I'm not a Rick Perry fan -- I'll defend him when I think he's right, but I have no interest in ever casting another vote for him (the last time I cast one for him was 2006). I'm personally hoping this story kills his presidential candidacy -- not because he has done anything illegal, but because it looks bad and is just one more example of him taking a benefit for himself that is not available for Texas teachers because of his policies.

Unbeknownst to most Texans, Gov. Rick Perry officially retired in January so he could draw early pension benefits worth $7,699 a month, in addition to his annual governor’s salary of $150,000.

Perry’s January retirement — on paper, at least — was revealed Friday when the Federal Elections Commission released the financial disclosure statement the governor was required to file as a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. The annuity brings Perry’s total state government-related income to $242,388 a year.

Interestingly enough, Perry recently signed legislation making it impossible for Texas teachers to do the same thing. Oh, yeah -- and his pension check is roughly triple what the average Texas teacher can expect to draw after more years of service doing harder, more important work than Perry is doing.

And let's not forget that a part of that big pension check is for his service in the Texas legislature -- a part time job.

It is time for Rick Perry to make a decision -- give back every penny of that retirement money, or actually retire as Governor. Speaking for myself, I would prefer that you do the latter.

Here in Houston, we have a blogger who has appointed himself the county's de facto "corruption czar". And, well, he knows corrupt politics quite well -- from personal experience breaking federal law regarding partisan political activity by federal employees. So while he's busy calling Rick Perry a "rotten bastard" for doing something that is perfectly legal, John has somehow managed to overlooked this matter right here in Harris County.

Sources tell us the FBI is looking into bribery allegations at Pct. 1 Constable Jack Abercia's office. Meanwhile, the Harris County district attorney and the county attorney are both investigating Pct. 6 Constable Victor Trevino and Pct. 7 Constable May Walker.

The allegations against Trevino are potential misuse of charity funds, county personnel and county equipment. The Walker investigation centers around the possible misuse of county equipment and personnel, as well as possible illegal fundraising.

Of course, these investigations won't show up over at Bay Area Houston -- because Jack Abercia, Victor Trevino, and May Walker all share something in common with that blogger. No, I mean that they are Democrats, not that they have engaged in illegal activity -- after all, the charges against the three Democrat constables are only at the investigation stage.

In American politics, it is perfectly acceptable to heap all sorts of hatred upon Republicans.

Call a Republican a fascist? No problem, despite the fact that the two ideologies have nothing in common.

Declare that the GOP wants to reinstitute Jim Crow? That's OK, even though Jim Crow was the only thing that kept the Democrat Party a major force in American politics for a century.

Liken Republicans to the KKK? Perfectly acceptable, despite the fact that the KKK was the paramilitary terrorist wing of the Democrat Party targeted Republicans for death, and included as its members a Democrat Supreme Court justice and a Democrat US Senator who was eulogized by Barack Obama himself.

And comparing Republican policies and ideology to those of the Nazis is perfectly acceptable if you are a Democrat.

But let a Republican -- especially an African-American military hero like Florida Congressman Allen West dare to compare the Democrat propaganda machine to that operated by the Nazis and all hell breaks loose.

In a handwritten note to a fellow lawmaker, Rep. Allen West reiterated his charge that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels would “truly be proud” of the “Democrat Party” because of its use of “lies and deceit,” escalating an already tense battle over his use of Nazi comparisons.

On Thursday, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the most senior black lawmaker in Congress, wrote to West, one of two black freshmen on the Republican side, to say that he was disappointed in a remark that West had made to reporters earlier in the day.

“He was a vicious notorious anti-Semite who went down in history as propagandist for Hitler. I beg of you to help raise the level of congressional discourse so that we can engage in vigorous debate without resort[ing] to personal attacks,” Conyers wrote on congressional stationery.

West returned fire later Thursday in a note embossed with his name and a congressional seal.

“Mr. Conyers, The Democrat Party does indeed have a vicious propaganda machine. It espouses lies and deceit and the Master of deceptive information would truly be proud,” West said, referring to Goebbels. “I have been personally attacked and denigrated on countless occasions. I do not appreciate your letter … Truth is Powerful Sir! Steadfast & Loyal, Allen.”

What was the original offense? He made this observation to reporters on Thursday.

“If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine,” West said. “Let’s be honest, you know, some of the people in the media are complicit with this and enabling them to get that type of message out.”

And, West scribbled his dismay on Conyers’ original note: “I am disappointed in the Democrat Party. Do I hate women? Do I hate children? Do I want to see handicapped Americans fend for themselves? Truth is Powerful. Lies & Manipulative language hurt!,” he wrote.

You may not like it, but Goebbels is the standard by which successful propaganda is measured -- so much so that a Jewish Democrat compared GOP attacks on ObamaCare to Goebbels' propaganda machine. He offered this defense, which parallels Allen West's explanation and which I'd argue was equally valid (though I'd argue that his attack on the GOP was false and quite reminiscent of those deployed by Goebbels himself against his enemies).

"Taken out of context, I can understand the confusion and concern," he said. "While I regret that anything I said has created an opportunity to distract from the debate about health care for 32 million Americans, I want to be clear that I never called Republicans Nazis. Instead, the reference I made was to the greatest propaganda master of all time."

Please note -- Goebbels perfected the technique of "the big lie" to win over folks to one's side. To make the point in order to communicate that one's opponents are engaged in that tactic is not anti-Semitic, nor does it mean one is minimizing the evil of the Holocaust.

So I unambiguously support Allen West on this one -- and suggest that the corrupt John Conyers needs to shut up and slink off in disgrace with his ex-con wife.

Christopher Hitchens was a guy who you did not always need to agree with to like and respect. It is sad to see him shrug off the flesh and go on to what awaits us all beyond.

Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa, wrote a best-seller attacking religious belief, and dismayed his former comrades on the left by enthusiastically supporting the American-led war in Iraq, died Thursday at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He was 62.

The cause was pneumonia, a complication of esophageal cancer, said the magazine Vanity Fair, which announced the death. In recent days Mr. Hitchens had stopped treatment and entered hospice care at the Houston hospital. He learned he had cancer while on a publicity tour in 2010 for his memoir, “Hitch-22,” and began writing and, on television, speaking about his illness frequently.

“In whatever kind of a ‘race’ life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist,” Mr. Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair, for which he was a contributing editor.

The vanity Fair announcement is found here. It includes this observation about a true renaissance man whose productivity could only be stopped by death itself.

“Cancer victimhood contains a permanent temptation to be self-centered and even solipsistic,” Hitchens wrote nearly a year ago in Vanity Fair, but his own final labors were anything but: in the last 12 months, he produced for this magazine a piece on U.S.-Pakistani relations in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death, a portrait of Joan Didion, an essay on the Private Eye retrospective at the Victoria and Albert Museum, a prediction about the future of democracy in Egypt, a meditation on the legacy of progressivism in Wisconsin, and a series of frank, graceful, and exquisitely written essays in which he chronicled the physical and spiritual effects of his disease. At the end, Hitchens was more engaged, relentless, hilarious, observant, and intelligent than just about everyone else—just as he had been for the last four decades.

No, he did not go gentle into that good night.

Even in the face of death, Hitchens did not waver in his atheism -- and yet many of us who are believers prayed for his healing, his conversion, or both. As regards healing, God answered with the same negative response that is so often the response to prayer. According to those who knew and loved him, including his family who were with him at the end, there was no death-bed embrace of the divine. Maybe that is appropriate. And yet, I cannot help but hope that, in that moment of transition from life into afterlife, Chris Hitchens discovered both that he was wrong about the existence of God and that the Almighty even extends his mercy to the non-believer (regardless of the more punitive view of many believers).

So yes, may Chris Hitchens rest in peace, and may his family draw comfort from the love of his admirers, the prayers of believers, and whatever other places they look to for strength and healing.

UPDATE: I almost forgot -- Hitchens was a regular guest on Hugh Hewitt's show. That is where I grew to love the man. Hugh Hewitt offers his reflection here.

Gay "Republican" Andrew Sullivan, who has spent the last several years sniffing around Sarah Palin's uterus trying to prove she isn't the mother of her youngest child, has no st himself to an equally quixotic task -- getting Ron Paul the GOP nomination.

Of course, Sullivan makes a claim about Ron Paul by a quick glance at Paul's own words.

He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did.

Of course, this means ignoring Ron Paul's own words when he left the GOP in 1987 to seek the Libertarian nomination for President.

Congressman Paul’s Letter

As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and that’s the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate.

Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets.

Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government.

In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagan’s program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts.

Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Party’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip O’Neill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed.

Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carter’s four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagan’s five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that “deficits don’t matter,” the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagan’s foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower’s, Kennedy’s, Johnson’s, Nixon’s, Ford’s, and Carter’s put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems.

Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.

Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind.

I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy.

After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big government’s best friend.

If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.

I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.

I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.

In other words, not only did Ron Paul renounce Ronald Reagan, he renounced the entire GOP. Or maybe this was just another one of those writings that Ron Paul let go out over his name with no knowledge of the contents -- you know, like the racist and anti-Semitic newsletters. Or it may simply be that Ron Paul is as tin-foil hat crazy as his followers.

So my message to Andrew Sullivan is this -- it is really clear that Ron Paul isn't fit to be President of the United States, but maybe he can take his spaced-out views and become President of Uranus.

You know, we could argue about whether or not it is a good idea to let non-citizens vote in certain local elections – for school boards, for example. I don’t know that you could convince me of the wisdom of the idea, but I would certainly be open to listening. But this proposal, which would grant voting rights to border-jumpers, goes way too far.

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano plans to ask the state Legislature to allow illegal immigrants who live in the city to be able vote in municipal elections.

DeStefano said on Tuesday that the proposal would build a more engaged community and follows the lead of other cities, the New Haven Register reports.

The Register reports that 10,000 to 12,000 undocumented residents are believed to live in New Haven.

No way. Uh-uh. Fuggedaboutit.

And since this is apparently going on in various jurisdictions around the country, diminishing the weight of votes of American citizens, it seems to me that Congress ought to legislate on this matter.

The GOP has acted on the two things Obama has said are a priority.

And Democrats are OUTRAGED!

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the House on Tuesday passed a bill extending a cut in Social Security payroll taxes for 160 million Americans for another year. But the Democratic majority in the Senate vowed to reject the measure because of objections to other provisions, including one to speed construction of an oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast.

Watch for Senate Dems to block the bill because of the inclusion of the job-producing Keystone XL pipeline provision. And President Obama has already said that you don't need a payroll tax cut if it includes that provision, which will produce many non-government jobs for unemployed Americans. And what's more, Obama and the Dems are prepared to shut down the government if they don't get their way.

The GOP has done something to produce jobs and lower taxes for the working class -- make sure your friends know, and that they don't fall for the lies of the do-nothing Dems that the GOP has taken no action on jobs or taxes.

Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III -- for daring to be patriotic.

You'd think Baylor king Robert Griffin III would go wild after winning the Heisman Trophy this weekend in NYC -- but TMZ has learned, the star QB went straight to Ground Zero instead ... to pay his respects.

Griffin family sources tell TMZ, RG3 and several close family members made a beeline from the Best Buy Theater to the 9/11 memorial on Saturday. According to sources, the Griffins are a military family -- and Robert felt it was important to visit Ground Zero for some somber reflection.

My hat is off to RG3 -- he's clearly my kind of American. I hope he has a great career in the NFL, and that he does not hide that patriotism under a bushel. Millions of Americans will support him based upon his genuine love of country -- just as we hold Tim Tebow near to our hearts for his willingness to ignore the PC crowd and instead express his faith publicly.

And you know what -- this even does a little bit to salve the pain of Case Keenum not even getting considered for the Heisman.

H/T Gateway Pundit

And Rabbi Joshua Hammerman is really serious!

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

These experts concur -- and offer additional consequences.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Get a grip, Rabbi -- you and all the other haters who object to the possibility that an example of faith from a decent human being will undo the "don't take religion all that seriously" approach to faith that is popular among the "cool kids" like yourself.

You know, since the pithy little aphorism originates from the Obama campaign.

President Barack Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, predicted much more scrutiny of GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich on Tuesday, citing the "homespun wisdom" of Ald. Dick Mell (33rd) as he compared Gingrich to a monkey on a pole exposing his butt.

* * *

"I told my colleagues yesterday a bit of homespun wisdom that I got from an alderman in Chicago some years ago when one of his ...colleagues wanted to run for higher office and he was really dubious. He said, 'just remember the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt.' So, you know, the Speaker is very high on the pole right now and we'll see how people like the view."

Of course, there is a monkey that has climbed significantly higher than Newt Gingrich, and David Axelrod is running his reelection campaign. The American people have seen that monkey’s butt, and they don’t like the view.

Less than one year out from Election Day 2012, voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, and their concerns are taking a toll on President Obama’s re-election chances. Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don’t think so.

The president’s overall approval rating remains in the mid-40′s, according to a CBS News poll – lower than the approval ratings of Mr. Obama’s four presidential predecessors at this point in their first terms. Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dragged down by his poor marks for his handling of the economy – which, at 33 percent, is the lowest rating of his presidency in CBS News polls.

Mr. Obama receives better marks on foreign policy and for his leadership skills. But when it comes to leading the economy in the right direction, voters are unimpressed: Just 28 percent think he has made progress on improving the economy. And most Americans say the president doesn’t share the public’s priorities, according to the poll, conducted December 5-7.

In other word, the polling numbers for the highest monkey in the land are butt-ugly.

There – I’ve said it. I think any of the current crop of GOP candidates will be a disaster in November of 2012 if they manage to get the nomination through the existing primary process. All will bring a disaster of intra-party division and civil war, with a some bloc or other of voters staying home.

Let’s look at the options as they now exist.

Mitt Romney (who I’ve implicitly supported in a number of posts and tweets) could win the election if there were a united GOP base, because he could draw Independents and disaffected Democrats. Unfortunately, the base is fractured against Romney – and I don’t see the primary process fixing that.

Newt Gingrich may be the “brain-trust” of the GOP – but he is generally despised by Independents and disaffected Democrats, and many of them would vote for Obama to avoid a Gingrich presidency. Add to that the fact that may establishment figures are averse to supporting him – not just moderates, but even strong conservatives who have worked for and with him over the years – and it is impossible to imagine the man winning in 2012. And then there is the prospect of having Stepford Mistress Callista Gingrich as First Floozy. . .

Ron Paul – Party suicide. ‘Nuff said.

Michelle Bachmann is just out of her depth. Call her Sarah Palin without the public appeal.

Rick Santorum just cannot get any traction. Besides, when the first search results for your name bring up results related to anal sex, you just aren’t a serious candidate.

Rick Perry would be a great candidate if God suddenly afflicted him with muteness. Short of such divine intervention, he’s doomed.

Gary Johnson is a cipher to most inside the GOP, and even more so to the rest of America.

Jon Huntsman would have been a good candidate if he hadn’t gone to work for Obama in 2009. Unfortunately, that leads some to question his party loyalty rather than ascribing his deeds to patriotism – and others question his ethics in planning a challenge to Obama while still working for him.

You see the problem – there is no candidate the GOP can unite behind in this primary process.

I therefore support an outcome that has not been seen in decades – the brokered convention wherein NO CANDIDATE has sufficient delegates to take the nomination on the first ballot, and convention delegates are then free to choose the best available nominee – whether or not that individual is among the crop of candidates that ran in the primaries.

Think about it. Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the race early -- could he become a compromise candidate we could all accept? Might Jeb Bush emerge as the GOP standard-bearer, since he is acceptable to all factions? Bobby Jindal? Mitch Daniels? Eric Cantor? Paul Ryan? Or maybe, just maybe, a pair might emerge from among the current crop who could unite the various factions of the GOP together and heal the rifts so that the party can move forward and accomplish that which ought to be the singular goal of all the various interest groups within the GOP – for the good of the nation, guaranteeing that Barack Obama is a one-term president.

UPDATE: Could this be a potential nominee from a brokered convention?

Now personally, I don’t give a damn about income inequality. I believe in an America where it is no shame to get rich, be rich, or aspire to become rich.

But for those with crypto-communist tendencies who rant on about tearing down the 1%, please consider this from the New York Times.

The share of income received by the top 1 percent — that potent symbol of inequality — dropped to 17 percent in 2009 from 23 percent in 2007, according to federal tax data. Within the group, average income fell to $957,000 in 2009 from $1.4 million in 2007.

In other words, the wealthiest Americans lost money and lost a disproportionate share of their income. Now all you folks with the Occupy movement need to quit your bitchin’, get out of that park, take a shower and get a job.

Even as they claim they are for free speech.

The State Department on Monday launched three days of closed-door talks with representatives of international organizations and several dozen countries with the stated aim of promoting religious freedom and tolerance while ensuring that freedom of expression is not harmed in the process.

U.S. Ambassador at Large for international religious freedom Suzan Johnson Cook, said on Monday, "We must denounce offensive speech whenever we encounter it – but our commitment to universal principles makes clear that faith must never be a crime and religion must never be used as an excuse to stifle freedom of expression.”

Now exactly what speech is going to be deemed offensive and subject to denunciation by the US government?

Will it retroactively denounce Serrano’s “Piss Christ”? How about the speech of gay rights advocates who attack Christians who support the traditional definition of marriage? Will there be a condemnation of so much that appears on American television networks today?

I think we know the answer to those questions – and it is negative.

Instead, we are going to see the American government condemning speech that offends Muslims – and only speech that transgresses against Islamic sensitivities.

In other words, this policy is a de facto establishment of the Muslim religion of Obama’s father and step-father.

So not only is Islam incompatible American-style freedom-- so is Obamunism.

Look at all the cops in this picture.

Occupy Houston members protest by lying down in the off ramp of I-610 at the Port Authority exit. (Cody Duty/Houston Chronicle)

This was the scene as protesters decided to block the entrance to the taxpayer owned Port of Houston .

About 70 Occupy Houston protesters gathered just outside the Houston Port Monday afternoon in a coordinated action with other Occupy demonstrations targeting the nation’s ports. At one point, some of the activists lay down at the Port entrance off Interstate 610.

About 60 police officers are monitoring the event, which has been peaceful so far.

Organizers of the local protest say it is “an expression of solidarity with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and West Coast truck drivers who have come under attack this year, as well as a statement against the multinational conglomerates and their relentless campaign to outsource American jobs and undermine our economy in the pursuit of ever-widening profit margins.”

Personally, I don’t believe there was any need for more than a half-dozen cops at the event. They could have taken the names of those who were entering the street to block the trucks entering the Port, and then completed the paperwork documenting the suicides of these human speed-bumps.

After all, no one has a right to lie down in the middle of the road to stop people from getting to work or engaging in legal business – and as such, no one has an obligation to stop for them when they do.

On the occasion of Denver's rookie QB pulling another win out of nowhere, I'd like to point to this fine commentary piece that appeared last week.

Imagine for a second, the Denver Broncos quarterback is a devout follower of Islam, sincere and principled in his beliefs and thus bowed toward Mecca to celebrate touchdowns. Now imagine if Detroit Lions player Stephen Tulluch and Tony Scheffler mockingly bowed toward Mecca, too, after tackling him for a loss or scoring a touchdown, just like what happened in October.

I know what would happen. All hell would break loose.

Stinging indictments issued by sports columnists. At least a few outraged religious leaders chiming in on his behalf. Depending on what else had happened that day, they might have a chance at becoming Keith Olbermann's Worst Person In The World.

And there would be apologies. Oh, Lord, would there be apologies -- by players, by coaches, possibly by ownership with a tiny chance of a statement by NFL commish Roger Goodell.

Frankly, Jen Engel has a great point here. And she goes even further about what the controversy over Tebow's explicit religiosity has to say about us as Americans -- and it isn't pretty. She is, however, exactly right.

By the way, I can't help but note that nobody is mocking another young man for his explicit adoption of a religious practice on the field. Have you ever noticed the Houston Texans' Arian Foster when he does this?

It is called a namaste, and it is a Buddhist practice of showing respect. I don't know if Foster is Buddhist or not, but I cannot help but notice how Foster's way of marking a touchdown has been embraced by fans of the Houston Texans. I haven't encountered anyone blasting him for it. Why can't everyone grant Tim Tebow and his on-field thanksgiving the same sort of respect?

How much stupid can come out of one candidate? I don't know -- but my state's governor is rapidly dropping below Michelle Bachmann in my esteem. Much further and he'll be hovering down with Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

Now in this video clip, Chris Wallace makes the same sort of ill-informed statement about prayer in schools that Rick Perry's television commercial in Iowa made. That error may be common among those uninformed about the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, but a top-flight television journalist should not be making it -- and anyone seeking to be President of the United States, and therefore having the authority to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, should definitely not be making his error.

“It’s not the Supreme Court’s business telling Americans when and how they should pray.”

The thing is, though, that students are not forbidden to pray in school -- and certainly not by Supreme Court edict. What is forbidden is the school actually sanctioning the prayers and taking time out of the academic schedule to impose prayer upon students. Nothing in any Supreme Court decision prevents a student from voluntarily praying during the school day, or from forming an religious student group.

And speaking as a teacher, I like the status quo just fine. The government has no business prescribing religious observances.

And consider the issues that may arise.

• Who decides what mandated prayer will be used?
• What about the conscience rights of students who are part of a religious minority in the school?
• What about the conscience rights of teachers who are part of a religious minority in the school?

Just imagine the possibilities. If you are a Christian in Dearborn, Michigan, you would get to participate in daily Quran readings to satisfy the Muslim majority in the school. All the little Protestant kids may find themselves required to say a Hal Mary every morning in the Catholic majority school. And I know plenty of atheist teachers who would find themselves unable to lead a prayer in their classrooms -- and who would refuse to feign reverence as a condition of continued employment.

In other words, Rick Perry has made a proposal that is antithetical to the religious liberty of millions of Americans -- including the school kids he ostensibly is protecting. And the only word that I think fits such a proposal is "unAmerican" -- and as a result I do not believe any true conservative who believes in the values found in the Constitution can possibly support either Perry or his proposed amendment.

UPDATE -- A fine -- and much more detailed -- post by Doug Mataconis on why Perry is dead wrong on this one.

I understand that teams do have to keep the fans who buy season tickets happy, and that this may mean that the seats available for the friends and families of visiting players may not be the best -- but this is ridiculous.

The couple circled there? Those are the parents of Houston Texans quarterback T.J. Yates. Sitting in the second-from-the-top row in Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati.

Notice the empty seats around them. That's because the Bengals only average 49,619 fans at their games -- and they only drew 41,202 today at Paul Brown Stadium, which seats 65,535. The game was not a sellout, which means there were surely plenty of better seats for the visiting family members.

To add insult to injury, the Yates and other Texans family members tried to move down a few (totally empty) rows to try to get a better view -- only to have security try to stop them. Seems like a whole lot of no-class to me, no matter how you slice it.

But revenge is sweet --as noted below, T.J. Yates threw a last-second touchdown to beat the Bengals and clinch the AFC South championship. And in the process, he and the Houston Texans more-or-less eliminated the Bengals from contention for a wildcard berth.

UPDATE: I loved how Marv Albert ragged on the Bengals over this during the game.

T.J. Yates -- Houston's Newest Hero

If you were to pitch a novel about a guy who was a rookie fifth-round draft choice suddenly thrust from the practice squad to starting quarterback during a playoff run, no publisher would want it. But that's what we have down here in Houston -- T.J. Yates, the NFL's most improbable starter. And after 2 1/2 games of play, this young man has shown himself to have great instincts and incredible poise under pressure -- and he has also performed in such a way that he has led the Houston Texans into the playoffs.

Rookie T.J. Yates threw a 6-yard touchdown pass to Kevin Walter with two seconds left as the Texans rallied to beat Cincinnati 20-19 on Sunday and earn the first postseason berth in Texans history.

“I’m happy for our fans, happy for our city, because this is what I got into the NFL for,” Texans owner Bob McNair said.

Tennessee’s loss to New Orleans clinched Houston’s first playoff trip since the Oilers went in 1993.

The Texans improved to 10-3 with their franchise-record seventh straight victory.

After the game, Texans coach Gary Kubiak gave a game ball to injured receiver Andre Johnson, who has been with the Texans since 2003, their second season back.

“Words really can’t describe it,” he said. “Something I’ve been waiting for for a long time.”

“The city of Houston deserves it,” Johnson said. “We’ve had some great fans that have stuck it out with us. This is great for them. … We’re happy with this, but we’re not satisfied. We have bigger goals.”

Yates, a fifth-round draft pick, got his chance when Matt Schaub and Matt Leinart suffered season-ending injuries in consecutive weeks. Making only his second start, Yates faced a daunting challenge — 80 yards to cover, only 2 minutes, 33 seconds left and no timeouts to help.

The Bengals (7-6) couldn’t stop him.

Yates scrambled 17 yards on third-and-15 to keep the drive going. A pass interference penalty on Adam “Pacman” Jones put the ball at the 6-yard line with 12 seconds left. After an incompletion, Walter lined up wide right, cut to the middle of the field and was uncovered at the goal line.

Offensive tackle Duane Brown ran to Yates and repeatedly slapped his helmet in celebration.

The kid had come through when it mattered most.

Now there are still three games to go in the season. There are also, presumably, two playoff games yet to be played. But is a Super Bowl appearance (what the heck -- a Super Bowl victory) too much to ask for -- just to complete this amazing story?

We'll be watching -- and praying -- in the back row of Section 541.

And don't forget these tidbits, either.

Less than one year out from Election Day 2012, voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, and their concerns are taking a toll on President Obama’s re-election chances. Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don’t think so.

The president’s overall approval rating remains in the mid-40′s, according to a CBS News poll – lower than the approval ratings of Mr. Obama’s four presidential predecessors at this point in their first terms. Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dragged down by his poor marks for his handling of the economy – which, at 33 percent, is the lowest rating of his presidency in CBS News polls.

Mr. Obama receives better marks on foreign policy and for his leadership skills. But when it comes to leading the economy in the right direction, voters are unimpressed: Just 28 percent think he has made progress on improving the economy. And most Americans say the president doesn’t share the public’s priorities, according to the poll, conducted December 5-7.

Face it, Obama must go.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• *First place with 3 votes! Joshuapundit–-Heart Of Darkness; Obama’s Campaign To Make Israel A Scapegoat And Fool America’s Jews
• Second place with 2 2/3 votes – The Razor-The Civics Lesson
• Third place with 2 1/3 votes – Bookworm Room-Newt Gingrich and “the vision thing”
• Fourth place with 1 vote – The Noisy Room – Apocalypse Nowish
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Colossus Of Rhodey – Education Must Read
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Right Truth – Minority Rules Again – In The Military
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Mellow Jihadi – Faced with Draconian Budget Cuts, the Air Force Drafts Gisele Bundchen’s Son Into the Flight Program
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Right Planet – Soros And The Euro
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews – The Left The Right And The Supreme Court
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote – VA Right! – Discussion: George Allen’s Record Examined in Detail
• Sixth place with 1/3 vote – New Zeal – Communists Work on a New Improved, Pro – Obama “Occupy” Movement

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 3 votes! – AnDrew McCarthy- Fears And Smearssubmitted byJoshuapundit
• Second place with 1 2/3 votes – Mark Steyn – Egypt’s Descent submitted by The Watcher
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes - The New Criterion – Commune Plus One submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Third place *t* with 1 1/3 votes - Zen Pundit – Do Oligarchies Create Insurgencies? submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -American Spectator – Back To The 1930′s submitted by The Right Planet
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -Wird Danger Room – U.S. Built Its Own Secret Pakistani Spy Service submitted by Right Truth
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -American Thinker – You can’t be pro-Obama and pro-Israel submitted by The Political Commentator
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -UN Watch – Hillary Clinton to address UN tomorrow while UN rights chief Navi Pillay headlines event with anti-Semitic “Gaddafi Human Rights Prize” group submitted by Simply Jews
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -The Wire – What to Expect from Putin After His Party’s ‘Reset’ submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Michael Totten – A Leaner, Meaner Brotherhood submitted by The Razor
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Atlas Shrugs – US Military Jihad: Rep. Peter King to hold fourth round of hearings submitted by VA Right!
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -American Thinker – You can’t be pro-Obama and pro-Israel submitted by The Political Commentator
• Fifth place *t* with 2/3 vote -Discovery – Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can submitted by The Watcher
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Bring the Heat, Bring the Stupid – Demolitions submitted by he Mellow Jihadi
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Michael Berry – Party At Planned Parenthood? submitted by Rhymes With Right

See you next week!

Was yesterday's Hollywood shooting another example of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome"?

It may have been.

A 26 year-old gunman opened fire on random drivers yesterday in Hollywood until he was shot dead by police.
He was screaming “Allahu Akbar” while he shot Hollywood drivers.
That’s what the witnesses said:

Now doesn't that detail bear reporting? Not if you are the American media and fear being accused of Islamophobia. Someone needs to remind them that it isn't paranoia if they are really out to get you -- and it isn't a "phobia" if fear or antipathy is not objectively unreasonable..

It isn’t merely that she is making false claims that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise people based upon race – it’s that she’s making such this incredibly stupid claim in support of her false claim.

“It’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these affected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor, the elderly and students,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“Having been born and raised in Texas, this certainly looks like a poll tax to me, which those of us remember as a way to prevent African Americans from voting. These voter ID laws have a partisan agenda: seeking to disenfranchise and deny specific populations of voters before they have the opportunity to elect their representatives in government.”

So hold on a moment. The voter ID requirements include the state providing, free of charge, a photo identification card that meets the requirement of the law. The poll tax, on the other hand, required that someone pay a fee to vote. In other words, the two are in no way shape or form even remotely similar.

What’s more, the Supreme Court has already upheld the voter ID requirement and held that it is not in any way, shape, or form a poll tax (the imposition of which would violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution).

In other words, not only is she wrong, but she is wrong in a manner that tells us that she is intellectually deficient or is intentionally seeking to deceive Americans (and minority Americans in particular) for partisan advantage.

According to William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection.

At the Republican Jewish Coalition conference a few minutes ago Newt Gingrich announced

“If he will accept it, I will appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State.”

Now if only the rest of the GOP field would make the same commitment – and if Bolton would make it clear that he would accept the appointment.

This is confirmed by the Washington Times, via Weasel Zippers

From the UK’s Telegraph:

Probably not – but then again, they are liberals.

At a packed City Council meeting that included remarks from a man in a top hat with fake money tucked in the pocket of his suit, Los Angeles lawmakers Tuesday called for more regulations on how much corporations can spend on political campaigns.

The vote in support of state and federal legislation that would end so-called "corporate personhood” is largely symbolic. But anti-corporate activist Mary Beth Fielder, who spoke in favor of the resolution, called it “a symbol that’s going to be heard around the world.”

The council resolution includes support for a constitutional amendment that would assert that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and that spending money is not a form of free speech.

Now let’s look at what this means – because it does not mean what they think it does.

Yeah, it would mean that there would be no more political speech by corporations – but that isn’t all.

Consider the Eighth Amendment – corporations would not be protected from excessive fines, opening them up to having trivial violations of regulations used to milk them dry of assets.

Or the Seventh Amendment – jury trials would no longer be required for criminal trials involving corporations.

For that matter, consider the protections this would strip from corporations under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments – the whole gamut of due process rights would be done away with as applied to corporations. Not only that, corporate assets could be seized by government without compensation being paid.

And then there is the First Amendment – corporations could not avail themselves of freedom of the press. No corporation would be permitted to seek a redress of grievances from the government. There would also be no religious rights for corporations.

Now you may look at this and say that this isn’t a big deal – these are only corporations. But let’s consider that much more closely.

We are not just talking about banks and car companies.

We are talking about newspapers and broadcast companies – all of which would lose the protections of the First Amendment to speak and publish free of government regulation, restriction and censorship.

We are talking about churches losing the protection of the First Amendment, because virtually every congregation and religious denomination is incorporated.

Any number of organizations that exist to communicate a point of view on behalf of members and donors would be deemed to have no rights under the Constitution to fulfill the purpose for which they were created and for which individual American citizens used their First Amendment rights to freely associate.

In other words, what these folks are demanding is nothing less than a massive increase in government power at the expense of the freedom of individuals – because after all, every corporation is composed of individuals who are stockholders or members, and the rights that they are being denied are their individual rights that they are exercising in a coordinated corporate fashion.

Here’s what Barack Hussein Obama had to say about taxes and billionaires.

“Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent—1 percent. That is the height of unfairness.”

When asked for details, an administration official told us the truth – sort of.

An administration official conceded the White House had no actual data to back up the president’s assertion, but argued that other reports showed that some of the wealthy pay little in taxes.

In other words, the man is just making crap up, pulling it out of his butt, and trying to pass it off to the American people as the truth – so much so that even the folks who work for him cannot cover for his lies.

Former VP Dan Quayle offers these four considerations for choosing our candidate in 2012.

Leadership. We must have a president who has the ability and strength to lead. Our current president has proven over and over again that he neither has the willingness nor the ability to lead. He has been absent when our country most needed him to lead us to sound fiscal footing. We need a person who has a vision for the nation and the leadership qualities to implement this vision.

Character. This is profoundly important. Our president needs to have the temperament and principled character to lead. He must be a person of integrity. He must have demonstrated the he can be trusted. Trust is something that is earned.

Conservative Philosophy. We must have a president who understands the importance of getting our country on a sound fiscal track. We need a person who knows that government is best that governs least. And, we need a president who will always put America and Americans first.

Electability. We need a candidate who can defeat Obama. Our country will be economically bereft and internationally enfeebled if he is reelected. Our candidate must attract independents, moderates and conservatives. We need to reach out to Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans. We need the conservative who can get elected.

Notice a couple of things in this.

First, ideological purity is not a criterion, though conservative philosophy is. Thus, the ideal candidate is not necessarily the most conservative candidate or one who has never wavered from conservatism, provided the candidate does articulate a conservative point of view that will lead to smaller, more fiscally responsible government that “put[s] America and Americans first.”

Second, the candidate we nominate must be one who can be elected, and who draws the support of a wide spectrum of Americans. I would contend that we have not had a president who has done that since Ronald Reagan.

I note that Reagan would have met all of those criteria – but not some of the criteria that others espouse, such as ideological purity and a life-long steadfastness. One of the things a leader must be able to do is admit that he has been wrong and to change his mind. He also needs to be prepared to compromise when appropriate. Indeed, those are the lessons I’ve drawn from the last great president of the United States – Ronald Reagan, who was willing to admit he was wrong on abortion and “flip-flop” on the issue and who was willing to compromise with opponents in Congress in order to achieve many of his greatest legislative accomplishments.

Am I saying we must find another Reagan? No – because we are bound to be disappointed if we do. On the other hand, we need to find the Reagan of 2012 and back that man – or woman – for the good of America. If we do not, we are bound to fail in our goal of bringing America back on the right course.

I expect to hear my students complain when they get to school this morning -- and this is unusual for Houston.

So I'll agree with the first kid who comes into class and says "Mister -- its freezing out there!"

You know, a year or so ago when the LaRouchies showed up at Tea party events with signs doing it, and it was used to tar the Tea Party as racist -- and unAmerican by the Obama-fellating media.

Well, there has been a strange silence over this incident where something equally offensive happened.

Apparently the Left doing the same thing to a Republican elected official because of a policy disagreement is not news -- and presumably legitimate commentary -- because the media agrees that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a bad man because he is working to enact conservative policies in government.

The postal service has long been a joke to most Americans about the inefficiency of government. But it is about to get worse.

Already mocked by some as "snail mail," first-class U.S. mail will slow even more by next spring under plans by the cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service to eliminate more than 250 processing centers. Nearly 30,000 workers would be laid off, too, as the post office struggles to respond to a shift to online communication and bill payments.

The cuts are part of $3 billion in reductions aimed at helping the agency avert bankruptcy next year. They would virtually eliminate the chance for stamped letters to arrive the next day, a change in first-class delivery standards that have been in place since 1971.

The plan technically must await an advisory opinion from the independent Postal Regulatory Commission, slated for next March. But that opinion is nonbinding, and only substantial pressure from Congress, businesses or the public might deter far-reaching cuts.

The change will go into effect not long after the rates increase in January.

And through it all, the USPS will still be charging the junk mail folks less than they charge you and me to mail a letter.

Strikes me that the time has come to either privatize the USPS or open it up to true, unsubsidized competition.