A Very Scary Fraud Uncovered in Florida -- Again!

The parking lot of the driver's license bureau in Delray Beach was constantly jammed with van loads of people arriving daily.

While harried employees didn't think much about the onslaught, some couldn't help but notice that a few of their co-workers had begun sporting wildly expensive designer purses and were driving cars - BMW and Infiniti SUVs - that seemed to far exceed the stretch of their modest paychecks.

The two seemingly unrelated events were tied together late last month when a multi-agency task force arrested five license examiners for accepting bribes to issue driving permits to hundreds, if not thousands, of immigrants who otherwise couldn't get them because they were in the country illegally. While the investigation is ongoing, the five are believed to be part of a larger ring, said Elizabeth Parker, a chief assistant state attorney who headed the task force.

"It was insane what was going on," she said. "They were bringing van loads of people from all over South Florida. It was so blatant."

While the exact number of licenses issued is unknown, as many as 40 were issued daily during the scheme that had been operating for more than a year.

Armed with counterfeit immigration documents often handed to them in the parking lot of the office on Military Trail, they were directed to one of the five license examiners. Few took the mandatory written exam, much less the driving test. For fees ranging from $500 to $2,500 for the documents and the special treatment, they walked away with valid licenses.

Some of the predominantly Haitian, Guatemalan and Mexican immigrants probably just wanted licenses so they could stay in the country, get a job, open a bank account and not live in fear that a simple traffic stop would land them in jail with the next stop their home country, Parker said. Others may have wanted them to snare lucrative jobs as drug mules, she said. With a valid license, they wouldn't have to worry that if stopped with illicit cargo, their cars would be searched.

So far, she said, there is no evidence that the scheme was linked to terrorist activity. But, she said, with so many driver's licenses issued to fake names, the prospect worries her...

He said he has no idea how the five examiners were able to get away with the scam for so long. With 19 examiners, the office is the second-busiest in the county, processing an average of 408 customers a day compared to 470 at the West Palm Beach office, he said...

In the wake of the arrests, he said the agency is reviewing its operations in hopes of plugging gaps. Further, he said, the agency plans to increase the presence of Florida Highway Patrol troopers at drivers license bureaus.

Once the examiners were arrested, the agency acted quickly, he said. All of the women, one of whom had worked for the agency for 12 years, were fired immediately.

It is not the first time license examiners have been arrested for bribery. In 2001, seven who worked at offices in Miami-Dade County were arrested as part of a similar scam. In 2005, three were arrested as part of a license-selling operation in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

More people could be arrested before the current investigation is closed, Parker said.

Flip-Flopping: An Unforgivable Vice For Most Politicians, but A Virtue When Done By Barack Obama?

Remember when the press treated a politician's "flip-flopping" as a sign of weakness, if not outright hypocrisy or pandering? Well, that still applies...to everybody except Barack Obama.

In this remarkably fawning story by Kenneth T. Walsh and published by U.S. News/Yahoo, we see how remarkably journalism's rules have been changed to fit the anointed one. Just a few years ago, such slipshod, biased, sycophantic reporting wouldn't have made it into a high school newspaper.

...Overall, however, Obama has been praised for his flexibility, not condemned for his flip-flops. One reason, pollsters say, is that he seems such a contrast to the still-unpopular Bush, who was the opposite--stubborn and set in his ways. "When presented with a tough problem where a change of course was called for, Bush just dug in. He felt that it was weakness to change his mind," says a senior Democratic strategist. He cites Bush's positions to limit stem cell research, oppose legislation expanding healthcare for children, enact partial privatization of Social Security, and pursue the Iraq war. In contrast, he says, "Obama is willing to change course if he feels it's needed. The American people will still support him if he is not seen as doing it for political reasons." [See a photo gallery of Obama's trip to the Middle East]

In addition, Obama gains respect from Americans because when he does change his mind or shift his emphasis, he takes pains to explain it to the country. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adds that on the big issues, such as eventual withdrawal from Iraq, stimulating the economy, overhauling the healthcare system, and beefing up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the president isn't reversing himself at all and "has done exactly what he said he would do in the campaign." [Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About Barack Obama]

What may be the most important factor of all is that Americans seem to think the country's problems, from the economy to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are so complex that Obama should be given a lot of leeway in searching for solutions.

In the end, Americans will understand and accept a president who changes course, as long as he does it for the public good or to acknowledge new realities, not for crass partisan reasons or to curry favor with particular interest groups. But there is hell to pay if a president breaks a fundamental promise and can't justify it. Perhaps the best example is George H. W. Bush, who violated his "read my lips--no new taxes" pledge from the 1988 campaign. Partly as a result, Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992.

So far, Obama's shifts have not risen to the level of a fundamental change in his views or a redefinition of his presidency. If Obama can continue to demonstrate his commitment to everyday Americans, and get results, voters probably won't hold either his flexibility or his flip-flops against him.

When We Get Rid of Religion, What Kind of Society Will We Have?

Katherine Kersten's column in the Star Tribune is a superb one. It's a fine example of presuppositional apologetics; that is, creating a more profitable conversation about truth claims by effectively drawing out the implications of your opponent's beliefs. For until one understands the weaknesses of their own philosophy, they will not be truly open to considering yours.

We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.

As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.

But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.

More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity...

It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.

What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.

And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?

We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.

Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?

The signs aren't promising...

Read the whole of Kersten's article here.

Ominous Happenings in the World -- But What Worries the MSM Most?

The headlines from the weekend's news are certainly ominous. For instance, North Korea has gone way beyond rattling its saber. The Communists there have brazenly sentenced American reporters to outlandish prison sentences, issued to all parties a strict no-sail warning off its east coast, and pledged to respond with "extreme" measures if the United Nations tries to upbraid them in any way for last month's nuclear test.

The Reuters reporters at one time describe the country as "Stalinist North Korea." Interesting. For I've been seeing that term used of North Korea with some frequency in recent weeks. But, of course, Stalinist attitudes and policies have been in place in North Korea for a whole lot of years. So why are Western reporters (a few anyhow) just now describing it as such...and why only there? Why not Stalinist Venezuela or Cuba or Iran?

But the most alarming news of all, at least to the MSM here in the States, are all those "far right wing" (read: not Labour, not Socialist, not Green) parties gaining ground in European elections.

Today's Posts

Goodbye, General Motors. It Was A Nice Ride While It Lasted.

The May/June LifeSharer Letter is Up. (Well, Almost Up.)

Samaritan's Purse Is Rebuilding Churches in Sudan -- Want To Help?

Was "My Way" Really Sinatra's Way?

We're Going Green If It Kills Us

British Nurse Fired for Suggesting (In Role Play Excercise) That Church Attendance Might Ease Stress of Dying Patient

Don't Miss "Barack Obama's 10 Mistakes in Cairo."

For that Cairo Speech, Obama Gets an "F" in History

Goodbye, General Motors. It Was A Nice Ride While It Lasted.

The May/June LifeSharer Letter is Up. (Well, Almost Up.)

The May/June LifeSharer letter from Vital Signs Ministries will be up at the VSM site later this afternoon (if, that is, we get my Mom to her doctor and back, the lawn work done, the studying for Sunday's sermon and the evening study on heaven well underway, some correspondence finished, the Vital Signs Blog Top Ten sent out, and the grill ready for tonight's dinner with friends).

The May/June LifeSharer (unusual that we double up like that but it's been a really busy time) deals quite a bit with our trip to Portland, Oregon and the Hands for Life Conference there.

Look for it here.

Samaritan's Purse Is Rebuilding Churches in Sudan -- Want To Help?

“This congregation has known over 58 years of war! Full of sorrows, tears, and pain!” declared Pastor Simon. “But God is here to wipe away those tears and end our sorrow and our pain!”

With those words from their pastor, a new church was dedicated in the village of Mundu, Sudan. People cheered, jumped to their feet, clasped hands, and rushed to the front of the sanctuary, praising God.

Joyous celebrations like this one are spreading across southern Sudan, as Samaritan’s Purse continues our efforts to replace church buildings destroyed by government forces during Sudan’s long civil war. Since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed in 2005, our teams have worked alongside Sudanese believers to construct more than 285 churches...

For more of this exciting story, go to this page at Samaritan's Purse website, an organization that Claire and I have enthusiastically supported for many years. They'd love your help too.

Was "My Way" Really Sinatra's Way?

Will Friedwald looks at the interesting ironies (and there's a Rat Pack full of 'em) in the relationship between Frank Sinatra and the song most identified with him (one that he actually hated), "My Way."

The article is here in the WSJ's Arts & Entertainment section.

We're Going Green If It Kills Us

Solar power sure is expensive, as Florida residents are finding out the hard way. In fact, utility costs have already been jacked up 16% as Florida Power & Light invests more in solar power. And that promises to be just the start of even more alarming rate increases.

And, oh yes; what the utility company is doing is illegal.

"FPL's ongoing solar investment appears to violate a state law requiring utilities to provide power from the least-expensive available source."

But then this is what happens when the global warming/green movement gets in high gear, guys. Existing laws aren't going to stand in its way. No more than did hard science, common sense, or genuine consumer interests.

So, the last one out turns out the solar-powered lights. I'm going to find a cool cave to live in.

British Nurse Fired for Suggesting (In Role Play Exercise) That Church Attendance Might Ease Stress of Dying Patient

From our friend and pro-life colleague Stuart Cunliffe's blog come a frightful case of the British government's increasing intolerance against Christians.

A time of anti-Christian persecution is at hand, says the Church of England Newspaper. "The Government had better start building more prison space - for Christians and moral conservatives generally," it said in a recent editorial.

People were used to hearing of Christians sacked for daring to air any view which disapproved of homosexual sex. But the new Equality Bill and a Government bid to delete a free speech protection from a "homophobic hatred" law would lead to more intolerance of Christian views, it said.

The Equality Bill placed a duty on public bodies, like schools and police, to promote homosexual rights and gave Parliament the opportunity to strip away religious liberty protections from various discrimination laws, it said.

Christians, and Muslims and others who disagreed with the homosexual line, the paper said, were being told "to shut up and get into their closet - the gays are not tolerant of dissent and have got the state to crack down."

Which brings me to the case of Anand Rao. Although it may have nothing to do with homosexuality, it certainly seems to have to do with Christian persecution.

Mr Rao is 71 years old and a committed Christian. He has been a nurse for 40 years, in recent years in hospitals run by the University of Leicester NHS Trust. He decided to go on a training course organised by the Leicestershire and Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering, and found his own funds to pay for the course.

During the course, in a role play situation to do with palliative care, Mr Rao was placed with a couple playing the part of man and wife. He was told the wife had a serious heart condition, a doctor had told her she would not live long and this had caused her stress. How would he advise them? He suggested to the couple - in a role play situation on a training course, notice - that going to church might ease her stress.

The course directors were dissatisfied with this and the course organiser reported him to his employer. He was suspended and later sacked - apparently for breaching the Nursing and Midwifery Council's code of conduct respecting a person's dignity.

Mr Rao, who is considering taking legal action against his former employer for religious discrimination, said he is staggered that someone who has given four decades to caring for people can be treated in the way he has.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said "How is it possible that a nurse who has served the public for 40 years should find himself dismissed because in a training session he advised someone to go to church? To seek to censor and suppress this kind of language and belief is the first fruits of a closed society."

Don't Miss "Barack Obama's 10 Mistakes in Cairo."

Well, the Cairo speech has been praised to the skies by the obsequious American press -- but then whatever The Dude says they'll faint over.

But, once again, the Brits prove that groveling to politicians isn't their style. And in Toby Harnden's article for the Telegraph, the reader is treated to honesty, erudition and wit that is sadly lacking in America's MSM nowadays.

It's nice to get some illumination from what you read. So have a little here with "Barack Obama's 10 mistakes in Cairo." Very good stuff.

For that Cairo Speech, Obama Gets an "F" in History

More on that Cairo speech from Paul Williams at the Canada Free Press. He shows how wildly wrong is Barack Obama's historical understanding.

Which raises the question -- Was Obama just mistaken or was he guilty of the most pandering political manipulation? I'm afraid that it's the latter. You can't be that outrageously, pointedly wrong without a whole lot of trying.

A few examples from William's footnoted article:

...No one at the Egyptian University or the international media took issue with the President’s bizarre interpretation of American history, let alone his confusion of the Nation of Islam (the religion of Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X) that bears scant similarity to orthodox Islam...

Sorry, Barack Hussein, but there were no Muslims among the passengers on the Mayflower or the settlers at Jamestown. Muslims were conspicuously absent from the ranks of George Washington’s Army of the Revolution and played no role in the creation of the American republic - - save for the fact that the new country’s first declaration of war was against the forces of Islam in the form of the Barbary pirates.

Despite popular folklore, few Muslims numbered among the 12 million black Africans who were shipped to the New World from the 17th to 19th centuries. The Muslims, in fact, were not the slaves but the slave traders...

Surprisingly, there is no record of any Islamic American among the enlisted and conscripted forces of World War I, let alone among the blue and grey armies of the Civil War. The great migrations that lasted from 1865 to 1925 brought 35,000,000 people to the New World: 4,500,000 from Ireland, 4,000,000 from Great Britain, 6,000,000 from central Europe, 2,000,000 from the Scandinavian countries, 5,000,000 from Italy, 8,000,000 from Eastern Europe, and 3,000,000 from the Balkans. But the number of Muslims who came here from the Middle East was statistically nil.

In 1960, aside from the temples of the Nation of Islam, the only mosques in the United States were in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Dearborn, Michigan, and Washington DC (which opened in 1957) - - and all three professed less than 200 active members. Four other cities contained miniature mosques with less than fifty members.

Oh, yes, Jefferson did possess a copy of the Koran which Keith Allison, our first Muslim Congressman, used to make his oath of office. But what was Jefferson opinion of Islam? Did he believe the Muslim religion represented a salubrious influence in world affairs? Far from it. In 1786 Thomas Jefferson, then US ambassador to France, and John Adams, then US Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Dey’s ambassador to Britain, in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with the Barbary Pirates based on Congress’ vote of funding. To the US Congress these two future Presidents later reported the reasons for the Muslims’ hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

[They reported] “...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Jefferson had it right.

Obama has it wrong.

Today's Posts

Never Forget Tiananmen Square

Contrasting Responses to Murder

The Car of the Future from Government Motors?

Our President Just Can't Get Over Himself

How Long Before the Gimme' Government Runs Out of Money?

Never Forget Tiananmen Square

Conn Carroll remembers, as we all should, Communist China's massacre of some 2,600 people following the Tiananmen Square demonstrations.

In the spring of 1989, millions of Chinese peacefully seized control of their own capital and demanded democracy. After then-Premier Li Peng declared martial law on May 19th, the people of Beijing, not just students, responded by setting up bus and truck barricades to protect the demonstrators’ command post in Tiananmen Square. But on the morning of June 4th, 20 years ago today, China’s rulers sent in tanks and soldiers to regain control. The Chinese government claims only 241 people died that day, but the Chinese Red Cross puts the number at 2,600.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement yesterday calling on Chinese authorities to “provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.” As noble as Secretary Clinton’s sentiment is, America’s authority to lead on human rights in China was significantly undermined earlier this year when Clinton tabled human rights issues during her February trip to the country in favor of the Obama administration’s global warming concerns.

Clinton is not the only U.S. politician that has abandoned her past concern for human rights in China. Just this past month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi avoided any talk of human rights during her China trip, also prioritizing global warming over all other concerns. And Pelosi used to be a leader for human rights in China. In 1991 she helped unveil a banner in Tiananmen Square honoring “those who died for democracy in China.” But last week this was all she could muster: “In every country, not just China and the U.S., the global climate crisis is best surmounted with transparency and openness, respect for the rule of law and accountability to the people.”

Those who saw their friends die 20 years ago today, and still face persecution from the current Chinese regime, feel betrayed by the current leadership’s shift in focus...

Other notable reports:

* Heritage Foundation on Wang Dan

* From AFP -- Wang Dan, the leader of the Tiananmen democracy revolt crushed 20 years ago, appealed Tuesday for a firmer US line on human rights, deploring Western hesitation at upsetting Beijing.

Wang, who was expelled to the United States in 1998, said that ordinary Chinese looked approvingly on foreign, particularly US, criticism of the country's human rights record, even if it infuriates Beijing's government.

"I'm really disappointed ... that the whole international community has just turned their back to the human rights issue," Wang said at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank.

"I think that's sad because the people inside China really had some hope from the concern from the international community because they have no other means to try to pursue democracy," he said.

* From Reuters in Hong Kong comes a report on the anniversary vigil there -- Clad in black or white, and cradling candles, Hong Kong residents transformed a park into a sea of flickering lights on Thursday, in memory of pro-democracy demonstrators crushed by tanks in Beijing's Tiananmen Square two decades ago.

While China has tried to whitewash the incident over the past two decades and has tightened security around Tiananmen Square in recent days, Hong Kong has long made the most of its unique freedoms to openly challenge Beijing to reverse its verdict on June 4 and fully account for the killings.

The turnout was estimated at 150,000 people, organisers said, as crowds overspilled from six football pitches in a downtown Hong Kong park. The figure was even higher than in 1990 when the annual vigil first began, underscoring the anniversary's poignancy.

Contrasting Responses to Murder

Caleb at Red State contrasts the reaction statements of President Obama to, respectively, the murder of an American soldier by a Muslim terrorist and the murder of an abortionist by a schizophrenic terrorist.

Obama on an American Soldier’s death:

"I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son."

Obama on an abortionists death:

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

It’s in keeping with the Obama administration’s passive language, such as the euphemisms “overseas contingency operation” or “man-caused disaster” … Obama’s statement on the murder of Pvt. William A. Long is just as passive in voice and blame. He’s not outraged, he’s saddened. Not by someone who committed a “heinous act” but rather by a senseless violence. It might have been a bolt of lightning for all the pushback Obama has to share.

He waits three days and then the best he can muster is an abstract sadness at something that, judging by his statement, might well have been a mere accident of fate.

Maybe he just didn’t want to offend Riyadh, hmm?

John McCormack over at The Weekly Standard adds the fact that Obama's statement about George Tiller's murder came out just 5 hours after the heinous act while it took three days to get a White House response to the murder of William Long and the wounding of his fellow soldier Quinton Ezeagwula. And even when it came, "the White House appears to have quietly released this statement to a local AP bureau in Arkansas" instead of the normal procedure to issue a statement to its entire list of national reporters.

He then quotes Michelle Malkin about the MSM's contrasting response to the murders: "When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of Kansas late-term abortionist George Tiller versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.

Tiller’s suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was white, Christian, anti-government, and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruiting center attack, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, was black, a Muslim convert, anti-military, and anti-American. Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking."

The Car of the Future from Government Motors?

In case you haven't yet seen this, it's time to do so now. It comes from Iowahawk over at Big Hollywood.

Our President Just Can't Get Over Himself

Among today's must-reading is Terence P. Jeffrey's "I, Barack Obama."

President Obama used the first-person singular pronoun "I" 34 times on Monday when he announced he was nationalizing General Motors.

He used “Congress” once and “law” not at all.

As Obama described it, the government takeover of General Motors was Obama’s decision made for Obama’s reasons.

“Just over two months ago, I spoke with you in this same spot about the challenges facing our auto industry, and I laid out what needed to be done to save two of America's storied automakers,” said Obama.

“From the beginning, I made it clear that I would not put any more tax dollars on the line if it meant perpetuating the bad business decisions that had led these companies to seek help in the first place,” he said. “I refused to let these companies become permanent wards of the state, kept afloat on an endless supply of taxpayer money. In other words, I refused to kick the can down the road.”

To prevent GM from becoming a ward of the state, Obama made it the property of the state. “I decided then,” said the first person in chief, “that if GM and their stakeholders were willing to sacrifice for their companies' survival ... then the United States government would stand behind them.”

Here, I, Barack virtually identified himself with the United States government.

He did not say he would ask Congress to enact legislation to provide the executive with the funds needed to purchase 60 percent of GM or with the legal authority to restructure the company and oversee its business plan. He said: “I decided then ... the United States government would stand behind them.”

Remember: In December, Congress specifically declined to enact legislation authorizing the president to bail out the auto industry--let alone to purchase an auto company. What law now gives Obama authority to buy General Motors? The White House says, when pressed, it is the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But that legislation was written specifically to allow the Treasury Department to purchase assets from “financial institutions.” It says nothing about buying auto companies.

And if Congress has not enacted a law authorizing the president to take ownership of an auto company, who will say when he must surrender it?

And where does the Constitution say the government can take ownership of an auto company, let alone at the individual initiative of a president who cannot point to a duly enacted law that clearly expresses the deliberated will of the people that he should have that power...

The rest is here.

How Long Before the Gimme' Government Runs Out of Money?

It can't all be blamed on the recession, as this USA Today article wants to do. No, it is due much more to the nanny state's destruction of incentive, investment, responsibility and jobs, that 1 out of every 6 dollars of Americans' income now comes courtesy of the U.S. government.

1 out of every 6.

The collapse when it comes (and it must surely come) is going to be ugly.

Today's Posts

Iowa State Trooper Relieved of Duty -- He Sent an E-Mail Liberal Bureaucrats Didn't Appreciate

Adult Stem Cells Save Another Life

President Flim-Flam: Barack Obama's Off Again/On Again Muslim Roots

Ideological Converts Turning to Murder?

Obama's Justice Department Cares About Voter Intimidation After All

Your Wednesday Tea Break (The Seekers)

Iowa State Trooper Relieved of Duty -- He Sent an E-Mail Liberal Bureaucrats Didn't Appreciate

Back in December, I posted this item about The Smoking Gun, one of the web's most popular sites. TSG uses Freedom of Information laws to obtain and show mug shots of people (including a lot of celebrities) arrested for crimes. And, you guessed it, folks usually aren't looking their best when they've been hauled in for a DUI or domestic violence case.

At any rate, the post I uploaded was introduced with this one sentence, "Is The Smoking Gun making a political statement by making this compilation its #1 Mug Shot of the Year?"

The link then takes you to a TSG page with 15 mug shots of people -- all of them wearing Obama shirts. No commentary. No cartoons or computer generated photo distortions. No slogans or captions. Just the pictures.

It was a harmless comedic post, nothing at all like the profane, grossly exaggerated, and blisteringly false material defaming people like George W. Bush or Rush Limbaugh which seems to dominate any Google search.

And yet when an Iowa state trooper sent an e-mail with that same link to The Smoking Gun, he was relieved of duty and the state is now trying to get him permanently fired.

Wow. One wonders if the ACLU will gallop in. Or perhaps the noble members of the Fourth Estate who also posture themselves as guardians of the freedom of speech.

And what about the Democrat bureaucrats of Iowa? Do you think those guys who have e-mailed to each other (on state-owned computers) scads of those unflattering pictures of John McCain and Sarah Palin, those mean cartoons of Rush, those gross captions under photo-shopped caricatures of President Bush -- do you think they'll stand up for this trooper? That they'll say, "Hey; that's nothing. What I've sent around to give my pals laughs is a whole lot worse than what this guy sent."

Yeah. I don't think so either.

Adult Stem Cells Save Another Life

Texas Alliance for Life produced this fine video. For more wonderful videos and great information, check out their web site right here.

President Flim-Flam: Barack Obama's Off Again/On Again Muslim Roots

In this Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller ABC report, the reporters seem to completely agree with the wisdom of President Obama's positioning when it comes to his Muslim roots. That is, the reporters accept that it was the smart thing to play those roots down back in the campaign but now to let 'em take center stage when the President goes to Cairo to make his much-ballyhooed "Muslim speech."

Others would describe the President's pragmatics in different terms. Hypocrisy. Dishonesty. Chicanery. Flim-flam. Manipulation. Those are a few that come to mind.

Here's what slips from the ABC report.

The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.

During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."...

Since the election, however, with the threat of the rumors at least somewhat abated, the White House has been increasingly forthcoming about the president's roots. Especially when reaching out to the Muslim world.

In his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament, President Obama referenced how many "Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

Ideological Converts Turning to Murder?

A radical ideological commitment that turns converts into killers? Now that's something the press can really tear into.

But wait, you say you're not talking about a frantic schizophrenic who murdered an abortionist but rather a series of converts to Islam like Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another in Arkansas...and like the four men who tried to bomb two synagogues in New York?

Well, that must be different.

After all, just look at the disparate media attention given the George Tiller murder. That shooting was an outrageous and deplorable act certainly, but one involving a deranged murderer acting completely contrary to the character of the pro-life movement. It's rarity is one of the things that makes it stand out so dramatically -- this despite the abortion lobby trying to make it seem that violence is rife among pro-lifers.

The facts are as clear as can be, however. The pro-life movement's hallmarks are its peaceful, prayerful and patient tactics. Indeed, no protest movement in history has been so profoundly peaceful.

It's the abortionists who deal in violence, as they barbarically mangle the bodies of preborn boys and girls to death every day.

But the reporters of the MSM, dedicated themselves to abortion rights, are distorting this story. Their reports unapologetically portray abortionists as sympathetic, heroic, altruistic characters. There is no mention of babies torn to pieces at huge profits, of underhanded and deceitful business practices, of illegal activities, of botched abortions in which the lousy doctors involved continue to ply their trade.

Nor, of course, is there barely any mention of what pro-lifers really believe and do.

And what of the press coverage of the Muslim converts? Has the MSM responsibly covered those stories? Haven't they frequently even held out on their audience what they know about the assailant's religion and background? Haven't even the suspects' Muslim names been sometimes left out of the story, so concerned are reporters about smearing with a broad brush a particular faith?

I'm not insisting that the press go easy when a criminal turns out to be Christian or anti-abortion or conservative -- I'm just asking for a fairer all-round responsibility from the media. And one area that needs improvement is the reporting of crimes motivated by radical Muslims, including those involving the persecution of Christians, the targeting of Jews, anti-American terrorism, even the severe "honor codes" in which they brutally treat members of their own religion.

Here is an example of how it should be. It comes, no surprise, from Fox News.

The suspect in the deadly shooting at a military recruiting center in Arkansas is the latest in a series of Muslim converts accused of planning or launching violent attacks in the U.S., part of what security experts call an alarming domestic trend.

The attack came less than two weeks after a foiled bomb plot on two synagogues in Riverdale, N.Y., allegedly led by four men who converted to Islam in prison or shortly after their incarceration.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the 23-year-old accused of killing a U.S. soldier and injuring another in the attack Monday in Little Rock, was born in Tennessee as Carlos Leon Bledsoe. He reportedly converted to Islam as a teenager, and court records show he changed his name in March 2006.

Little Rock police said there was no indication Muhammad was part of a wider plot to attack the military, but terrorism experts say there are important connections between his and other homegrown terror plots in recent years, including their targets, motives and inspiration.

"The real common denominator is the ideological commitment (present) in every single case I've seen over the past few months and over the past few years," said Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Phares said the vast majority of converts are nonviolent, but a few embrace the teachings of extremist religious mentors. "In the lives of these diverse people there's always one moment where there's a click," he said — in which the budding convert is turned by a radical cleric or ideologue, or swayed by indoctrinating material they find online.

Prosecutors say Muhammad was targeting U.S. soldiers "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past" and was angry about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But some terror experts say that reasoning is a cover for their true grievances. The alleged ringleader of the plot in New York professed a similar motivation and hoped to take down a military plane at a local airstrip — but only after he tried to bomb two synagogues in a war against the Jews.

"I think there are a lot of personal reasons these people do this — as opposed to the ideological reasons or religious reasons that become the excuse," said Neil Livingstone, a national security and terrorism consultant.

Livingstone said some people on the margins of society are "easy marks" for radicals who energize them with twisted teachings about Islam. "Most of these guys — I think what it comes down to — they're misfits, they believe they've suffered injustice. ... They basically are striking back at society," he told FOXNews.com.

That is especially the case in prisons, where many black inmates convert to Islam and which have been identified as a "radicalizing cauldron" by law enforcement officials.

The Riverdale plotters are the most recent example, but another group of ex-cons was preparing terrorist attacks on Jewish and government targets around Los Angeles in 2005 when it was disrupted by local law enforcement.

Muslim advocacy groups say such radicals practice a false faith and only make up a small minority only of American Muslims. "It's a ridiculous form of Islam," said Kamal Nawash, president of the Free Muslim Coalition. Nawash said that some converts, particularly those who have been incarcerated, practice "the most extreme version of the religion" and enter with their own personal and political grievances...

That's good reporting -- a balanced and complete story. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a lot more of it?

Obama's Justice Department Cares About Voter Intimidation After All

Obama's politicized Justice Department (after rejecting the idea that Black Panthers in para-military garb, spouting racist threats and carrying nightsticks when they stand in front of polling places might constitute voter intimidation) has decided voter intimidation is important matter after all.

Bless their hearts.

So what did these bureaucrats do? They rejected the state of Georgia's voter ID system, claiming that prospective voters having to provide Social Security numbers and driver's license data has a "discriminatory effect" on minority voters.

Minority voters can't produce their driver's license? That's voter intimidation? Yet armed thugs at the polls are not?

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Your Wednesday Tea Break (The Seekers)

Before Air Supply, before Olivia Newton-John, before even the Bee Gees, Australia had given the world of popular music a fantastic folk/rock group, The Seekers.

With Athol Guy (double bass & vocals), Keith Potger (twelve string guitar, banjo & vocals), Bruce Woodley (guitar, mandolin, banjo & vocals) and the incomparably lovely voice of Judith Durham, the Seekers had a string of nine smash hits in Australia and Great Britain, with several scoring success even in the U.S.

I give you three here for your Wednesday tea break. All three were written by Dusty Springfield's brother, Tom -- "I'll Never Find Another You," "A World of Our Own," and the Seekers' biggest U.S. hit, "Georgy Girl."

They are all terrific. And for some of us, they bring back a lot of distant but yet lively memories. And that smile of Judith's? Like her voice, it's priceless!

Today's Posts

Apologist Icognito: The Night Francis Schaeffer Slept On My Floor

The Speech Barack Obama SHOULD Give in Cairo...But Won't

The MSM and Abortion Violence: Why Do They Never Report What's Going Down Inside the Clinics?

An Altruistic Abortionist? It Just Won't Sell.

Obama Cars: Significantly More Expensive, Significantly More Deadly

Thuggery Gets A Free Pass: Voter Intimidation Case Dismissed By Obama Appointees

Apologist Icognito: The Night Francis Schaeffer Slept On My Floor

Randy Alcorn's blog post about the late Francis Schaeffer a couple of weeks ago elicited a really neat remembrance from Action International Ministries' Doug Nichols. If you love Schaeffer, you'll love Doug's story.

And even if you're not too familiar with Schaeffer, read the letter anyhow. It's just the kind that might get your own friendship with the great apologist and pro-life activist underway.

The Speech Barack Obama SHOULD Give in Cairo...But Won't

Dennis Prager is spot on here.

The MSM and Abortion Violence: Why Do They Never Report What's Going Down Inside the Clinics?

Tim Graham over at News Busters reminds us of how the MSM loves to cover stories about violence outside abortion clinics -- but never dares take a peek inside to cover the violence going on there.

An Altruistic Abortionist? It Just Won't Sell.

Late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart is making an awfully big squawk about 1) the extreme danger to life and health posed by pro-life "fundamentalist terrorists" and 2) his friendship with George Tiller which has led him to Wichita to finish Tiller's schedule. He made these comments in a KMTV news story last night in which I was also featured.

However, both of Carhart's points have grievous flaws. First of all, Carhart's outrage against violence is remarkably undermined by the fact that he kills boys and girls for a living! Talk about violence against the innocent!

Several days of every week, Leroy Carhart takes the weapons of a curette and a powerful suction machine and tears preborn children from the safety of their mother's wombs.

He does so for huge profits, by the way.

Which is what dramatically undercuts his second point; namely, Carhart's presence at George Tiller's Wichita abortion clinic isn't because of friendship, ideology or altruism. He's making money committing abortions there as he has been doing for years -- an awful lot of money.

Carhart has shown himself over the years to be quite a blowhard, an egotist with a patent disregard for truth as well as for the sanctity of life. And though many of the "news reports" try to give him a positive, sympathetic slant, they all fail. After all, Carhart's grisly trade is too extreme, too clearly evil for any of his moral protestations to be taken seriously.

Now, none of this is to detract from the severity of evil perpetrated by George Tiller's assassin. As I explained to the reporter last night (a bit of which was put on the program), Tiller's murder is horrible and pro-life activists around the country have expressed revulsion at it. They've done so for three reasons: it is very counterproductive to the pro life movement; it detracts from the thousands of beautiful, gracious, loving actions performed every day by peaceful pro-lifers; and because the murder was, in itself, an evil act that has no moral warrant whatever.

But that certainly doesn't mean that we must swallow the hay that abortionists and abortion promoters are trying to pitch. Remember, these are people who kill children and who have tried to distract America from the injustice, danger and sheer horror of that practice through lies, cover-ups and a mangling of language.

That they try and exploit the assassination of an abortionist to divert attention away from the nearly 4,000 surgical murders those abortionists commit every day in the United States should be no surprise.

(A fuller treatment of my reactions to the Tiller murder can be found in these previous Vital Signs posts: "Statement on the Murder of George Tiller" and "Responding to Violence.")

Obama Cars: Significantly More Expensive, Significantly More Deadly

Here's more commentary on those toy cars that President Obama wants Americans to drive. (See this earlier Vital Signs post too.)

The excerpt below comes from a recent Washington Times editorial.

...The scientific evidence on car size and safety is overwhelming. The National Academy of Sciences, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Congressional Budget Office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and numerous academic studies are all in agreement on this point: Higher miles-per-gallon requirements lead to more deaths from car accidents.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted in its April 14 report that "some mini-cars earn higher crash worthiness ratings than others, but as a group these cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models." A 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that, in 1993, federal fuel-economy standards resulted in 1,300 to 2,600 additional deaths per year.

The question is one of simple physics. Smaller, lighter cars do not offer occupants the same protection as larger, heavier vehicles when they collide with other objects. More than 43,000 Americans died in car crashes in 2005 and 2006.

Setting aside auto safety will only make the roads more deadly.

The latest numbers from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released in April show that small cars have a 55 percent higher death rate than midsize ones. Occupants of small cars that run into large cars are more vulnerable to fatalities in such impacts. Accidents involving two small cars are more likely to involve fatalities than crashes between two large cars. Large cars that collide into trees or fixed barriers are also much safer.

The mania for higher fuel economy is driven by environmentalists who think that this is the most efficient way of conserving energy and cutting down on carbon emissions, which they claim contribute to global warming. Whatever the benefits -- if any -- of fighting global warming, they must be weighed against the costs of proposed policies. In addition to the loss of life, there is a significant price penalty to the consumer. The Obama administration estimates that the new fuel-economy regulations will increase the cost of producing each new car by at least $1,300.

On May 12, the White House withdrew the nomination of Chuck Hurley to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Hurley had a long record of backing hyperregulation as chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and as a board member of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. Environmental groups reportedly opposed his nomination because he had said that increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards made cars less safe. Contradicting environmentalist orthodoxy carries a price.

A May 13 headline in the National Journal explained the politics of Mr. Hurley's political demise: "Enviros Forced NHTSA Nominee to Withdraw." This saga shows that even proponents of the nanny state take a back seat to greens in the Obama administration.

Thuggery Gets A Free Pass: Voter Intimidation Case Dismissed By Obama Appointees

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, comments on the villainous action of the Obama Justice Department whereby it dismissed all charges against those unrepentant Black Panthers who were over-the-top guilty of voter intimidation in Philadelphia.

Apparently if it's perpetrated by the Left, just about any injustice, any hypocrisy, even any act of thuggery gets a free ride nowadays -- by the bureaucrats and the MSM both.

Here's some of Keene's article from The Hill.

...But now it seems that [Attorney General Eric] Holder and company are doing just what liberals accused Bush’s minions of doing. Last week The Washington Times revealed that political appointees at the Department overruled career lawyers to end an investigation and civil complaint against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense, who on Election Day last November took it upon themselves to make certain voters in one Philadelphia precinct “did the right thing.”

These three thugs, dressed in paramilitary garb, were caught on camera wielding nightsticks to intimidate white voters who they suspected might not be prepared to vote for their candidate. The film, as happens these days, quickly ended up on YouTube, shocked those who saw it and resulted in a Justice Department investigation of charges that the three had violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act was passed in large measure to prevent intimidation of minority voters in the South, but not even ’60s Klan members had the audacity to don sheets and show up at polling places with weapons to hurl threats and racial epithets at voters. These guys, in other words, made the Klansmen of an earlier age look sophisticated — and that is quite an accomplishment.

Indeed, the Times quoted a ’60s civil rights activist who actually witnessed what went on in Philadelphia as saying that what he saw these guys do represented “the most blatant form of voter intimidation” he had ever seen. Anyone who saw the YouTube footage would have to agree.

During the DoJ investigation, it was discovered that at least one of these characters got into the polling place because he had credentials as a Democratic poll watcher. He didn’t steal the credentials. They were his, as he was and is an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee. What’s more, although the three simply refused to appear in court, one bragged that what they did was part of a nationwide effort to deploy likeminded types at select polling places around the country.

It should be remembered that in previous elections, Democrats have charged that the mere request for identification at polling places is intimidating to minority voters and that Republican lawyers dispatched to polling places as poll watchers were simply — by their presence — so intimidating as to be beyond the pale. That sort of “intimidation” in the age in which we live is seen as deplorable; but a bunch of filthy-mouthed, club-wielding goons are dismissed as perhaps just a bit overenthusiastic.

To their credit, career Justice officials were prepared to enforce the law against these three, until President Obama’s political appointees ordered them to stop.

Democrats in the Senate during the Bush years were constantly calling Justice Department officials to Capitol Hill to explain their actions. It’s time to see if Attorney General Holder will be questioned by the Democratic Senate and House to explain why he and those working for him convinced themselves it is acceptable to let racist thugs who intimidate voters walk.

Today's Posts

Responding to Violence

"If I Can’t Display My Flag, What Other Freedoms Will I Lose Before All Is Said And Done?”

Obama to Congress: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Old G.O.P. Just Ain't What She Used To Be

Outrage Alert: Obama Justice Department Dismisses Voter Intimidation Case

Obama's Pet Media...Except for Those Brits

(From Sunday) Statement on the Murder of George Tiller

Responding to Violence

This morning Claire and I joined friends outside the trashy Bellevue abortion facility where Leroy Carhart regularly destroys preborn children. By so doing, Carhart contributes to the moral ruination of the families of those children, to the general insensitivity and decadence of our culture and, of course, to the peril of his eternal soul.

Our presence at that tragic and brutal place is to provide a voice for life, not death...to present a winsome picture to abortion clients who might yet understand that there are people who care enough about them and the babies they're carrying to work in their behalf, providing loving help for them to do the right thing.

Our picture signs show beautiful babies. Our colorful banners read "We Care For You & Your Baby" and "Every Heartbeat is a Gift from God." And our offers of help are kindly meant, kindly stated and sincere.

Our appeals are also directed to the abortion workers, including the abortionist himself, who routinely takes the lives of boys and girls in this place and in the late-term abortuary in Wichita, Kansas. Yes, that's the very abortion clinic run by George Tiller who was murdered yesterday by a bent vigilante.

I have participated in protests of abortion at that grisly Wichita business; protests that were (like all of our pro-life activity) peaceful, prayerful and designed for persuasion -- not for coercion. Indeed, the Christian pro-life motivation can be aimed at nothing else than another's conscience. To persuade others, we simply tell the truth. Along with that, we set a high example by living lives of holiness and service. And we pray. These things our Lord commands.

What we do not do is employ force or intimidation, let alone violence, to get our way. Such tactics are specifically and forcefully prohibited by God's Word. Therefore, those individuals who do so (like the assassin of George Tiller) are acting against Christ, against the proper intentions of the pro-life movement and even against themselves since God's judgment is sure upon those who take vengeance into their own hands.

We will continue, by God's help, to raise the standard of the sanctity of human life in our culture. That will include our various educational outreaches, our mercy ministries, our advocacy, our intercession and our sidewalk counseling. It will also include righteous protests of the barbaric, lethal violence dealt out by abortionists like Leroy Carhart and George Tiller. But we will not act impiously, imperiously or with force. We will instead continue in our pro-life ministry as we have for the last 30 years, continuing to submit both our motivations and our methodology under the Lordship of Christ.

(For the Vital Signs statement decrying the senseless murder of George Tiller, see this post from yesterday afternoon).

"If I Can’t Display My Flag, What Other Freedoms Will I Lose Before All Is Said And Done?”

Earlier this week, Debbie McLucas, a supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, was told she would have to take down a 3×5 American flag that she had hung near her desk in an office she shares with three other supervisors. Her boss told her a fellow supervisor, who had immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years earlier, found it “offensive.” The hospital says it received other complaints from visitors. These must be the type of hospital visitors who stumble upon staff offices as well as close their eyes walking into the building, since the stars and stripes waves proudly outside.

Well, sometimes these stories work out. After mounting public pressure and protests, the hospital system relented, mumbled some excuses, and allowed McLucas to re-hang the flag. All’s well that ends well, right? Not really. According to hospital policy, it only took one person to complain before the flag was removed. It required a nationwide protest to get the flag reinstalled. Isn’t there a certain backwards logic to this story? McLucas, a proud mother of a combat medic in Iraq, with military sons and a military husband, was put through a terrible ordeal, and for what? Her words were: “I find it very frightening because if I can’t display my flag, what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done?” Exactly. What’s next?

(Rory Cooper, The Foundry at NRO, May 30)

Obama to Congress: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Urging a quick approval of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to express his tender hopes that "we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship [sic] that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past."

Which, of course, means -- if you're a nice person, you'll vote for my girl, no questions asked.

This from a man who voted to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.

In fact, Barack Obama is the only President who has ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

Once again, non-partisanship cuts only one way with this guy.

The Old G.O.P. Just Ain't What She Used To Be

Check out Doug Patton's latest essay, "Has The Time Come To Say RIP, GOP?"

Many Americans have little idea of the true history of the Republican Party. If they get their news from the "mainstream media," they probably believe that every Republican from time immemorial has opposed equal rights, preservation of the environment and anything that smacks of fun. For those who understand the formation of America, believe in the U.S. Constitution, and know the history of the Grand Old Party, please bear with me as I provide others with a much-needed history lesson...

Outrage Alert: Obama Justice Department Dismisses Voter Intimidation Case

In an administration already infamous for double-dealing and cover-ups comes this egregious action.

Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times...

A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections...

The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said...

(Washington Times, May 29)

Obama's Pet Media...Except for Those Brits

Robert Samuelson's piece from Investor's Business Daily makes for important reading, breaking down as it does just why it's so dangerous for the MSM to abandon its sense of fairness and professionalism.

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.

The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press — on domestic, if not foreign, policy — has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer...

The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.

But then note that not all journalists are in the tank over Obama. The Brits stand out in particular. As James Lewis writes,

...The White House press corps is now completely supine, utterly shameless in its groveling cowardice. Stalin himself couldn't have wished for a more slobbering press corps. Rather than mailing them nice little Lipton tea bags, millions of sane Americans might consider sending air sickness bags to our Reigning Media.

But not, thank haven, across the broad Atlantic. There free speech and even laughter are still alive, among the well-lubricated scribblers of Fleet Street. The journos of Britain show little respect for American Presidents regardless of race, creed or color. They laugh hysterically at all of them. Not that it takes much imagination...

All of which makes Team Obama furious. They're so used to slavish compliance that they fly out of control when journalists dare to fairly report their words, policies and effects. For example, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, lost it the other day in a remarkable display of petulance and condescension. (By the way, Nile Gardiner gives a proper response to Gibbs' schoolyard complaints in the Telegraph.)

The next in line for Team Obama's scorn? Believe it or not, it could be liberal journalist Bob Wodward.