good for them.

— The family of slain Ron Goldman has obtained the rights to his murderer OJ Simpson’s book “If I Did It”:

MIAMI (Reuters) – Rights to O.J. Simpson’s hypothetical book “If I Did It” passed to relatives of murder victim Ron Goldman on Monday as a federal judge approved their settlement with a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee.

Lawyers for the Goldmans said they would seek to capitalize on the book by arranging new publishing, film or TV deals to help satisfy a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment won by the family against Simpson in 1997.

The book was billed as a hypothetical account of how the former football star could have carried out the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Goldman.

The News Corp.-owned publishing house, HarperCollins, scrapped the book in November before its planned release amid a torrent of public outrage.

— The WaPo’s Dan Froomkin seems almost disappointed that Britain’s new Prime Minister Gordon Brown didn’t distance himself from the President today during a joint press conference at Camp David. Give him time, Dan. He’s not going to do it while he’s here, anyway.

— Here’s a new way to fight gang violence: symphonies. Only on the left coast, folks. Only on the left coast.

— Ever heard of a “vegansexual”? I haven’t, either, but you’ll definitely know who they are and what they’re ‘about’ after reading this bizarro story. (Thanks to ST reader Sev)

Tue AM Update: Meant to add this one to last night’s links, too – make sure to check out Gary Gross’ slamalama against Moveon.org and other far lefties for targeting FoxNews’ advertisers. He’s fired up, as we all should be.

Walter Mondale chides Dick Cheney, and also claims he’s ‘proud’ of the Carter administration


But it wasn’t until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.

Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served — the president’s. Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the “executivization” of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.

Did you know that? I certainly wasn’t aware that it was only under President Jimmy “Hamas isn’t a terrorist outfit” Carter that the VP role had finally been made “relevant” especially not when you consider what happened under Carter’s and Mondale’s watch. More on that in minute. The man who couldn’t beat Norm Coleman in 2002 goes on:

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the “honest broker” role he played as President Gerald Ford’s chief of staff.

Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president — because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

And many have been upheld, thankfully.

In essence, Mondale is unhappy that Cheney has more clearly defined the role of VP than he supposedly did, and almost seems to be jealous about it. This, however, was the height of chutzpah for the former VP under Carter:

Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.

James Taranto reminds us:

What do you call it when the U.S. sits idly by as the Soviets invade Afghanistan and a newly radicalized Iran holds Americans hostage?

Walter Mondale calls it “keeping the peace.”

From Mondale’s opinion piece, it’s clear that Carter isn’t the only one in his administration who has a penchant for attempting to whitewash history (more on that here). Oh well, at least Mondale’s not yet another from the Carter admnistration who refuses to call terrorist organizations for what they are.

Legendary NFL coach Bill Walsh passes away

Former SF 49r coach Bill Walsh passed away today at the age of 75, after a lengthy battle with leukemia. He helped coach the 9rs to three Super Bowl victories, and was highly respected in the NFL:

Walsh didn’t become an NFL head coach until 47, and he spent just 10 seasons on the San Francisco sideline. But he left an indelible mark on the United States’ most popular sport, building the once-woebegone 49ers into the most successful team of the 1980s with his innovative offensive strategies and teaching techniques.

The soft-spoken native Californian also produced a legion of coaching disciples that’s still growing today. Many of his former assistants went on to lead their own teams, handing down Walsh’s methods and schemes to dozens more coaches in a tree with innumerable branches.

“The essence of Bill Walsh was that he was an extraordinary teacher,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. “If you gave him a blackboard and a piece of chalk, he would become a whirlwind of wisdom. He taught all of us not only about football but also about life and how it takes teamwork for any of us to succeed as individuals.”

Walsh went 102-63-1 with the 49ers, winning 10 of his 14 postseason games along with six division titles. He was named the NFL’s coach of the year in 1981 and 1984.

Few men did more to shape the look of football into the 21st century. His cerebral nature and often-brilliant stratagems earned him the nickname “The Genius” well before his election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1993.

Walsh twice served as the 49ers’ general manager, and George Seifert led San Francisco to two more Super Bowl titles after Walsh left the sideline. Walsh also coached Stanford during two terms over five seasons.

Even a short list of Walsh’s adherents is stunning. Seifert, Mike Holmgren, Dennis Green, Sam Wyche, Ray Rhodes and Bruce Coslet all became NFL head coaches after serving on Walsh’s San Francisco staffs, and Tony Dungy played for him. Most of his former assistants passed on Walsh’s structures and strategies to a new generation of coaches, including Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Brian Billick, Andy Reid, Pete Carroll, Gary Kubiak, Steve Mariucci and Jeff Fisher.

Walsh created the Minority Coaching Fellowship program in 1987, helping minority coaches to get a foothold in a previously lily-white profession. Marvin Lewis and Tyrone Willingham are among the coaches who went through the program, later adopted as a league-wide initiative.

I came to love the 49rs under Walsh – of course, I was a young girl at the time, and didn’t care who the coach was … I just knew I liked Joe Montana and Dwight Clark, the latter of whose family lived in Charlotte. The 9rs stayed my favorite team until the Panthers came along, which put the 9rs at a really close 2nd favorite.

May God be with the Walsh family.

Captaion: 49ers coach Bill Walsh is hoisted on the shoulders of his team after they defeated the Miami Dolphins 38-16 in Super Bowl XIX in this Jan. 20, 1985 file photo.

John Fund on voter fraud

Several readers have sent me this link to a column author and columnist John Fund wrote for the WSJ in which he states, in essence, that just because Democrats are no longer crying “voter fraud” doesn’t mean it’s magically gone away:

When Republicans win elections, liberals are quick to cry fraud. But when actual fraud is found, they are just as quick to deny it, if Democrats are the ones who benefit.

Just before the 2004 election, the influential blog DailyKos.com warned of a “nationwide” wave of voter fraud against John Kerry. After the election, liberal blogger Josh Marshall urged Mr. Kerry not to concede because the election had been “too marred with voter suppression, dirty tricks and other unspeakable antics not to press every last possibility” of changing the outcome. When Congress met in January 2005 to certify the election results, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D., Ohio) challenged Mr. Bush’s victory and forced Congress to debate the issue. Months later, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean maintained that blacks had been the victims of “massive voter suppression” in Ohio.

But now liberals are accusing the Bush Justice Department of cooking up spurious claims of voter fraud in the 2006 elections and creating what the New York Times calls a “fantasy” that voter fraud is a problem. Last week Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, claimed that the administration fired eight U.S. attorneys last year in order to pressure prosecutors “to bring cases of voter fraud to try to influence elections.” He said one replacement U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., was a “partisan operative” sent “to file charges on the eve of an election in violation of Justice Department guidelines.” But the Kansas City prosecution was approved by career Justice lawyers, and the guidelines in question have since been rewritten by career lawyers in the Public Integrity section of Justice.

But last week also brought fresh evidence that voter fraud is a real problem and could even branch out into cyberspace:

• California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a Democrat, reported that state-approved hackers had been “able to bypass physical and software security in every [voting] machine they tested,” although she admitted that the hackers had access to internal security information and source codes that vote thieves wouldn’t normally have.

• The Florida secretary of state’s office reported it had found “legally sufficient” evidence that some 60 people in Palm Beach County had committed voter fraud by voting both there and in New York state. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has launched a formal probe. In 2004, New York’s Daily News found that 46,000 people were illegally registered to vote in both New York and Florida.

• Prosecutors in Hoboken, N.J., last week announced they are investigating a vagrant who was part of a group of voters observed to be acting suspiciously outside a polling place in an election last month. After he signed a voting register in the name of another man, he was confronted by a campaign worker and fled the scene. He later admitted to cops that he had been paid $10 to vote.

• Last week the U.S. Department of Justice recommended that an outside party be appointed to oversee Democratic primary elections in Noxubee County, Miss. In June, federal district judge Tom Lee found that Ike Brown, the Democratic political boss of Noxubee, had paid notaries public to visit voters and illegally mark their absentee ballots, imported illegal candidates to run for county office and manipulated the registration rolls.

This was especially interesting – and infuriating (emphasis added):

But the [Washington state] Acorn case points up just how difficult it is to convince prosecutors to bring voter fraud cases. Donald Washington, a former U.S. attorney for northern Louisiana, admits that “most of the time, we can’t do much of anything [about fraud] until the election is over. And the closer we get to the election, the less willing we are to get involved because of just the appearance of impropriety, just the appearance of the federal government somehow shading how this election ought to occur.” Several prosecutors told me they feared charges of racism or of a return to Jim Crow voter suppression tactics if they pursued touchy voter fraud cases–as indeed is now happening as part of the reaction to the U.S. attorney firings.

Take Washington state, where former U.S. attorney John McKay declined to pursue allegations of voter fraud after that state’s hotly contested 2004 governor’s race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 133 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle media widely reported, some “voters” were deceased, others were registered in storage lockers, and still others were ineligible felons. Extra ballots were “found” and declared valid 10 times during the vote count and recount. In some precincts, more votes were cast than voters showed up at the polls.

Mr. McKay insists he left “no stone unturned” in investigating allegations of fraud in the governor’s race but found no evidence of a crime. But in an interview with Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com in May, Mr. McKay admitted that he “didn’t like the way the election was handled” and that it had “smelled really, really bad.” His decision not to prosecute was apparently based on the threshold of evidence he insisted be met before he would even deploy FBI agents to investigate: a firsthand account of a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the election.

But Mr. McKay is incorrect in saying that he had to find a conspiracy in order to reach the federal threshold for election crimes. In Milwaukee, after the 2004 election U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic investigated many of the same problems that were found in Seattle: felons voting, double-voting and more votes cast than voters who signed poll books. In 2005 Mr. Biskupic concluded that he had found nothing that “has shown a plot to try to tip an election,” but he nonetheless prosecuted and won six convictions for felon voting and double-voting.

Are you paying attention, David “prosecuting even a few cases sends a very strong message and could actually result in suppressing minority voting” Igelsias?

PrairiePundit smells a conspiracy:

It is a serious problem and it is behind the Democrats’ non scandal on the US Attorney firing. They are pushing that matter to make it impossible for their voter fraud efforts to be prosecuted by US attorneys. That is the real scandal that is taking place and they have the NY Times and other media sources aiding and abetting that scandal. Republicans have been too timid in making the counter charge. That is a mistake. They should seize the opportunity to expose the Democrat voter fraud cover up effort and those in Congress who are responsible for it. Chuck Shumer has taken the led along with Sen Leahy.

Hmm. I don’t really think it’s a conspiracy, but it sure as heck smells like one, doesn’t it? I honestly wouldn’t put anything past the power hungry Democrats, who hated being out of power after 1994.


Monday open thread

Ya’ll hold down the fort til I return, which hopefully will be later this afternoon, if not then definitely tonight. In the meantime, check out this adorable little guy in the pic below. And then read this story about a rent-a-pet service in San Francisco and you’ll wonder what the hell they’re thinking:

SAN FRANCISCO — From the state that popularized purse puppies, drive-thru dog washes and gourmet dog food delivery comes the latest in canine convenience — a company that contracts out dogs by the day to urbanites without the time or space to care for a pet full-time.

Marlena Cervantes, founder of FlexPetz, bristles when people refer to her five-month-old business as a rent-a-pet service. She prefers the term “shared pet ownership,” explaining the concept is more akin to a vacation time share or a gym membership than a trip to the video store.

“Our members are responsible in that they realize full-time ownership is not an option for them and would be unfair to the dog,” said Cervantes, 32, a behavioral therapist who got the idea while working with pets and autistic children. “It prevents dogs from being adopted and then returned to the shelter by people who realize it wasn’t a good fit.”

FlexPetz is currently available in Los Angeles and San Diego, where Cervantes lives. She plans to open new locations in San Francisco next month, New York in September and London by the end of the year.

She’s also hoping to franchise the FlexPetz concept so the dogs will have housing options other than kennels when not in use. For San Francisco, she’s hired a caretaker who plans to keep the dogs at her house when they aren’t on loan to members.

The poor dogs could go from owner to owner until someone decides to adopt it. This gal gets it:

Melissa Bain, a veterinarian with the Companion Animal Behavior Program at the University of California at Davis, said she had concerns but no hard-and-fast objections to a service like FlexPetz.

On the positive side, it might give people an easy way to test the ownership waters and keep a few dogs from being euthanized, Bain said. Possible downsides would be irresponsible members who treat the dogs like a lifestyle accessory instead of a living thing.

“It depends on the people and it depends on the animal. Some dogs may be fine and some may become stressed because they are moving from home to home,” Bain said. “Perhaps they had a good experience with a good part-time owner and then they get shipped back. What kind of message does that send to kids? That dogs are disposable.”

What kind of message does it send to the dog? You’re not worth keeping. Dogs aren’t like carpet cleaner machines you can rent at the store that you return once you’re done. They, like kids, deserve stable, loving, long-term environments in which to live in, not short-term commitments for ‘conviencience” sake. If you can’t devote 100% of yourself to a dog, then for his or her sake don’t to “rent” it. Sheesh.

Oh, and I haven’t seen anymore updates on little Adam in the news nor at the Sonoma County Forgotten Felines website. I’ve emailed to see what the latest news is. I’ll let you know what they say.

Caption:A long-coated male chihuahua named ‘Heart-kun’ with a heart-shaped pattern on his coat sits at Pucchin Dog’s shop in Odate in northern Japan in this July 10, 2007 file photograph. The chihuahua puppy has become Japan’s latest heart-throb after he was born with a heart-shaped mark on his coat. The dog, named ‘Heart-kun’, was born on May 18 at a pet store in northern Odate. Shop owner Emiko Sakurada, who bred over 1,000 puppies, believes his unusual markings have brought her luck. The dog became a celebrity after a local television station aired pictures of him. Picture taken July 10, 2007. REUTERS/Issei Kato/Files

Debunking the latest ‘climate changes causes hurricanes’ study

First, the study:

MIAMI (Reuters) – The number of Atlantic hurricanes in an average season has doubled in the last century due in part to warmer seas and changing wind patterns caused by global warming, according to a study released on Sunday.

Hurricane researchers have debated for years whether climate change caused by greenhouse gases from cars, factories and other human activity is resulting in more, and more intense, tropical storms and hurricanes.

The new study, published online in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, said the increased numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes in the last 100 years is closely related to a 1.3-degree Fahrenheit rise in sea surface temperatures.

The influential U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a report this year warning that humans contribute to global warming, said it was “more likely than not” that people also contribute to a trend of increasingly intense hurricanes.

In the new study, conducted by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, researchers found three periods since 1900 when the average number of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes increased sharply, and then leveled off and remained steady.

Now the debunking, courtesy of Paul at Wizbang and Brian at Iowa Voice.

First it was “global warming reduces hurricanes.” Now it’s “global warming causes hurricanes.” I wish these ‘experts’ would make up their minds. Oh, and so much for that ‘consensus’ we keep hearing about …