College Republicans

Turning on Gore

It appears as if scientists are coming forward and turning on Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." I'm not sure why these scientists, many of whom are prominent climatologists, waited until after it won two Oscars, but this could mark the beginning of a turnabout for the global warming "groupthinkers."

The New York Times covered Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, who is concerned about global warming's portrayal in Gore's film:

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Dr. Easterbrook, along with Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, question whether or not Al Gore has over simplified, and over exaggerated, scientific findings. The article states that he is a "respected" figure in the scientific community, and that scientists forgive some of his minor inaccuracies because he's a politician.

Since when do scientists make exceptions for inaccurate statements by politicians? Or perhaps they know that if they keep on making these exceptions, they'll keep on getting the funding and public support of Hollywood and the media.

[The article can be read on FOX News or by registering at the New York Times.]

"In Defense of Those Wascally Wepublicans"

A study in the February 2007 issue of Psychology Today reports that conservatism has specific psychological catalysts. Conservatives, who are more likely to be the subjects of a psychology study involving political leanings, and their conservative values are balked down to the 1958 Webster's definition (which IronShrink.com points out).

IronShrink.com actually takes on three methodological issues with the study in favor of, or in defense of, "those wascally wepublicans," as phrased in the title. (I had to quote it for this post's title... it was too good not to!)

You may have heard the news by now. People who hold conservative political opinions are suffering from a syndrome in need of a cure. How do we know this? Because a professor of psychology has demonstrated it to be so. The news has been getting a lot of press lately. - IronShrink.com

What a great intro to this article. I found this through Michelle Malkin's blog (which I frequent), and couldn't help laughing when I clicked to read more. I had heard tidbits about this sort of study before, but now there's a recent one that we can all relate to.

[The authors] offer a two-part definition of conservatism that serves as the foundation for their study and establishes the parameters for the theories and the data they examine. They hypothesize that a meta-analysis of previous studies will reveal that "people embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals" (p. 340). - IronShrink.com

Well, I'm glad to know that people who know better also use the "Webster's Dictionary defines..." back-up for guilt from feeling "I-guess-I-should-have-done-more-research-on-this-and-know-my-topic/subject." And now it's published in Psychology Today.

And then there are nuggets of joy like this:

You may be wondering how the authors managed to lump Stalin in with conservatives, thereby avoiding the sticky business of Marxist authoritarians. The authors explain that Stalin

"...secretly admired Hitler and identified with several right-wing causes (including anti-Semitism). In the Soviet context, Stalin was almost certainly to the right of his political rivals, most notably Trotsky. In terms of his psychological makeup as well, Stalin appears to have had much in common with right-wing extremists" (p. 343).

So there ya' go. Stalin was less Marxist than others, mind readers have determined that he had a crush on Hitler, and he kinda looked like a conservative. Ergo, Stalin was a conservative. Impeccable logic. - IronShrink.com

And this next snippet might just sum up the entirety of the problems with the study, thanks to ignorance. (Don't they accuse conservatives of being ignorant? Oh, wow, I wonder if that means these psychologists are secretly conservatives!)

When you ignore other issues, guess what you'll find: your own hypothesis supported, confirmed, and wrapped up in a pretty bow. - IronShrink.com

Read the rest of what IronShrink.com has to say about this cough syrup remedy for the problem America calls conservatism. And IronShrink? Thank you, from the bottom of my "Wascally Wepublican" heart. :)

President Ford Dies

President Gerald R. Ford passed away yesterday at the age of 93. He became the 38th President of the United States after the resignation of President Nixon, and was the only president never to actually be elected into office.

While he was only in office for two and a half years, his accomplishments should not be discounted. He primary objective, stated clearly in his inaugural address, was to heal the reputation of the office and restore public confidence in the presidency. "I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our government, but civilization itself," he had said. "That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad."

President Ford worked hard during his time in office, ending American involvement in the Vietnam War and making the U.S.S.R. sign the Helsinki human rights agreement. He is considered to be the last of the centrist Republicans of the 60s and 70s.

"With his quiet integrity, common sense, and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the Presidency," President Bush remarked last night in an official statement.

Is Iran Helping Insurgents?

An exclusive article today from ABC News reports that coalition forces have found "smoking gun" proof that Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq. "According to a senior defense official," ABC reports, "coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006." The discovery of such weapons means that insurgents aren't getting their arms from the black market, but rather they are being handed to them from Iran.

This news has to be awkward for Iran, who recently invited the Iraqi prime minister into talks to receive aid. If the Iraqi leaders are stupid enough to fall for Iran's ploy, then of course the violence in Iraq will begin to fade away... because Iran is causing it! Iran is merely holding out a helping hand to Iraq so that it can turn the country against America, tear down their democratically elected government, and then conquer Iraq.

ABC reports:

ranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

If it wasn't before, it is now painfully clear what will happen to Iraq if coalition forces cut and run. The insurgents of Iraq aren't just people fighting for their country, they are trained soldiers getting aid from foreign nations. Iran would love to take over Iraq, and I believe they plan to do so one way or another: either by helping the insurgents achieve victory, or befriending the prime minister and taking over the government.

College Republicans Confront Bigotry in Scholarships

College Republicans at Boston University are making a strong statement about the school's scholarship policy by offering a scholarship of their own. Too often, scholarships are granted to students merely because of their race or gender. Well, at Boston U., the CR's have created a $250 Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship, which is awarded to a white male with a good scholastic record.

To receive the scholarship, students have to have at least a 3.2GPA, write two essays, and be at least a fourth caucasian. The main objective stated in the scholarship is: "We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today."

As chairman of the SHU College Republicans, I would like to congratulate Joe Mroszczyk, the chairman of the BU CR's. Their club's scholarship is making national news, and is showing the problems with offering race and gender based scholarships in higher education. Of course, the mainstream media is calling this a mere "stunt," and students are discrediting the move because it dares to play by the same rules as affirmative action.

Murtha Loses Bid for Majority Leader

Jack Murtha lost his bid for House Majority Leader today 149-86. He had been chosen by Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the best man for the job, given that his "cut and run" strategy for the war was popular in this year's election. The rest of the Dems in the House of Representatives thought otherwise, and elected Steny Hoyer instead.

Murtha, who was re-elected to yet another term this last election, had been vying for the position for some time now. Oh well... better luck next time, Jack.

Read more about today's vote here.

Rendell's Post-Election Tax Increases

Re-elected governor Ed Rendell is doing exactly what we expected him to do during his second term in office: raise taxes. He campaigned on the issues of helping the lower class, yet his current veto of the local services tax revision, as well as yesterday's proposed raise in the gas tax, are things he never brought up while trying to get re-elected.

A bill that would reduce the tax burden on workers had passed through the state congress was vetoed by Rendell. The bill sought to break up the $52 annual local services tax into smaller, monthly deductions. As it stands right now, the first paycheck of the year gets this $52 tax taken from it, even if that means you go home with six bucks left. So rather than take a large chunk of every worker's first paycheck, the bill hoped to spread that out to lessen the blow.

Rendell would rather go against both sections of state congress and make workers pay that tax in one sitting.

But his assault on our wallets isn't ending there. The Tribune-Review reported yesterday that our governor is considering an 11.5 cent increase in the gas tax, which would give us one of the highest gas taxes in the country. While Rendell has yet to decide if he plans on pushing for the increases, it was his transportation committee, which he formed in 2005, that recommended the increase.

In an interview on a local Pittsburgh news station just a day after he won re-election, Rendell was asked if gas prices would rise now that the election was over. He assured the audience that they would.

What would be happening to all of the money from the increased gas tax? Well, it would be poured back into PennDOT so they can continue doing a terrible job fixing out roads. It would also go to our terribly inefficient public transportation system. Some of the proposals from the committee aren't actually bad, like partnering with private companies to help our transit system; however, the report on the whole is a far cry from what free marketeers like Glen Meakem propose for our fair commonwealth.

Ad Campaign Assessment: Casey's ads debunked

Above is the YouTube video of a newscast from Central Pennsylvania. This particular news station has assessed ads on both sides of the Santorum/Casey campaign. I found this by visiting the campaign blog at ricksantorum.com.

Spokeswoman Virginia Davis posted this video with an explanation of why the quotes used in the ad are taken out of context. Davis says, "I wonder if Casey or the woman in the ad has even read Senator Santorum's book. Because I bet if they had, they would recognize that what they are implying is ridiculous. It's typical Casey to leave out the full story and select the pieces that fit his storyline."

Santorum's book, "It Takes a Family," has been highly criticized for its stance on parenting and, for some reason, the Left sees this as a let's-keep-women-from-the-workplace fight. Davis defends this better than I ever could:

Senator Santorum does not write that families shouldn't have two incomes, and he certainly doesn't write that women shouldn't work. Simply read the passage on page 94 for yourself.

But what Rick Santorum does believe is that parents should make their kids their priority, and that if they have the means for one parent to be at home, then they should think seriously about that. Who would disagree with that?

Seriously, what is the problem with wanting parents to take responsibility for their children and actually *gasp* raise them? Spending time with children, Santorum says, is the very best thing parents can do for them. Anyone want to disagree?

Davis closes her post by mentioning the women that work for Santorum--the majority of his staff are women. I had the pleasure of working with a couple of these women this summer as an intern in one of the offices here in Western PA. In all my life, though, I just can't understand how someone could be against an individual who is for the American family. Thank you, Rick, for standing firm on this position.

Santorum Debates Casey on "Meet the Press"

This morning Senator Rick Santorum faced off against his challenger Bob Casey Jr. in their first of many debates during this campaign. They duked it out on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert moderating. Tim did a good job dealing out tough questions to both candidates, but in the end, Senator Santorum clearly walked away as the victor.

The first section of the debate centered around the War on Terror, and specifically the War in Iraq. The two candidates seemed to have different takes on the subject, although it was unclear due to Casey's lack of specifics. The Senator continues to stress that Afghanistan and Iraq are merely fronts on a global war against radical Islamic fascism, while Casey stuck to asking "Where's Bin Laden?" and "Where's the WMD's?" When asked about stopping the sectarian violence in Iraq, Santorum said that the United States needs to go to the source that is fueling the Shiite faction: Iran. He said that Iran was "stoking" the sectarian fighting in Iraq, and has been doing so since the fall of Hussein's totalitarian regime. Casey's solution to the problem was holding the Administration accountable. I'm not sure how that will help Iraqi's, but Russert seemed to catch on. Tim showed a series of quotes from Casey over the past year or so, which showed his opinion evolving on Iraq (going from "no timetable" and "supporting the war" to "pulling out by the end of the year" along with various "vote for/against" quotes that reminded me of a John Kerry campaign.)

The theme of the entire debate seemed to be: Santorum gives solid plans and methods for solving problems, and Casey gives broad generalizations and Democratic talking points. When it came to Social Security, Santorum gave a clear three step answer: pass his bill which would protect the Soc. Sec. of anyone 50 and above, stop the raid on the surplus of Soc. Sec., and finally create private Social Security accounts for young workers so that they can have ownership to their retirement. Casey's plan for solving Social Security, as well as reducing the deficit, was: growing the economy (somehow), raising taxes (especially on the rich), changing the estate tax (which would cost money), and being fiscally responsible (without cutting one single program).

In a surprising move, that is also very contradictory, Casey said that he did support selling the Plan B Morning After Pill to teens 18 and over. Casey said that, while he believes life begins at conception, killing a fertilized egg with this pill is not abortion. A rather convoluted stance on the subject, that explains why he is getting the support of Pro Choice advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

It would have been nice to walk away from the debate knowing a little more about Bob Casey Jr.'s plan for becoming U.S. Senator, but unfortunately he stayed away from any specific policy, aside from his plan to revise the death tax and support Plan B pills. I am looking forward to watching future debates between these two men, and hopefully Casey will be able to debate more policy instead of referring back to talking points and the Bush Administration.

For more information on Santorum's stances and facts during the debate, the campaign has set up a Debates page on their website.

Media Picking Up on Casey's Bad Tactics

Jason Riley published an article in the Opinion Journal Thursday that examines the Casey Jr. campaign and their slipping in the latest polls. This is the latest in a developing trend that I'm seeing in the media, who are beginning to catch on that Bobby Casey Jr. doesn't have much to him aside from his name.

Taking advantage of a double-digit lead in the polls, this son of a popular former two-term governor was coasting toward November on the heralded family name. He could remain mum or studiously vague about his actual positions. He could refuse to debate. And he could hide behind handlers who carefully stage-managed his appearances (before friendly audiences) and even more carefully shielded him from media outlets (like this one). It was a smart strategy for Mr. Casey, who is an underwhelming campaigner. But its viability is now being tested.

Casey Jr.'s campaign is all part of a well-crafted image model that the Democratic party has begun to perfect. Candidates like Casey, and Connecticut's Ned Lamont, don't need to make statements about actual issues and promote real policies. Instead, all they need to do is present the "I'm not the other guy" image and ride the negativity wave in to office. I would hope the American people are smarter than to vote "against" a candidate-- it didn't work for Kerry in 2004, and it's beginning to look like it won't work for Casey and Lamont in '06.

Riley's article also stressed the weight that Senator Santorum will carry with him in the Senate if he does win in November. Riley characterizes him as a strong leader in the conservative movement in America, and a policy maker who isn't afraid to go it alone for what he believes is right.

Among the handful of Upper Chamber Republicans facing difficult races this year, however, a Rick Santorum loss easily would be the most damaging to political conservatives. Mr. Santorum, the No. 3 man in the Senate, is much more than a reliable vote for lower taxes and a strong national defense. He's also been a true reformer who's often willing to champion unpopular causes. Sen. Santorum floor managed the welfare-reform bill that turned 10-years-old this week. He's backed medical savings accounts and pushed for Social Security personal retirement accounts long before George W. Bush. That takes chutzpah for a senator from a state with a higher percentage of senior citizens than anywhere but Florida.

The latest Quinnipiac U. poll shows that Senator Santorum has narrowed the gap that separated he and Casey Jr. to slim 6 points. While he is still a ways behind, this latest surge in the polls shows that not only is the media catching on to Casey's facade, but the people of Pennsylvania are as well.

Murtha Caught in Two-Front War

An article published yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer details Congressman Murtha's "two-front war" for re-election this November. Politically, Murtha has been recently been under fire from a veterans group campaigning against him for his anti-troops/anti-war statements. "Legally, Murtha faces a lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in Washington in which a 26-year-old Marine sergeant contends that Murtha defamed him and his unit." And, of course, there is the ever-present third front that he must fight: the increasing popularity and support behind Republican-challenger Diana Irey.

The vets, who founded the site booMurtha.com, were also involved in the 2004 campaign against John Kerry (but they aren't associated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). The Inquirer reported: "In Johnstown today, a group calling itself Vets for the Truth planned to hold a news conference in front of Murtha's congressional office to announce plans for an anti-Murtha rally Oct. 1. Murtha's Republican opponent, Diana Irey, who faces an uphill battle, said in an interview that she, too, was upset by Murtha's comment about the Haditha Marines."

Congressman Murtha is facing alot of problems during his current campaign for re-election. From the re-emergence of his 1980's scandal to defamation suits because of unfounded remarks he made against our troops. Murtha is doing his best to appease the radical left as he sets his sights for a House leadership position.

[Update 8/5/06]

In an article published this morning, Robert Novak reports of Murtha responding to his defamation lawsuit from the Marine sergeant by saying that the soldier was charged in the Haditha killings (when in fact there have been no charges filed to date.) The article, titled "Murtha's Mistake," reads:

Rep. John Murtha, responding Wednesday to a defamation lawsuit filed by a Marine accused of killing Iraqi civilians in 2005, mistakenly said Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich had been "charged in the incident at Haditha." In fact, no charges have been filed against anybody.

Murtha quickly issued a new press release Wednesday deleting "charged" and describing Wuterich as leader of "the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians." The lawsuit accused Murtha of spreading "false and malicious lies" about the sergeant in his May 19 statement which said Marines "killed a number of civilians without anybody firing at them."

Rick Endorsed by Vets

I had the pleasure of attending Senator Santorum's "100 Days Til Victory" rally today at the Greentree VFD in Pittsburgh. At the event, the Senator was officially endorsed by the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition and by Rolling Thunder--a non-profit veteran rights group. The event was held inside the fire department's garage, with the trucks and gear surrounding the enthusiastic crowd.

The Veterans Coalition is comprised of over 100 veterans groups that represent over 300,000 people in the state of Pennsylvania. With soldiers currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is going to be seeing even more veterans in the years to come; which is why it is so important to never forget this group of people. Rick has worked hard throughout his 16 years in Washington D.C. to secure funding, aid, and benefits for veterans across the state.

The theme of these 100 days in the Santorum campaign is "Keep Up The Fight," which is a twist on his campaign slogans of years past ("Join the Fight"). Rick made it very clear in his speech today that he is a scrapper who is willing to fight for what is best for Pennsylvania and America. The Senator has been behind in every campaign he's been involved in, but he's never given up... and he's never lost. This time, Rick has a whole bunch of great people volunteering for him who are ready to put up the fight as well.

That, to me, really makes for a truly honest campaign and politician. If you have great, passionate, hard working people behind you, you are going to want to work hard for them. I can't really say the same for Bobby Casey Jr., who's staff decided to come and protest the event. While we had our own volunteers standing by the roadside with "Rick" signs, Bobby sent a handful of his paid activists and staffers (complete with Blackberries) to the event. Sending paid protesters was something I haven't seen since the Kerry campaign, but hey... if you don't got supporters, you might as well buy some.

The President's First Veto

Yesterday, President Bush issued the first veto of his presidency, striking down a bill from Congress to allow increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The President stuck to his guns, so to speak, upholding a decision he first made back in 2001 to limit federal embryonic stem cell research to the embryos that had already been destroyed prior to his presidency.

"In 2001," he said in a speech in the East Room of the White House, "I spoke to the American people and set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. When I took office, there was no federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced five years ago, my administration became the first to make federal funds available for this research, yet only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed." Since that policy was enacted, the government has given over $90 million dollars to the research.

The President gave a stirring and passionate speech yesterday in defense of his veto. "These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said, as the room exploded into applause. Invited to the speech were a number of Americans who have had medical treatments with adult or umbilical stem cell research, proving that there are other ways to get stem cells aside from the embryos of the unborn. "They remind us of that is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals."

WMD's Found in Iraq

Senator Rick Santorum held an extremely important press conference today announcing the discovery of a major stockpile of WMD's in Iraq. "Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Santorum said at the beginning of the press conference. "It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing."

The Senator, along with Congressman Hoekstra, announced that a new declassified document from the National Ground Intelligence Center states that approximately 500 WMD's have been discovered since 2003 in Iraq. These weapons have included sarin and mustard gas, which may have been used to kill thousands of Kurds in the late 80's. "We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered," Santorum said.

So let's summarize a bit: Pennsylvanian Senator, Rick Santorum, has dug deep and fought hard to declassify a document proving Hussein lied about having WMD's... George W. Bush was correct when he said that Iraq had WMD's, and in fact did not lie... another positive milestone of this Iraq War has surfaced, much to the chagrin of John Murtha... Our troops, which Murtha claims are crippled and helpless, continue to succeed in their mission.

To read a transcript of the entire press conference, click here.

Democrats: Still No Position on Iraq

Democrats in both the Senate and the House continue to be torn on their plan for the Iraq war. While some members of the party (Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, etc) continue to call for withdrawal of troops according to a strict timetable, others stress finishing the job and "staying the course." Then there is a third section of the Dems who have no solid position at all (Hillary Clinton).

Yet despite all of their grandstanding and protesting, Democrats in Congress have failed yet again to back up their rhetoric. Months ago, the House put the Dems to their first test. A vote to pull the troops out of Iraq was put to the floor and failed miserably. Democrats in the House couldn't even secure a solid vote from every member of their party. And now, both sections of Congress are at it again, with a new bill that would pull troops out of Iraq.

NewsMax.com reports "The Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end, and House Republicans laid the groundwork for their own vote." The vote failed 93-6! Not even the Senate, which has been voting more liberal than conservative as of late, could stand up for all of the Democratic whining that has been filling the news for the past few years.

With the mid-term elections just four months away, this debate comes at a very convenient time for Republicans. Their message has been unified on the issue of the Iraq War, and their strategy continues to pay off. Had we pulled out the troops when John Murtha and John Kerry told us to, we would have never killed Zarqawi, or discovered his plan to start a war between Iran and America. If we had pulled out the troops when Pelosi had asked us to, we would have never completed over 400 raids and captured over 700 terrorists last week.

An NBC poll as reported by Tucker Carlson on Wednesday says that 56% of Americans view the Iraq War as the most important issue in the next election. I hope everyone is taking note of the lack of voice, objective, and leadership on part of the Democratic Party.

Ford Goes South (Literally and possibly figuratively)

Several sources report that Ford Motors Company is preparing to invest $9.2 billion in creation of a plant in Mexico. While the factory would create over 150,000 jobs, Ford is eliminating roughly 30,000 jobs here in the States.

Some are speculating that this may prompt some Mexicans to sneak back across the border for these "high-paying" jobs. I, personally, find this highly unlikely; however, I wouldn't put it totally out of question, considering it's still technically taking an American job. They would be making "American" cars, after all...

I first read about this from wired.com. While not notably the most reliable source for automotive news, they are on top of a variety of breaking stories so I gave it a look. Turns out that there is a great deal of news on the subject (link may expire--direct to Google News search on "Ford Motors + Mexico + job + assembly").

The Detroit Free Press reports that the plant that is now being build in Mexico was earlier promised to be built in North America.

Ford and its suppliers would invest $9.2 billion in Mexico over the next six years. In return, Ford would get at least $500 million in government grants, the documents show.
...
With sales falling -- especially of high-profit pickups and SUVs -- and rising costs, for health care and energy, Ford Motor has been hustling to reshape the company to compete with Asian rivals, as well as other Detroit automakers, which have bigger investments in Mexico.
...
"I don't see the American innovation in it at all," Taylor (a bargaining representative at Ford's Dearborn Truck Plant) said during the convention. "It's absolutely sad that they would build our products in Mexico. We have a good workforce here. We put out good products. We need our work here in the United States." via Detroit Free Press

So Ford would benefit from the move on multiple fronts, it seems. Because Americans are more interested in foreign cars, presently, we're supposed to think it's okay for one of the only American car companies left to outsource to Mexico? What, with an immigration problem on our hands? Somehow, I doubt this will blow over easily.

The Detroit Free Press article continues saying, "[T]he automaker has been boasting in advertisements about how it is 'Driving American Innovation' -- a message that seems incongruous with a major investment in another country."

How true, how true.

Al-Zarqawi Killed!

America was greeted by welcomed news this morning, as the President announced that the number one terrorist in Iraq, and one of the top terrorists in the world, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in Iraq. MyWay news reports "Al-Zarqawi and seven aides, including spiritual adviser Sheik Abdul Rahman, were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles northeast of Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, officials said."

This is truly great news not only for the development of Iraq into a free nation, but also in our continuing fight in the war on terrorism.

As a side note, the Drudge Report featured a list of headlines on the top of it's page this morning. They went in the following order:

Arab Media Rush to Cover Al-Zarqawi Death...
Bush Congratulates Troops...
BLAIR: 'They know our determination to defeat them is total'...
Al-Qaida vows to continue 'holy war'...
Al-Zarqawi a 'Martyr', Brother Says...
Relatives pray for 1,000 Zarqawis...
Father of beheaded man blames Bush...

Yes, someone always finds a way to blame Bush--even when he succeeds.

Murtha: the negative charge (again)

Does Murtha ever have anything positive to say about... anything? It seems not.

From Michelle Malkin's blog I've learned that Murtha is downing our troops again. Malkin's blog sums it up best with numerous blockquotes from a variety of sources. I'm reprinting one of the best quotes below:

Murtha gained notoriety last year when he demanded an immediate and precipitate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. He claimed that victory was impossible and that the US forces were sitting ducks for terrorists. Since then, with the exception of one month, US casualties have declined rapidly and the Iraqi forces have demonstrated increasing ability to operate independently.

Now it looks like Murtha once again has jumped the gun, seemingly anxious to paint US forces as murderous now that his earlier assertion of helplessness has been shown false. He has made this leap despite the investigation continuing into the incident, and in advance of any determination by the military. Not only has he convicted the Marines without benefit of a complete investigation, let alone a court-martial, he has also found them non compus mentis by reason of "combat stress". In other words, Murtha says they're war criminals, but it's the fault of the Bush administration.
Ed Morrissey via Michelle Malkin

And some still wonder why Republicans feel we need a new congressman? Murtha doesn't even read the reports he's supposed to have knowledge of before answering questions. Let's get someone in there who will do the job and mean what she says--Diana Irey, for instance, would be an excellent choice. We need a positive charge from PA. Out with Murtha.

Abortion drugs killing more than expected

Women are dying while killing the unborn babies they conceive.

The prescribed "abortion pill" (known as RU-486, Mifeprex, or mifepristone) is responsible for the deaths of at least four women. While the cause of death of at least one woman is being debated, the pill remains on the market.

With the "morning-after" pill legalized for prescription purposes in the United States, it's no surprise that it's being used as leverage in the recent nomination of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach to the head position of the FDA. Von Eschenbach was nominated by President Bush on Wednesday, March 15^th.

Another drug called "Plan B" is bringing more problems into the picture.

Plan B is different from RU-486, the so-called "abortion pill" that terminates pregnancies in early stages and was approved as a prescription drug in 2000.

Plan B stops the release of an egg from the ovary and may prevent the fertilization of a released egg, according to the FDA.
via chron.com

Lester Crawford, the former FDA commissioner, had promised that a decision on Plan B would be made, but resigned in September. When Crawford resigned, Bush made von Eschenbach acting FDA commissioner. The Senate must confirm his permanent appointment. Until the FDA decides to allow over-the-counter sales of Plan B, Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington are blocking Dr. von Eschenbach's confirmation in the Senate.

"For more than two years, the FDA has dragged its feet on making a decision, putting ideology over science," Clinton said. "We will place a hold on the nomination of Dr. von Eschenbach until the FDA issues a decision on Plan B, yes or no."

Murray and Clinton support Plan B sales without a prescription.
via chron.com

The push for over-the-counter use of the drug has been going on since the FDA first approved its use in 1999, but brings new light to the ongoing argument about whether or not pharmacists should be forced to sell the pill.

...it seems there are some pharmacists who have moral objections to dispensing medication they feel would make them party to an abortion, or at least to the taking of a potential human life. Anti-abortion groups have latched on to their cause, noting that the decision to become a pharmacist doesn't obligate one to facilitate treatments he or she finds morally abhorrent. ... On the other side of the debate are the abortion rights groups. They want widespread access to these medications, arguing that ending a pregnancy essentially before it has begun ought to be more acceptable to anti-abortion groups than ending one when the fetus is more fully developed. We can't allow rogue pharmacists to leave women in a lurch (some not only refuse to fill prescriptions, they sometimes destroy them), they say. via FOXNews.com

More acceptable to end a pregnancy "before it has begun"? Why do they feel that it's better if it's still taking away a human life?

Abortion, as a service, and abortion drugs, as products, are not rights under the Constitution or any other governmental document. "The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution are only guarantees against government trespasses. There is no 'right' to goods, services, or care that someone else has to provide," says Radley Balko.

Aside from the "morning after" pill debate, von Eschenbach is also expected to be questioned by pro-life lawmakers who want to know why the FDA has not pulled the dangerous RU-486 abortion drug from the market. It has been found to be responsible for the deaths of five women in the U.S. and eight worldwide and has injured over 850 women in the U.S. alone. via lifenews.com

Interestingly enough, there is more concern in these issues for the women who have chosen to take these medicines to rid their bodies of the children they have conceived and not the children, who are the "source" (because I refuse to say "problem").

"We don't really know all the circumstances surrounding these women's deaths," said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president of medical affairs for Planned Parenthood. "We extend our deepest sympathies to the families ... of the women who died" (chron.com).

Pros and Cons of Progress

This Sunday is the 3 year anniversary of Saddam fleeing Baghdad, and NewsMax has compiled a very extensive list of the progress the country has made. Writer Dave Eberhart says, "Over the last six months, according to recent polling data, two-thirds of Iraqis surveyed have steadily expressed the belief that the Iraqi Security Forces are winning the battle against terrorism."

All of the stats and information has been taken from the Pentagon's massive new report: "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," which was recently issued to Congress. Eberhart took the time to comb through the thick document for some of the more pertinent topics. His report features stats on Iraqi security forces, increased support from all religious parties, increasing effectiveness of law institutions, economic activities, and international support numbers. It's very extensive, but proves that we are making substantial progress in Iraq that is largely being ignored by the Mass Media.

Click here to read the entire article.

Unemployment Down to 4.7%

The latest news out of the Labor Department shows the unemployment rate in America down to 4.7 percent. Breitbart reports that the unemployment rate, which dropped from February's 4.8%, is the lowest in four and a half years. Employers added 211,000 new jobs in March. As for the types of jobs:

Hiring gains were fairly widespread. Construction, financial activities, education and health care and government were among the sectors posting payroll gains. That help to blunt job losses in manufacturing and in the transportation industries.

Despite the latest excellent employment numbers, some insist that the economy is still on the downturn. "With the economy growing smartly and the job market flowering,” Breitbart reports, “the Federal Reserve and other economists are keeping a close eye on wage growth." Some continue to lobby for dramatic increases in the Minimum Wage, specifically in Pennsylvania. Increasing wages too quickly, however, can "trigger inflation concerns at the Federal Reserve and among economists."

Rep. McKinney Hits Security Guard

Last Wednesday, Rep. Cynthia McKinney got into a fight with a US Capitol Police officer after failing to comply at a metal detector check point. Now she may have a warrant for her arrest on charges of assaulting a law enforcement agent. This Democrat from Georgia has gotten herself into a mess of trouble, and now it looks like her own Party is starting to back away slowly.

An article from The Hill reports:

All of the attention has some Democrats concerned that McKinney is drawing the limelight away from their policy goals and Republicans’ ethical missteps to focus on a momentary, disputed encounter in a Capitol Hill hallway.

“There’s been a lot of eye-rolling,” said an aide to a moderate Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The national attention it’s been getting has been unfortunate. It’s becoming a distraction.”

She is drawing claims that the entire event was a "race issue," as McKinney is an African-American. However, this whole incident could sour Democrat chances in a very tough mid-term election. One Democratic strategist said, “This isn’t the view of Democrats that we want to project in the tough races, one of victims and race-baiting.”

The issue was taken to the US District Attorney's office yesterday.

Delay Steps Down

House Majority Leader Tom Delay said in an interview that he will be resigning from Congress. Delay has been an embattled Texas Republican for the past six months because of claims that he "illegally used funds for state legislative races."

Delay says that he is innocent: "I have never broken the law, the spirit of the law or a House rule." Instead, he is instead resigning out of loyalty to the Republican party, saying "Any republican who replaces me on the ballot will win this seat." Delay has been a member of Congress since 1984.

Because of Delay's indictment, he was asked to temporarily step down from his position as House Majority Leader (a policy of the Republican party, not a policy of the House). He was replaced by John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio.

Follow up: Academic Bill of Rights under fire

The Academic Bill of Rights is coming under fire in Pennsylvania. (Click here to read the post about what the SHU CRs learned about Academic Freedom at the convention this weekend.)

The claim is that students have imposed their own biases on their teachers. Another case of "seeing what you want to see" and "hearing what you want to hear." This recent claim refutes the ideas that teachers indoctrinate on purpose.

The authors of the study say that it backs the claims of proponents of the Academic Bill of Rights that students think about — and are in some cases concerned about — the politics of their professors. But the authors also say that the study directly refutes the idea that students are being somehow indoctrinated by views that they don’t like. “Students aren’t simply sponges,” says April Kelly-Woessner, part of the husband-and-wife team of political scientists who wrote the study. Further, she adds that the study suggests that not only do students not change their views because of professors, but may even “push back” and judge professors based on politics, not merit. - via insidehighered.com

The two papers composing the research will be presented this week at a legislative hearing in Pennsylvania “College is not Club Med. As instructors, we ought not to refine our pedagogy exclusively for the purpose of making students comfortable or improving course evaluations,” write Kelly-Woessner, who teaches at Elizabethtown College, and Matthew Woessner, who teaches at Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg.

Click below to read the specific "findings" of the research.

The following is directly quoted from the article "The Real BIas in the Classroom" from insidehigheredu.com:

In the research being published in PS: Political Science & Politics, findings included the following:

Most students feel confident that they know their professors’ political inclinations and that they are not hidden. Asked if they knew their professors’ leanings, 15 percent said that they were “positive,” 32 percent said that they were “very confident,” 40 percent were “somewhat confident,” and only 11 percent were “not at all confident.”

Students considered 77 percent of their professors to be left of center, and 7 percent right of center. (While the authors of the students didn’t verify that the professors indeed held those views, they note that such findings would be consistent with other surveys of the profession.) While more students in the survey identified themselves as liberal than as conservative, the split was such that the student body in this study was more conservative than the professors — as perceived by students.

Professors who students think are conservative are generally rated more favorably by students on whether they present material objectively.

Professors who students think are liberal are generally rated more favorably by students on whether students are encouraged to present their own viewpoints, whether grading is fair, whether the learning environment is comfortable, and whether they care about the success of students.

As for the politics of the authors of the study, Kelly-Woessner said that both she and her husband do not want to take a public stand on the Academic Bill of Rights so that their testimony is not prejudged by the lawmakers, who have been holding hearings prompted by the legislation. On politics generally, she said that her husband is a conservative Republican, but that she is “a little fuzzier,” in that “on some issues I go left and on some issues I go right.”

She periodically surveys her students to ask them what they think her political views are and they are generally divided or unaware — and she likes it that way.

Posted by KarissaKilgore at 8:49 AM | Comments (0)

Frist Leads the Pack

An informal staw poll held at a conservative convention in Tennessee last Saturday shows that Bill Frist is currently leading the pack of 2008 GOP Presidential hopefuls. While the straw poll only included those openly running for president this early (which means Guliani, Rice, and a few others were left out), the event had some interesting outcomes.

Some have discredited the poll, since it was in Frist's home state and the election is over 20 months away. Frist, the Senate majority leader, received 36.9% of the vote. Coming in second was Mass. Governor Mitt Romney with 14.4%. Interestingly enough, tying for third was Senator George Allen and current-President George W. Bush (who can't run for a third term.)

Bush got so many votes because of a speech that John McCain (who came in fifth) gave earlier at the convention. He asked the straw voters to support our current President--and vote for him as a sign of their support for his leadership. MyWay News reports that three-fourths of all Republicans still support the President, despite sagging poll numbers.

Angry Woman Politics?

Hilary Clinton (D- NY) can't possibly be serious. She's recently implied that some comments against her are gender-related. Specifically, comments by the GOP...

Interestingly enough, I'm a woman and a republican. There are, yes, gender issues; and there are, yes, political issues; but I'd like to know how she's connecting the two in the latest events.

Democrats, particularly Democratic women, who run for public office are "going to draw some unfriendly fire," Clinton said at a breakfast fundraiser hosted by black and Hispanic women supporters. "People will be attacking you instead of your ideas, they may impugn your patriotism, they may even say you're angry."

"If they do that, wear it as a badge of honor, because you know what? There are lots of things that we should be angry and outraged about these days," she said. - via FOXnews.com

The article goes on to say that Clinton cited the comment of being "angry" back to the banter between she and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman. Mehlman said Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger" and that American voters tend not to elect angry candidates.

What if he's speaking the truth? Americans tend not to elect angry candidates. That seems accurate, because we tend to want to identify with candidates on personal levels that don't include emotion.

Mehlman pointed to comments Clinton made on Martin Luther King Day, when she called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history, and compared the Republican-controlled House to a plantation. - via FOXnews.com

Sounds like she's building an artillery to me... an anger-driven artillery.

How is this gendered, though? Anger is automatically aligned with feminine qualities? I have no idea--the article never specifies, although the headline "Sen. Clinton Suggests Gender Plays Role in GOP 'Angry' Claims" got me to click...

Responding on Monday for Mr Rove, Republican Party spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said: "Senator Clinton would be better served if she spent less time flattering herself with perceived obsession and more time focusing on her job." - via thecouriermail.news.com.au

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Students protest teacher's remarks against Bush

When is it okay to voice a political bias in the classroom?

(In my personal opinion:) Never. Students, no matter what their age, do not need opinions of their teachers thrown at them to digest. Regardless of what party they're for, what recent political action they're discussing, or the tone behind the directed comments, politics in the classroom should be discussed on a completely objective level.

Students in one Colorado high school think so, too. When their teacher made remarks comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler in discussing the State of the Union address, one student decided to record it. (Click on the link to the story, and on that same page there is a link to a video of the student who did the recording speaking with Hannity and Colmes.)

When the administrators decided to merely put the teacher on leave while they investigate the situation, about 150 students walked out of their school in protest.

Good for them. What maturity those students have, to take advantage of their right to peaceful protest and to realize that the teacher is wrong for accosting them with his political beliefs.

I don't care what political bias a teacher has--keep it OUT of the classroom. Your politics aren't what I'm interested in learning. And even if the class has political underlining, the teacher should be promoting objectivity and viewpoints across the spectrum rather than taking the easy way out and preaching his/her own political agenda.

There have been instances of similar issues at colleges and universities--I'm glad to see someone doing something about this in a high school.

Responsible for a Natural Disaster

The Hurricane was a disaster, and I won't deny it--they say it's the worst natural disaster in US history. Who am I to debate that?

What I will say, though, is that the idea of Bush being held responsible for the "lack" of emergency and catastrophe teams in New Orleans is ridiculous. They're saying "we warned you," now in an effort, I think, to point a finger.

(Why must we always point a finger? And why must it always be at President Bush? No one blamed Clinton for not knowing what the word "is" meant... but everything that's gone wrong in the last six years has been Bush's fault without question.)

What's most ridiculous about throwing accusations about being warned is that now Homeland Security has to try to defend itself:

Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast. via FOXnews.com

A "briefing" mere days before the hit of Hurricane Katrina on August 29th leaves just enough time for those that do the "briefing" to be able to say "we told you so," and just enough time for those that will be blamed for the disaster to do nothing.

What was he supposed to do, folks? Seriously. Told just a few days before the storm hit that it would do extreme damage, what was he supposed to do? It's nice to throw accusations around, but they're empty unless you have a potential solution to a past problem. If you don't have something in mind that actually could have been done, then how do you have the right to accuse someone that they "didn't do enough" to stop a natural disaster?

It is, indeed, a tragedy. Hurricane Katrina won't soon be forgotten. Nor will others let the Bush Administration and the Homeland Security officials whom they hold responsible for a natural disaster forget that they are holding them responsible...

Ex-Official Says "Russia Moved Saddam's WMDs"

The headline article on NewsMax.com today uncovers a rather disturbing report by the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, John A. Shaw. In a speech he gave at the "Intelligence Summit" in Virginia, Shaw presented his evidence claiming that the Russian military moved Saddam's weapons for him right before the start of the Iraq war.

NewsMax quotes him as saying, "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special forces) units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence." Shaw says they were moved to Lebanon and Syria, while others were placed on ships and sunk in the Indian Ocean. Shaw claims that the Russians, who sold the weapons to Iraq, wanted to get rid of any evidence of doing business with Iraq.

The article goes on to list all of Shaw's findings, which, if true, appear to be pretty damning to the Russians:

In December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Primakov supervised the execution of long-standing secret agreements, signed between Iraqi intelligence and the Russian GRU (military intelligence), that provided for clean-up operations to be conducted by Russian and Iraqi military personnel to remove WMDs, production materials and technical documentation from Iraq, so the regime could announce that Iraq was "WMD free."

Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.

In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.

Shaw says he leaked the information about the two Russian generals and the clean-up operation to Gertz in October 2004 in an effort to "push back" against claims by Democrats that were orchestrated with CBS News to embarrass President Bush just one week before the November 2004 presidential election. The press sprang bogus claims that 377 tons of high explosives of use to Iraq's nuclear weapons program had "gone missing" after the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq, while ignoring intelligence of the Russian-orchestrated evacuation of Iraqi WMDs.

The two Russian generals "had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years," Shaw revealed. U.S. intelligence knew "the identity and strength of the various Spetsnaz units, their dates of entry and exit in Iraq, and the fact that the effort (to clean up Iraq's WMD stockpiles) with a planning conference in Baku from which they flew to Baghdad."

The Baku conference, chaired by Russian Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, "laid out the plans for the Sarandar clean-up effort so that Shoigu could leave after the keynote speech for Baghdad to orchestrate the planning for the disposal of the WMD."

Subsequent intelligence reports showed that Russian Spetsnaz operatives "were now changing to civilian clothes from military/GRU garb," Shaw said. "The Russian denial of my revelations in late October 2004 included the statement that "only Russian civilians remained in Baghdad." That was the "only true statement" the Russians made, Shaw ironized.

Interestingly enough, the article goes on to claim that Shaw's voice was silenced by higher ups in the Intelligence Community. The Bush Administration walks a fine line when it comes to finding out what happened to the WMD's. According to NewsMax, some say that if Bush acknowledges that Russia did move the weapons, than peace talks with Iran could be severed. However, is Russia did send soldiers (dressed as civilians) to aid Saddam, then the War on Terror could be escalated to an even grander level.

(Quoted sources from NewsMax.com article by Kenneth R. Timmerman)

2008 FrontRunner Poll

NewsMax.com reported the latest poll from C-PAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) regarding the frontrunners for the GOP ticket in 2008. While alot of this is still up in the air, the general results from the convention are as follows:

George Allen: 22%
John McCain: 20%
Rudy Giuliani: 12%
Condoleezza Rice: 10%
Bill Frist: 6%
Tom Tancredo: 5%
Mitt Romney: 5%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Rick Santorum: 3%
George Pataki: 3%
Undecided: 4%

This is a slight change from previous polls, which had Condi Rice at second last year and Allen and McCain tied at 11%. It is also important to note that most of these people have not declared a run for president (especially Condoleezza Rice, who has denied it on numerous occasions.)

Santorum defends Republican identity at NAICU meeting

Rick Santorum spoke at Tuesday's annual meeting of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Largely, he was well-received by the crowd as he discussed the treatment of non-profit organizations, such as colleges and universities.

Additionally, Santorum was asked how higher education can absolve itself of the Republican mindset that colleges are merely "bastions for political liberalism." Santorum responded by asserting that higher education is by-and-large liberal, but that Republican politicians have been more supportive than usual, stating, "we understand that you’re the platform on which we have to build the future competitiveness of the country."

For the full article, click here. (via InsideHigherEd.com)

“I wasn’t going to sell my soul,” he said, “to get my name on a piece of legislation if the net effect to the nonprofit sector was negative,” Santorum said to boisterous cheers.

...

After the Senate staff member’s warnings about continuing Congressional scrutiny, the NAICU group appreciated Santorum’s statement that he had helped to get rid of “90 percent of the bad stuff” in tax reconciliation bills that are moving their way through Congress and his promise to continue to try to ward off intrusive regulation.

But Santorum could not help himself when an administrator at Salve Regina College asked him how colleges could correct the impression of Republican political leaders that the institutions are bastions for political liberalism, which the questioner posited had undermined federal support for higher education.

Santorum took issue with the official’s thesis that Congress had been anything but fully supportive of higher education, at least from a financial standpoint. But “there is no question that the majority of Republicans believe that higher education is ‘left,’ “ Santorum said. “We do, and it is.”

Scranton Steps Down, Swann on the GOP Ticket

Today, in a move that surprised many, Lt. Governor Bill Scranton withdrew from the race for Governor. This came as former-Steeler Lynn Swann steps up his campaign for the Republican endorsement. While Scranton certainly has the political know-how to be an effective governor, Swann had the early advantage in terms of name recognition. Getting a huge cheer at the Super Bowl couldn't have hurt either.

Scranton, in a statement he released to the press, said, "Our campaign is strong, but not strong enough to defeat a candidate who has received the near unanimous backing of state and national party leaders. "

Scranton's withdrawal allows Swann's campaign to save much of its money for the real race against the incumbent, Ed Rendell. Had Scranton stayed in the race, the two Republicans would have to battle it out for the party's nomination, and then would have to fundraise twice as much to combat Rendell. There is still a third Republican nominee on the ticket, Jim Panyard; while he has not official withdrawn from the race, he isn't expected to present much of a problem for Swann's nomination.

The battle of Pennsylvania East (Rendell) and West (Swann) is now beginning.

Samuel Alito is Confirmed!

This afternoon, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed as the 110th member of the United States Supreme Court. He was voted in by the Senate with a 58-42 victory. While this number did tow the party lines, a handful of Democrats did vote for Alito. This nomination still come in at one of the closest partisan votes for a Supreme Court nominee since Judge Clarence Thomas.

Samuel Alito is the second conservative judge that President Bush has nominated for the Supreme Court. He has replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has now gone into retirement.

Hillary likens "House" to "Plantation" on MLK Day

In a speech yesterday at the Reverend Al Sharpton's Martin Luther King Jr. celebration, as part of his National Action Network, Hillary Clinton decided to not only to bare her liberal fangs, but also play the race card at a very inappropriate time.

“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I'm talking about..." she said. And I'm not really sure what she's referring to. And so, instead of praising Dr. King for his work in equal rights, she decided to make a vague and offensive reference about the House of Representatives.

No matter how "centrist" Mrs. Clinton appears to be lately, it's little things like this (and her alliance with Al Sharpton to begin with!) that remind us of her true beliefs. She is as liberal as they come, folks, and certainly moreso than Bill.

Once again I am surprised at why the Democratic party seems to be the part for the majority of African Americans.

UCLA Confirms Media Bias

Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist, has just published a study revealing what most Americans already knew: the mainstream media carries a left-winged bias. And while Bernard Goldberg was the first really make a splashed with this argument (but published two New York Times Bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance"), sometimes it takes a study from an actual university for people to finally take notice.

"While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left."

The study confirmed that media outlets such as NBC News, CNN, and NPR are all left-leaning news programs. It also confirmed that Fox News is a tad to the right of center. The article goes on to state: "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia."

To read the entire article about the study, head over to the UCLA newsroom.

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

This morning, President George W. Bush unveiled a document called "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which was written by the National Security Counsel.

The 35-page document clarifies the positions and initiatives he stated when the war began in 2003, along with providing a progress report. This booklet is coming as a sort of defense against the waves of criticism coming at the President from both the mainstream media and anti-war activists.

Successes in Iraq’s political and economic development are overshadowed in the international media, including popular pan-Arab outlets, by a relentless focus on terrorist and extremist violence and a misleading spotlight on the disagreements among Iraqi politicians. This has contributed to an inaccurate and unbalanced view of developments in Iraq among many international audiences and within Iraq itself. Since the fall of Saddam, hundreds of new independent media outlets have sprung up in Iraq. Their presence is a testament to the vitality of a free press, but their quality is often uneven and their level of professionalism could be improved. Together with our international partners, we are working to promote civic understanding and enable Iraq’s public and private media institutions to flower.

To read the entire document, visitthe Iraqi Strategy page at the Whitehouse.gov

Since President Bush's fantastic Veteran's Day speech, he and his administration have been going on the offensive against the liberals and media that have done nothing but attack him. Bush is taking steps in the right direction in terms of raising his approval rating, and the war's approval rating, by releasing these reports. He has set out to give a number of speeches over the coming weeks, as we near the Iraq national election on December 15th.

Tim Murphy Injured in Iraq

Fox News reports that two representatives were injured in Iraq the other day when the vehicle they were riding in flipped over.

"Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., was airlifted to a military hospital in Germany for an MRI on his neck, Marshall told the Macon Telegraph. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., was sent to a Baghdad hospital..."

Congressman Murphy visited Seton Hill on behalf of the College Republicans last Spring. He led a discussion on social security reform. Murphy is also running for re-election in November of 2006. Hopefully he wasn't injured too badly!

Late Night Iraq Vote: Was It Worth It?

Friday afternoon, news broke on the Drudge Report that the House GOP had called for an eleventh hour vote on a resolution to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. I know what you're thinking, "Are they crazy?!" What they were doing was basically calling the Democrats out, specifically PA Rep John Murtha, who earlier in the week blasted the President on not having a pull-out plan. The Republicans made a daring, and dangerous policy move, by calling for a vote on pulling out the troops immediately-- their plan was to catch the Dems flip-flopping on their policy.

Did it work? Yes and no... after an hour or so of debate on a resolution to pull out the troops, the idea was shot down 403 to 3. So in that sense, the GOP won, and proved their point. But they didn't exactly go about it the right way. The problem lies with the resolution, which wasn't Murtha's original resolution. Instead, it was a reworded, non-binding resolution written by a House Republican. This immediately made the whole think look like a political stunt. If they really wanted to make a point, they would have called Murtha's resolution to the floor to vote.

That isn't to say that they didn't make a solid statement. To merely dismiss Friday's vote as a political stunt isn't good enough, especially considering all of the grandstanding and bullplopping that the Dems have pulled over the last three months. What it did do was show that the Republicans may be down but they aren't out. Over the past few weeks, the GOP'ers have begun fighting back (and they should have started alot sooner). With the President's stellar Veteran's Day speech behind them, and some fiery words from Cheney, the House and Senate are beginning to wake up. Tonight's debate saw some great speeches by House Republicans, and ultimately resulted in a huge Nay for the resolution. While the Democrats are saying they merely voted "no" to get rid of such nonsense, I have a feeling that this trend of voting isn't very far from how things would have turned out with Murtha's resolution.

For a full report on Friday night's events, check out Breibart.com

Miers Withdraws

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from the Supreme Court nomination. Posted below is a text of Pat Buchanan's article on the subject. It's an interesting op/ed titled "Miers May Have Helped Save Bush's Presidency." Read below and form your own opinion.

By withdrawing her nomination, Harriet Miers spared herself an agonizing inquisition and probable rejection by the Senate and did George W. Bush the greatest service of her career. She may just have helped him save his presidency.

Like a school marm indulging a teacher’s pet, Miss Miers just gave George Bush permission to retake the final exam he booted badly. She has given him a second chance to succeed where Nixon, Ford, Reagan and his father all failed: To become the president who rang down the curtain on 50 years of judicial tyranny and reshaped the Supreme Court into the great constitutionalist body the Founding Fathers intended.

George Bush is a lucky man to have a friend like Harriet Miers.

Had her nomination been pursued through the judiciary committee to the full Senate, it would have meant civil war inside the party. President Bush would have been forced to watch members of his Congressional party and conservatives publicly call for rejection and defeat of the woman who had given him a decade of devoted service.

The fallout from this fratricidal war could have lasted for years. By standing down, Miers called off the family fight about to erupt inside the president’s own household.

Nothing better befit Harriet Miers’ nomination than the style and grace of her leaving it. Mirabile dictu, it may have been the Washington Post that spared us this ordeal by delivering a painless coup de grace.

Twenty-four hours before Miers withdrew, the Post carried on page one the report of an startling speech she delivered in 1993 to a Dallas women’s group. As the Post’s Jo Becker reported, while still president of the Texas Bar Association, Miers “defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns.”

But judges who “order lawmakers to address social concerns” that the lawmakers decline or refuse to take up is the quintessence of judicial activism. I.e., it is the substitution by judges of their own ideas of what law and public policy ought to be for that of the men and women elected to write laws and to make public policy.

The Post went on: “While judicial activism is derided by many conservatives, Miers said that sometimes ‘officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents: I did not want to do that -- the court is making me.’”

Exactly. Lawmakers often prefer to “let this cup pass away” and let courts decide social and moral issues. But if we are to remain a republic, the proper recourse, when lawmakers lack the courage or wisdom to do the right thing is not to have judges order them to do the right thing, but to elect new lawmakers.

In her speech Miers showed sympathy for feminist causes, spoke of the “glass ceiling,” and said that on issues like abortion: “The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think abut these issues the more self-determination makes sense.”

Miers seemed to be implying that Roe vs. Wade, by which the legal protection of unborn life was removed from the jurisdiction of lawmakers and handed over to women, was probably the right call.

Given Miers’ absence of a judicial record or a deeply embedded philosophy of judicial restraint, her expressed sympathy for jurists who order legislators to act, her sympathy for feminist causes, it is hard to see how a conservative senator could vote to make her the decisive voice on the Supreme Court for the next generation.

If they voted her down they would split the party and enrage the president. If they voted her onto the court, they would betray the voters to whom they had pledged to support only strict constructionists and constitutionalists of proven merit and ability.

It was lose, lose. The president, his party and the Right were all marching grimly toward First Manassas when Sister Harriet saved us all.

Sens. Kennedy, Leahy and Boxer are urging President Bush to “show strength,” by appointing a moderate. But, if I am not mistaken, didn’t Bush just do that? And how did the nominee that made Harry Reid a happy man turn out?

President Bush just survived a barrel ride over Niagara Falls. A man of reasonable intelligence would not risk it a second time.

With the nominations of John Roberts and Bernard Bernanke, Bush appointed men of experience and proven capacity who shared his beliefs. Given this heaven-sent second chance, he should do the same with the Supreme Court: Pick a justice whose credentials are unimpeachable and whose judicial philosophy reads likes an excerpt from The Collected Works of Antonin Scalia.

With a single stroke -- the nomination of a Supreme Court justice who will remove the smile from the countenance of Chuck Schumer and unite his unhappy household in praise of Bush and anticipation of battle, as they pull down the rusty old pike-staffs from the wall, President Bush can begin the resurrection of his presidency.

In the title of the old Gospel Song, “Oh Happy Day.”

Bush's Second Nomination

President Bush nominated his second Supreme Court Justice this morning. It was none other than Harriet Miers, a high-ranking lawyer from Texas. While not too much is known about her currently, Drudge Report states that in the 1980's she was a conservative Democrat who contributed money to the DNC and Gore's campaign, but later became a Republican. She is, so far, considered to be a "conservative" justice. Breitbart.com reported, "As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should 'be trying to speak for the entire legal community' on an issue that she said 'has brought on tremendous divisiveness' within the ABA."

Does this mean she's going to have a harder time getting through the Senate than Roberts did? Probably. But the upside (or downside, depending on how you look at it) is that she has never been a judge before. You don't have to be a judge to get on the Supreme Court... so in that sense, the Senate will have little in the ways of "past rulings" to argue with her on.

Vice President Dick Cheney was on the Rush Limbaugh program today speaking about the President's decision to pick Miers. For the full interview Click here. On the other side of things, Republican editor for the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, slammed the decision in an article that appeared on Yahoo News

"It Takes a Family" by Rick Santorum

Senator Rick Santorum, one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and one of the finest politicians from PA, has released a new book today. Titled "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good", the book is a statement on the family in today's society and how we need to bring back values to the home. Santorum states that the best way to do this is through a strong family (not a village, as Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village" suggested). The book was just released into the market today and is already #120 on Amazon.com (and quickly climbing).

Check out the book today!

Live 8: Now with 50% Less Bush Bashing

Matt Drudge has reported that Bob Geldof, organizer of the Live 8 concerts as well as the original Live Aid, has demanded that all of the performers refrain from Bush/Blair bashing. Drudge reports: "Please remember, absolutely no ranting and raving about Bush or Blair and the Iraq war, this is not why you have been invited to appear," Geldoff said to the manager of a top recording artist, who asked not to be identified. The purpose of the event is to raise money for aid in Africa, not to push the political agendas that some musicians may hold.

Interestingly enough, Geldof was quoted in Time Magazine saying "Actually, today I had to defend the Bush Administration in France again. They refuse to accept, because of their political ideology, that he has actually done more than any American President for Africa." For the whole article, click here.

While Bush's approval rating seems to be dipping a tad here in the states (along with the approval rating for Congress and everyone else in the Capitol) his approval throughout the world has improved slightly. This can be linked to his increased support for the aid to Africa, aid that he agreed to give during a press conference with Tony Blair a few weeks ago.

Is Kerry Dumb or Bush Smart?

It's a pretty common assault by liberals to say that Bush is a moron. "He was a C student!" they exclaim, complaining that no one with such poor grades could be running our country.

Just released today, the Boston Globe reports: Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student. Kerry refused to release his grades during the campaign, but as it turns out, he had about the same average grades as George W. Bush. In fact, he got four D's his freshman year.

Looks like the libs have to think of something else to call Bush.

Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) Dies at 84

Today, the world lost a great man. (The word “great” is an enormous understatement.) It’s been an incredibly long two days, watching people come and go on TV, as they stood vigil at the Vatican at all hours of the day. However, his long suffering is over, and he is now in a better place. He fought the good fight, and enjoyed life to the fullest.

I think the Pope’s greatest achievements were his adamant stances on life issues, his steadfast conservative adherence to the faith (which is no small feat today), being the “Great Communicator” (a name given to him for his fluency in about eight languages), trying to bring peace to people all over the world and visiting the faithful in their home countries, forgiving Mehmet Ali Agca who tried to assassinate him in 1981, his special devotion to Mary and the cross, and of course, his role with Ronald Reagan in the fall of Soviet communism.

He was so filled with the love of God, and he had an awesome ability to reach with understanding and friendship to others (without forgetting who he was and what he stood for) and touch them in the depths of their hearts. He was truly a man of God.

May God bless you, Pope John Paul II. Do widzenia, Karol Wojtyla.

Pope John Paul II Dies at 84

Article Summary

The Pope died this evening at 9:37 P.M. (2:37 P.M. EST) in his private apartment.

“All the procedures outlined in the apostolic Constitution 'Universi Dominici Gregis' that was written by John Paul II on Feb. 22, 1996, have been put in motion"” said papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls.

Bells tolled at the Vatican and across Rome. Vatican, Italian, and European Union flags were lowered to half-mast across the capital.

A Mass is scheduled for 10:30 A.M. Sunday (4:30 A.M. EST).

“Immediately after the news was announced to the crowd in St. Peter's Square, there was complete silence. The crowd seemed stunned. A few minutes later, some people broke out in applause in appreciation for the pope — in an Italian tradition in which mourners often clap for important figures. Others wept.”

“People in Pope John Paul II's hometown of Wadowice fell to their knees and wept as the news of his death reached them at the end of a special Mass in the church where Poland's favorite son worshipped as a boy…

John Paul II was last seen in public on Wednesday when, looking gaunt and unable to speak, he briefly appeared at his window.

His health sharply deteriorated the next day after he suffered a urinary tract infection. The Vatican said the pope was suffering from septic shock, which involves both bacteria in the blood and a consequent over-relaxing of the blood vessels.”

“When a pope dies, the prefect of the papal household, currently American Archbishop James Harvey, tells the camerlengo, or chamberlain, who is the most important official running the Holy See in the period between the death of a pope and the election of a new one.

The camerlengo, now Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo of Spain, must then verify the death — a process which in the past was done by striking the forehead of the pope with a silver hammer. The camerlengo then calls out to the pope three times by his baptismal name — Karol, Karol, Karol. When the pope does not respond, the camerlengo then announces "the pope is dead."

The camerlengo uses the silver hammer to smash the pope's ring — the papal seal or "ring of the fisherman" — to preclude forgery of official documents.

The mourning will last nine days and the pope's body will likely lie in state. The funeral is expected to take place in St. Peter's Square and the body will then be laid to rest, alongside other popes', in a crypt underneath St. Peter's Basilica.

A conclave will gather 117 cardinals at the Vatican to begin the process of electing a new pope within 15 to 20 days.”

Startling College Statistics

A recent study posted in the Washington Post shows that 72% of professors in American colleges and universities are liberal. While this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who actually goes to college, the numbers are startling when you learn that every teacher in this 72% has defined themselves as liberal. Only 15% are conservatives.

For more terrible faculty stats check out the whole article.

Day 10: Forced Starvation of Terri Schiavo: Terri’s Family Plead with ‘Powers That Be’ to Do More

It’s been a long haul, folks. I know that probably a lot of you are sick and tired of hearing this case, but try to hang in there. As Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither are these cases over with in a day as well. We’ve got to be committed to what we believe in, and I know that it’s really hard dealing with such a depressing and frustrating case like this day-in and day-out. We’ve just got to keep at it. Please keep the prayers going even though it looks like Michael Schiavo’s going to finally get his wish. Let’s be with Terri through the final haul.

I would like to call attention to something that has been bothering me for several days now. I find it very hard to believe that one judge (on an appeals court, no doubt) has more power than all of Congress combined. Judge George Greer’s rejections stand, Terri’s bill or not. I don’t think that judges should have (or if they’re allowed to have) so much power individually. I mean there’s over 500 people in Congress (plus the president’s signature) who put forth that bill (some more willing than others) and one judge gets to make a ruling rejecting the reinsertion of Terri’s feeding tube, and we have to go by him alone. I’m no law student by any stretch of the imagination, but I always thought that all three branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) had about equal powers and that that’s why we have the system of checks and balances – To keep one branch from getting more power over the others. I also thought judges were supposed to uphold the law, not make it (that’s what the legislative branch does). This sounds a lot like judicial tyranny – Something’s definitely not right here.

Terri’s Family Appeals to ‘Powers That Be’

Article Summary

Gov. Jeb Bush said that he’s talked with his legal counsel and has not seen any way the executive branch can get involved. He apologizes for not being able to do more for Terri.

At least two more state-filed appeals are pending, but they’re going up against the 2nd District Court of Appeals, which has rebuffed Gov. Bush’s efforts in the past.

“Bob Schindler, Terri's father, didn't mention Bush by name when he talked to reporters outside the Pinellas Park hospice, but he did offer a plea to the "powers that be" as he described his daughter as being "very, very, very weak."

"She has just incredible strength to live," Schindler said, telling those unnamed powers, "Don't give up on her. We haven't given up on her and she hasn't given up on us."”

“…The chief medical examiner for Pinellas County, Dr. John Thogmartin, had agreed to perform an autopsy. He said her husband wants definitive proof showing the extent of her brain damage. Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him years ago she would not want to be kept alive artificially under such circumstances.

An attorney for Schiavo's parents, David Gibbs III, said her family also wants an autopsy. "We would certainly support and encourage an autopsy to be done with all the unanswered questions," Gibbs said.”

“Schiavo's mother did not visit her daughter on Easter, emotions keeping her from the hospice for the first time since Terri's feeding tube was removed 10 days ago, O'Donnell said.

"If she goes in there again, we might have to take her to the hospital," O'Donnell said.”

During Easter at about 4:00 P.M., Terri received a drop of Christ’s blood (wine), but could not take the tiny piece of His body because her tongue was cracked and too dry. She was also anointed with holy oil, and absolved of her sins by Rev. Thaddeus Malanowski.

Day 9: Forced Starvation of Terri Schiavo: Legal Battle is Over/Protests Heat Up

(I would like to apologize again for the delayed reply and hope that everyone had a nice Easter, even though a fellow American is dying needlessly and in a horribly painful way as well.)

Please keep praying for Terri.

Schiavo’s Parents Out of Legal Options

Article Summary

As the title says, Terri’s parents are out of legal options to save their dying daughter. According to the article, they appeared quietly resigned to watching their daughter die on Easter Sunday.

On an up note, Terri WAS permitted to receive communion today.

“Schiavo's husband, who a day earlier denied a request from his wife's parents that she be given communion, granted permission Sunday to offer the sacrament.

The Rev. Thaddeus Malanowski said he gave Schiavo wine but could not give her a fleck of communion bread because her tongue was dry.

The priest's announcement drew applause and cheers from the crowd, which spent most of the day heckling police and protesting loudly. The noise prompted Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler…, to come out and ask protesters to tone down their behavior.

"We are not going to solve the problem today by getting arrested," he told the restless crowd. "We can change laws, but we are not going to change them today ... You are not speaking for our family."”

“A spokesman for the Schindlers denied a report from David Gibbs III, their lead lawyer, who told CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that Schiavo has "passed where physically she would be able to recover."

That statement "was not made with the family's knowledge. In the family's opinion, that is absolutely not true," family spokesman Randall Terry told reporters.

Felos declined to comment on Schiavo's condition.

At Michael Schiavo's home in Clearwater, about three dozen protesters dropped roses and Easter lilies on his lawn in a peaceful demonstration. His fiancee's brother picked up the flowers and handed them to a bystander to take away.”

About 100 protesters gathered outside the hospice today, even though Terri’s parents requested that they go home and spend Easter with their families. Terri’s father told the protesters that they were welcome back on Monday.

Day 8: Forced Starvation of Terri Schiavo: Terri’s Parents Plan New Court Battle So Terri Can Be Given Easter Communion

(Please excuse the delay of this post.) Terri not being allowed to receive Holy Communion is absolutely absurd. (Frankly, this whole battle is absurd, but seeing as legal options have been repeatedly rejected, this is simply outrageous.) This is most likely the last time she will receive this sacrament, and I think that it’s a travesty that she should be denied this, seeing as its Christ’s actual body and blood (according to Catholic belief), its not just wine and a piece of bread.

Terri’s Parents Plan New Court Battle

Article Summary

Seeing that their daughter’s life is nearing an end, Terri’s parents seek permission for her to be given Holy Communion. They decided not to file a motion with a federal appeals court.

“But at least three more appeals loomed by the Schindlers and Gov…Jeb Bush. Schindler attorney David Gibbs III appealed an unfavorable ruling Saturday with a last-ditch plea to the Florida Supreme Court to get the feeding tube reinserted.

"Time is moving quickly and it would appear most likely ... that Terri Schiavo will pass the point that she will be able to recover over this Easter weekend," Gibbs said. He filed an emergency petition arguing that a Pinellas County judge ignored new evidence of Schiavo's wishes and her medical condition.

Paul O'Donnell, a Roman Catholic Franciscan monk, said the family is urging Schiavo's husband to allow his wife to receive the sacrament of communion at sundown Saturday, when Catholics begin celebrating their holiest feast of the year. Schiavo, who cannot swallow, would have a minuscule piece of bread and a drop of wine placed in her mouth.”

The latest appeal (that Terri had tried to communicate that she wanted to live soon after the feeding tube was removed) was rejected by Judge George Greer

““She's doing remarkably well under the circumstances," said Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, after visiting her inside the hospice Saturday afternoon. "She has put up a tremendous battle to live. She's not throwing in the towel."

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, denied reports by the parents' attorneys that her tongue and eyes were bleeding.

"She is calm. She is peaceful. She is resting comfortably," Felos told reporters Saturday as four sheriff's deputies stood by to protect him.

Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler, called that "absurd" and challenged Felos to allow videos and photos to be released, so the public can see Terri's condition. "They're mischaracterizing the condition today, just as they have been ... It's sick. It's heinous," he said.””

Earlier, Felos said that allowing video cameras to be recorded in Terri’s room while she was dying would violate her privacy rights.

Day 7: Forced Starvation of Terri Schiavo: Another Legal Blow to Terri’s Parents/Terri’s Down to Her Last Hours

The spiritual counselor of the Schindlers previously that Mary Schindler would join another Mary this week who stood and helplessly watched her child die a horrible, and painful death.

This afternoon, Catholics around the world gathered to remember the crucifixion of Christ.

It’s been more than a week since Terri Schiavo has had anything to drink or eat. Her parents have desperately been doing everything in their power to get legal intervention to save her life. Supporters of Terri continue their protests outside the hospice in which she’s in, while the rest of us (too far away to do anything), can only pray for a miracle before it’s too late.

Another Legal Blow to Schiavo’s Parents

Article Summary

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to order the reinsertion of Terri’s feeding tube, having stated that it already ruled on most of the issues raised in the latest appeal and that the other issues raised in the case did not apply to the case.

This is the third time in four days that the court has rejected Terri’s parents’ emergency request. Terri’s parents have said that they planned to appeal to the full appellate court.

“Dehydration has taken its toll on the 41-year-old woman, producing flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, and sunken eyes, according to attorneys and friends of the Schindlers.

"Terri is weakening. She's down to her last hours. Something has to be done and has to be done quick," said Bob Schindler, who visited his daughter Friday morning. After a later visit, he added: "I told her that we're still fighting for her, and she shouldn't give up because we're not. But I think the people who are anxious to see her die are getting their wish."”

This 11th U.S. Circuit Court is the same court that ruled against Terri’s parents this past week.

“Another legal maneuver included a late afternoon filing asking Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer to order the reinsertion of the tube, claiming Terri Schiavo tried to say "I want to live" when her tube was removed. The motion said Schiavo was asked to repeat that phrase and responded: "AHHHHH" and "WAAAAAAA."”

This was based on a claim a lawyer for the Schindlers made.

““Doctors who have examined her for the court case have said her previous utterances weren't speech, but were involuntary moans consistent with someone in a vegetative state. Greer, who had ordered the tube removed, was expected to announce a decision by noon Saturday. Greer also denied a new request by the parents to remove himself from the case.

In a hearing, Schindler attorney David Gibbs III urged Greer to act quickly because he expected "Terri to step into eternity this Easter weekend." George Felos, the attorney for her husband Michael Schiavo, said the belief Terri Schiavo can speak was "crossing the line" into an abuse of the legal system.””

“Outside the hospice, eight more people — including a 10-year old boy and 13-year-old twin girls — were arrested Friday for trying to bring her water.

"I don't want her to die," Joshua Heldreth, 10, from North Carolina, said before his arrest. "I'm not afraid because God is with me."”

Day 6: Forced Starvation of Terri Schiavo: Terri’s Parents Await Judge’s Ruling

First off, I apologize for now posting anything yesterday (although I put it in under yesterday’s category). Here’s the post for Thursday, March 24, 2005:

Schiavo’s Parents Await Federal Judge’s Ruling

Article Summary

Terri’s parents waited for the ruling of a federal judge in Tampa (Judege James Whittemore, who refused the previous request made by Terri’s parents) as they made another emergency request that Terri’s feeding tube be reinserted, pursuing their claims that Terri’s religious and due-process rights were violated.

“While waiting for that decision, the Schindlers learned that the Florida Supreme court refused to overturn a circuit court judge's decision to deny the state's request to take custody of their daughter.

Gov. Jeb Bush wants the state Department of Children & Families to take custody of Schiavo, presumably to reinsert her feeding tube, and to investigate allegations that she has been abused and prove that she's not in a persistent vegetative state.

Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer earlier in the day denied Bush's request.”

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case made by Terri’s parents.

“The Schindlers' filing also argued Congress intended for Schiavo's tube to be reinserted, at least temporarily, when they passed an unprecedented bill last weekend that gave federal courts authority to fully review her case.

In its conclusion, the request suggested that the case has implications for the protection of the disadvantaged.

"It has taken our nation many years to make good on its commitment to equal justice for persons with profound, cognitive disabilities," the request read. "Unless the state of Florida retains the power to protect the rights of its most vulnerable citizens ... the 14th Amendment's guarantees will apply only to those who are capable of defending them on their own."

It added: "Without a stay from this court, Terri will die a horrible death in a matter of days."”

As judges continue to refuse requests made by Terri’s parents for their daughter’s life, hope begins to dwindle that Terri’s life will be saved.

"Strengthening Social Security" or "Hey, I got to talk to Dick Cheney"

In my ever growing efforts to inform people about social security reform (something that not only I have taken on, but also the entire College Republicans group at Seton Hill) I was invited by Melissa Hart's office to attend a town hall meeting with Dick Cheney this afternoon at LaRoche College in North Park. This was the second time I got to see Dick Cheney over the last six months, the first being at the Presidential Debate in September. While I was