Slack-ass blogging brings us all down

Apparently people decide that original thought and commentary is too passé for the blogosphere this day, so the usual suspects instead to decide to recycle some urban legends instead of say anything constructive.

First, the always unreliable spudhead from Delaware Joe Albero graced us with the four-year old rumor about a do not call list for cell phones.

AApolitics came back later "Interesting facts for the 4th of July," with some half-baked stories regarding what happened to people who signed the Declaration of Independence, and apparently this series dates back to 1999.

Sadly, all of this could have been avoided if somebody have referenced Snopes.com to find out that the cell phone list is bogus and that the fates of the signers were generally not as a bad as advertised.

Is fact-finding really that hard to do in the blogosphere these days? Passing on such bunk in lieu of thoughtful reporting or commentary is not constructive, and really brings the entire Maryland blogosphere down, with good blogs and bloggers getting lumped in with stuff like this. I just wish people would take more care before they post "true stories" that are easily debunked in two minutes since it hurts the credibility of the entire blogosphere...

An idea worth considering

It looks like Washington, DC, of all places, may be getting ready to implement a useful idea in regards to teacher retention:

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is proposing a contract that would give mid-level teachers who are paid $62,000 yearly the opportunity to earn more than $100,000 -- but they would have to give up seniority and tenure rights, two union members familiar with the negotiations said yesterday.

Under the proposal, the school system would establish two pay tiers, red and green, said the union members, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are confidential. Teachers in the red tier would receive traditional raises and would maintain tenure. Those who voluntarily go into the green tier would receive thousands of dollars in bonuses and raises, funded with foundation grants, for relinquishing tenure.

Teachers in the green tier would be reviewed yearly and would be allowed to continue in their jobs only if they passed an evaluation and boosted students' test scores, the union members said.

Rhee's idea is a breath of fresh air in an area that seems to have little movement over the last decade. The fact of the matter is that in order to truly be able to reinvigorate public schools, we have to find better ways to tie pay to teacher performance, and better ways to ensure that tenure does not stagnant the educational growth of our students. But the Teacher's Union, as always, stands in the way of common sense reforms designed to improve the classroom. Rhee's idea is a compromise that allows teachers to opt out of the current system if they desire, and gives teachers the opportunity to prove themselves and earn incentives.

This is exactly the kind of debate that we need here in our public schools. Unfortunately, in Anne Arundel County, we're not going to get to have that debate because Governor O'Malley appointed two Maxwell apologists to the Board of Education. And it's not like anybody is going to ask unregistered Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Berge her position on this proposed tenure reform during a retention election....

Illegal still means Illegal

Unsurprisingly, the Sun Editorial Board has a problem with the Anne Arundel County Police arresting people accused of committing crimes:

Mr. Leopold's comments play well in this conservative county, but they do a disservice to residents who may be unfairly targeted because of their ethnicity. His rush to judgment rouses less kind emotions.

Mr. Leopold says his even-handed approach to immigration helps those who play by the rules and is tough with those who don't. Providing $14,000 in county funds to an organization that helps legal immigrants navigate the citizenship bureaucracy will have benefits. But his decision to refuse grant money to a group that couldn't identify the citizenship status of its clients will likely drive those immigrants further into the shadows.

The Annapolis raid was part of the Bush administration's stepped-up enforcement at workplaces. But these raids aren't the answer to the estimated 11 million people who live here illegally. The country can't arrest its way out of this problem. And local efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants have more political impact than practical effect. This is a national problem that demands a comprehensive federal solution.

Of course the Sun is completely glossing over the fact that illegal immigrants are still in this country illegally. While the editorial is correct that the country cannot arrest its way out of the problem, and that business owners who knowingly employ illegal aliens should face consequences for their actions, that does not mean that police officers should turn a blind eye to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Illegal immigration is a severe problem in this country, and clearly not enough is being done across the board. Illegal immigrants should not be immune from prosecution and deportation due to their crimes merely because immigration policy across the nation is broken, as the Sun seems to suggest.

Additionally, the enforcement action has nothing to do with racial politics, as the editorial board sheepishly insinuates, nor is it because John Leopold is playing to the voters in our county. Obfuscation of the immigration issue behind such political excuses further cheapens the immigration issue, and unnecessarily adds a racial and political component to what is clearly an issue of national security first and foremost.

As a nation of laws, it is absurd that the Sun would suggest that these laws be ignored without a national solution. The law is in place, and jurisdictions at the local, state, and federal levels all need to step up to ensure its enforcement.

David Paulson needs to lay off the bong water

David Paulson is either or drugs or has completely lost his mind:

It's not every day that the state Democratic Party's communication director and one of Maryland's most prominent Republicans agree on a party's political fortunes. But after former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele told a crowd of Republicans that "the Republican brand quite frankly sucks," David Paulson emailed PolitickerMD.com to express his empathy for Steele's idea.

"I don't disagree with Michael Steele on his low opinion of the Republican brand - it's in the toilet for a lot of reasons," Paulson wrote in an email to PolitickerMD.com. "But Republicans who think they only have a branding problem are fooling themselves. This isn't a public relations problem. This is a public trust problem."....

..."Andy Harris is just more of the same - all talk and no action, especially when it comes to gas prices," Paulson wrote to PolitickerMD.com. "If Harris is so concerned with gas taxes why didn't he sponsor a bill as a state senator? He has even failed to officially request that any action be taken now. Proof once again that Harris (sic) all talk and no action."

Paulson concluded the email by criticizing Republicans even further: "Republican hypocrisy is not a branding problem. It's more like we-can't-believe-you-because-we-don't-trust-you problem."

Wow.

I mean, wow.

The Democrats in this country and this state have repeatedly found themselves to be either under some sort of cloud involving shoes, involving money stored in freezers, involving shady land deals, involving undisclosed employers, involving State Senators with drugs, involving unsafe vehicles on the road, accepting bribes, nepotism at the state and county levels, firing political appointees after spending millions to investigate Ehrlich doing the same, appointing lobbyists to patronage gigs, and nominating a pre-packaged walking, talking scandal waiting to happen for President.

And David Paulson thinks that Republicans are hypocrites that can't be trusted. He needs to either get a mental examination, or he needs to lay off whatever substances he is currently using. Because nobody can be as self-deluded as he is.

It's true Republicans that have a branding problem for their inability to follow their principles while governing at the national level. But I'd say we look pretty good standing next to the chain gang wandering the streets under the label of the Maryland Democratic Party these days....

Which part of "illegal" do they not understand?

So we had a bunch of "immigrant activists" protesting in downtown Baltimore today about the raid yesterday that arrested 46 illegal immigrants yesterday here in Anne Arundel County. And some of their quotes are....interesting:

"Every person affected yesterday has a family," said Jessica Alvarez, vice president of the National Capital Immigrant Coalition. "Today we are here to show that every person has a voice and has a community behind them. This is unjust, and our voices need to be heard."

Yeah. That's a bummer. Of course what is truly unjust is the fact that you have people in this country illegally. Let me say that again: they are here illegally. I do sympathize with the fact that these folks want a better life. I do sympathize with the fact that they came to America for an opportunity. But I do not sympathize with the fact that they willingly violated American law in order to come here. There are legal ways to enter this country. The folks arrested in the raid did not do that. And I am not sure which part of "illegal" these activists don't understand.

John Leopold, of all people, had a very solid retort to these protests:

"Illegal means illegal. The laws should be respected and obeyed," Leopold, a former state legislator, said in an interview. "This administration has had a fair and balanced approach to immigration. On the one hand we crack down hard on illegal immigrants, but at the same time we reach out to try to assist those who are trying to secure citizenship through proper legal channels."

And you can't really put it any more succinctly than that. The majority of people who oppose illegal immigration support legal immigration for people who want to do things the right way, entering the country and going through the legal process to obtain residency and citizenship. And really, this raid and these protests do shed more light on the complete failure at the federal level to address this issue.

Yes, something is unjust about this situation. But what is unjust is not that people who broke the law may suffer the consequences, it's that not more is being done. It's unfortunate, but illegal actions have legal consequences.

Manufactured Outrage

Leftist Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the newly created University of California, Irvine School of Law is an interesting fellow. Not because he is described as a constitutional law expert, but because of his manufactured outrage when it comes to judicial activism:

The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

Never before had the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.

And the article goes on like this in a relatively uneducated line of thinking.

What's humorous is that the generally accepted view of judicial activism is that such activism creates rights or constitutional violations out of thin air without regard to the Constitution. Regardless of your position on the issues, such creation of rights existed with issues such as abortion and as with gay marriage: courts magically created these rights out of thin air without any Constitutional citation. It's hard to interpret the Second Amendment as it is written and say that such right is being created out.

It seems like a lot of Chemerinsky's beef seems to be that the court in Heller overruled precedent. And I have always found the reliance on precedent to be a very lame-ass, weak-kneed concept. If Courts rely on precedent, particularly when precedent is wrong, that does not help propagate the Constitutional rights of anybody. This is something I wrote about last November in another article regarding guns:

Lasson also completely whiffs on the concept or precedence. Under Lasson's worldview, the Supreme Court's decision in 1939's United States v. Miller is sacrosanct on the issue and cannot be challenged. Of course, there are a number of fallacies with the concept of precedence. Why should a decision be continued to upheld when it is wrong? Under Lasson's warped logic that means that Brown vs. Board should never have been issued as it stood due to the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. And under the same logic, Tileston v. Ullman and Poe v. Ullman would have precluded the decision in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut...and that case paved the way for Roe v. Wade . I don't hear Lasson arguing the concept of precedence in those cases because the decisions do not match with his leftist worldviews.

And Chemerinsky's argument follows the same predictable mad leftist ranting.

It concerns me that Chemerinsky has been tasked to start a new law school as it's dean, mainly because I worry that there will be more lawyers manufacturing synthetic outrage while misinterpreting the role of the court in society and threatening our basic Constitutional rights as Americans...

Puff Piece

The Sun today ran a pretty irritating puff piece about the new members to the Anne Arundel County Board of Education. Not irritating because a piece ran, but irritating because reporter Susan Gvozdas manged to go the entire article without actually calling unregistered Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Birge an unregistered Democratic lobbyist.

Sure Gvozdas talked about all of Birge's service as a Democratic committee staffer in Annapolis, serving as the lobbyist of the Maryland Municipal League, and her "part time as a government relations consultant and as special assistant to the director of state relations for the University System of Maryland" all without actually mentioning that Birge was working as a lobbyist.

Of course, what little things of substance that Birge talked about in the article are pretty irritating too:

Birge, 36, who has two children, said she hopes to use her background working with the House of Delegates' Appropriation Committee to help demystify the budget process for her constituents in West County. After watching the county executive and the superintendent battle over budget items, she wants to find a way to tone down the rhetoric and work together.

"That was very difficult for everyone," Birge said. "I would hope in the future we could avoid that."

Read as: "I am going to stand for the status quo and support whatever Superintendent Maxwell wants me to support. I would hope in the future we can tone down the rhetoric by having the County Council and County Executive roll over and die and do whatever the Superintendent asks."

As expected, it looks like the Sun will be in the bag for the retention of Birge and the continuation of this cockamamie "retention election" farce...

A Reasonable Liberal Interpretation of Heller

Bruce Godfrey has a very well thought-out liberal take on the decision is D.C. v. Heller, in support of the Court's decision. And just as importantly, Bruce points out one of the real reasons liberals favor gun control to the extent they do:

I don't like "gun culture;" accordingly, I elect not to participate in it, just like I don't participate in tattoo culture or other subcultures. But my and other liberals' dislikes should absolutely not be the law. I think that a lot of the gun control movement involves a sort of Kulturkampf against the rural redneck, far more so than against the urban thug who can arm himself easily despite gun control laws. We do not need "guns off the streets"; we need thugs off the streets and one way to reduce thuggery is to add an aleatory risk of dying or (worse) getting shot in the groin to thug calculus. A few thugs will stop thugging; others will stop when shot; still others will revert to mere property crimes like shed breaking or stealing car stereos.

Read the whole thing. But I think Bruce makes an excellent point when he talks about the liberal disdain for rural culture, which probably reached it's apex during the Democratic Primary when Barack Obama made his asinine comments about people in small towns, guns, and religion. It seems to me that the preponderance of liberals use issues like God, community, and guns to look down their noses on people who choose not to drink the urban liberal Kool-Aid. These liberals choose to discriminate against those living in the South and living in small towns. And the rabid opposition to the right of self-defense is just one way in which that manifests itself.

The Brian Griffiths Minute: 06-27-2008

Meet Sam Georgiou

Meet Sam Georgiou.

Pharmacy Manager. Long-time resident of Anne Arundel County. Involved in more Civic and Community Groups that you can shake a stick at. And long-time interest in Public Education: member of the School Board Nominating Convention, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council, member of the Meade Area Redistricting Task Force, Member of the Maryland Department of Education Parent Advisory Council, etc. Sam Georgiou is just the kind of person you'd want to cast a vote for in an election for in an election to be a member of a School Board.

Except he lives in District 32. Instead of appointed someone with a long and varied background in community and school system issues, Governor O'Malley appointed insider Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Birge to the seat. Instead of appointing somebody with Georgiou's experience and credentials in public school policy, O'Malley appointed a Democratic crony instead.

Is there really any better argument for an elected School Board for Anne Arundel County than this?

Post-Heller, the work starts now

Obviously, everybody has heard by now the fantastic news about the Supreme Court upholding the lower court decision in D.C. v. Heller. Here is the best part of the Opinion of the Court, on Page 67 of the decision:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Once and for all, the Supreme Court has affirmed while most people knew all along: that the United States Constitution unquestionable affirms the right of individuals the opportunity to bear arms. Of course, this decision should not have been a surprise seeing that the founders considered the right to bear arms a pre-existing right dating back to English Common Law and the Assize of Arms of 1189. Something that Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog points out the Court included in their decision:

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Nor is it a surprise when one considers that all of the other Amendments within the Bill of Rights are affirming individual rights, but hey....

But supporters of the Constitution should not sit back and rest on our laurels. Yes, the Heller decision does affirm the the individual right of the citizen. However, Dave Kopel notes that there are many areas of law that are not addressed by Heller:

As for the constitutionality of other gun controls: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The word “commercial” in the last sentence could suggest that there might be constitutional problems on some laws which applied to non-commercial arms transfers. (However, there are few federal laws on non-commercial transfers, other than criminal penalties for transferring guns to prohibited persons.)

The majority opinion also affirmed the validity of bans on gun carrying in “sensitive” locations such as schools and government buildings. The language may imply that a total ban on gun carrying in ordinary public places is unconstitutional. But Heller does not attempt to answer the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments, and most carrying restrictions in public places are created by state and local governments. For now, Heller limits only the federal government — and entities such as the D.C. City Council, whose powers are granted by the federal government.

Which means that while the individual right has been affirmed, Heller does not universally cast aside any and all gun controls laws. Nor does the decision cast aside provisions that prohibit the purchase of firearms by criminals or those with mental issues. The rights of gun ownership and possession in Maryland have been left, realistically, unchanged by the facts of the decision. Since the Heller decision only the D.C. law, that means many issues are still living in a Constitutional shade of gray.

How would this Court rule on issues such as Concealed Carry permits? What about Waiting Periods? What about trigger lock laws? The fact of the matter is that now the right to own a firearm has be universally affirmed once and for all by the Court, we now must move on to address these other issues as a nation.

Nowhere is that more true than here in Maryland. We must fight the nonsensical gun laws that remain on the books. We must combat nonsensical politicians like Delegate Curt Anderson who wish to use the Court's affirmation of this civil right as a reason to pass even more restrictive gun laws in Maryland. We need to bring Maryland into the 21st Century, and pass appropriate concealed carry laws. These laws have reduced the rates of violent crime in the 40 states that have now passed them. The stats are there, and no type of cockamamie arguments from politicians like Anderson can change the fact that these common sense carry laws save lives. Liberals can be entitled to their opinions on the issue, but not their own facts.

The Heller decision is a great victory for the Constitution, and a great day for liberty in America. However, we in Maryland have a long way to go to fully enjoy the fruits of this victory. The work starts now.

Now this is interesting

Isaac Smith is floating a trial balloon about the concept of far-left Democrats finding a primary challenger for Steny Hoyer in 2010:

After Steny Hoyer's shameful performance in pushing the FISA bill through the House [which just sailed through the cloture vote in the Senate --IS], there's been talk about putting up a primary challenge to him in 2010. Even if it's only a protest candidacy, it might at least register the outrage many Democrats feel about their party's leadership giving in to Republicans' demands to let telecom companies break the law, and then turning around and portraying it as a victory for Democrats. It was infuriating enough when Democrats were in the minority, but to see Hoyer, et al, do the same thing as the majority party is almost inexplicable.

But is a primary challenge the best way to hold Hoyer accountable?

Interesting to see the Democrats also considering more "eating their own" tactics, much the same way that Maryland has been saddled with one Congressional extremist, Donna Edwards, this month already. I can't see a scenario where any serious Democrat will challenge the House Majority Leader while it still looks like Democrats will retain both Houses of Congress, but it'll be interesting to see how much play the idea gets.

Job Losses Highlight lack of Options

It's official: 80 jobs have been slashed from the Anne Arundel County Public School System:

Schools are starting to feel the pinch from this year's budget battle.

Eighty jobs - none of them teaching positions - were eliminated last week while the schools brace for another year without new science labs, kindergarten classrooms, playground equipment and other things officials said they badly need.

"It is severely going to impact how we help the media specialists and the children," said Linda Williams, head of the library department, which is losing 11 of 21 employees. "I'm still overwhelmed by all of this."

Now it's true that the positions eliminated are not the 150 teaching positions that Kevin Maxwell proposed be axed from the budget. But is there a clearer sign of financial mismanagement in the school system than this? In a nearly $1 billion budget, Kevin Maxwell and the majority of the Board of Education could not save 80 positions that have a positive impact on the education of our students. Is Maxwell and the Board saying that the high dollar bureaucratic jobs on Riva Road have a greater importance than jobs that directly impact the lives of students?

The problem with this, naturally, is the fact that parents, teachers, and taxpayers all still have no voice in this process. They do not get to cast a vote that will decide who will get the opportunity to vote on the School System Budget, voice their opinions on staffing, or hire the next superintendent. Instead of getting that choice in a competitive election, the voters will only decide if retread appointee Tricia Johnson and unregistered Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Birge stay on the job or not.

Sadly, we already know, through their appointment and selection by Governor O'Malley and his cronies on the School Board Nominating Commission, Johnson and Birge are going to do little more than uphold Maxwell's status quo and fail to make the tough decisions that are required in order to provide students with a high quality education. And that is of no benefit to our students, our school employees, or taxpayers.

What Sheila Dixon Isn't Saying Often

One thing Sheila Dixon isn't saying much is "I didn't do it":



Dixon waxes poetic about how she "can't say anything" about the allegations, but at no time in her Press Conference did she actually deny wrongdoing. Even when it is shown later that a politician did, in fact, break the law, they almost always deny the allegations in front of the campaign unless it actually happened.

Now, on 98Rock (of all places) this morning, Dixon did unload a relatively weak denial of the charges, but only when Josh Spiegel came out and asked Dixon directly about the truthfulness of the charges. But even then, she said only that the charges were "unfounded."

So why is Sheila Dixon barely defending herself when accused of pretty serious charges of corruption? Because I know if it were me and I were innocent, I would be screaming my innocence at the top of my lungs and anybody who would listen...

Right Ways, Wrong Ways

Paul Wolfowitz has an interesting column regarding the situation in Zimbabwe, and makes some suggestions as to how the international community can solve the problem. Some of them are sensible solutions, but some of the leave a few things to be desired.

The international community should commit – as publicly and urgently as possible – to provide substantial support if Mugabe relinquishes power. Even if Mr. Tsvangirai were to become president tomorrow he would still face a daunting set of problems: restoring an economy in which hyperinflation has effectively destroyed the currency and unemployment is a staggering 70%; getting emergency food aid to millions who are at risk of starvation and disease; promoting reconciliation after the terrible violence; and undoing Mugabe's damaging policies, without engendering a violent backlash.

Clearly I don't think this has to be a concern. The international community, usually led by the United States, will come through with emergency aid in the form of food, water, and medicine to the people of Zimbabwe. The Mugabe land reforms crippled the nation's food supply, and Mugabe's strict control of the Government already limits the availability of food for the majority of Zimbabwe's populace.

The international community should also say it will move rapidly to remove the burden of debts accumulated by the Mugabe regime and not force a new government to spend many months and precious human resources on the issue (as Liberia was forced to do to deal with the debts of Samuel Doe).

I generally do not believe in debt forgiveness between nations, due to the fact that it encourages governments to continue to borrow and overspend with the assumption that the debts will later be forgiven by the world community. I think given the 28-years of tyrannical rule by Mugabe' Communist Government, we can make an exception.

Most importantly, dramatic action by the international community could embolden other Africans to confront the tragedy in their backyard. One step would be to offer Mugabe an honorable way out. South Africa or some other country should offer Mugabe a safe and comfortable retirement if he leaves without further violence.

Those who have suffered personally at his hands may feel that this would deprive them of justice. But this is a time when a compromise needs to be struck between the need for justice and the need to stop further violence. South Africa itself, under Nelson Mandela's leadership, once set an example for the world in this regard. Today it could help Zimbabweans develop their own process of "Truth and Reconciliation."

I also couldn't disagree more with Wolfowitz in this manner. While the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa may have done the job in bringing South Africa together, it still didn't punish the members of the National Party governments that carried out the hellish policies of Apartheid. And that is to say nothing of the justice that was brought to Saddam Hussein and other dictators toppled over the years. Why should Mugabe be allowed to escape the same fate that Hussein received?

Ideally a non-Western institution, such as the African Development Bank, could take the lead in summoning a Friends of Zimbabwe conference. Hopefully, the wealthy oil-producing countries would participate. So too could China and India, successful developing countries that have shown a new interest in Africa.

And again, Wolfowitz has a well meaning idea that can easily be refuted by reality. While I agree with the need to have Zimbabwe rebuilding efforts led by a non-Western power, I certainly think that we need to do all we can to ensure that China does not take the lead in any efforts in that nation. China's already weak domestic human rights record is even worse when you consider Chinese efforts to support the Sudanese Government despite the atrocities of the Darfur Crisis, and Beijing's insistence on selling arms to the Mugabe Government. China has been cultivating relationships in Sub-Saharan Africa as a way to expand their arms market, regardless of the human rights violations they bring with them. We do not need to set up Zimbabwe as another client state for them.

Wolfowitz, though not all of his suggestions are logical, is correct in that we need to take an active role in preparing for a post-Mugabe Government. I, for one, feel like the international community needs to take more of an active role in creating the post-Mugabe environment...

John Leopold took money from Lipscomb

John Leopold's campaign committee accepted a $4,000 contribution on September 15th from Doracon Contracting, Inc. of 3500 East Biddle Street, Baltimore. That company is one of the companies controlled by developer Ronald H. Limpscomb, who has been implicated in the Sheila Dixon Corruption Scandal.

What's curious about the donation is the fact that Leopold is the only Republican to recieve a donation from Lipscomb or one of his holding companies. But it also came days after Leopold held a $4,000 per plate fundraiser at the Baltimore Marriott at which he was criticized for breaking his campaign promise regarding fundraising and getting cozy with developers.

Looks like we may now know why exactly John Leopold started taking developers money.....

RedMaryland Radio: The Commentary

As promised, the Commentary I opened today's RedMaryland radio broadcast with:

The Democrats here in the state of Maryland have been waxing poetic for several days now about the case of Sheila Dixon, particularly the involvement of the State Prosecutor Robert Rohrbaugh. Democrats, since as the Democratic Party's official propaganda windbag David Paulson, decry the involvement of the Ehrlich-appointee in involving Mayor Dixon, the noted upright citizen that she is.

Paulson said "Rohrbaugh has sent some very disturbing signals in recent weeks," complaining that developer Ed St. John was punished for his illegal contributions to Democrats but not those he made to Ehrlich, notwithstanding the fact that St. John was never accused of making such illegal contributions. Paulson said Democrats are watching the state prosecutor for signs that he is "stepping out of bounds" and that they are "concerned" with Rohrbaugh's work.

All of this is very convenient for Paulson and the Democrats to do, but in order to believe that the Democratic Party in the State of Maryland was free and clear of any hint of corruption one would have to have just stepped off a spaceship from the Crab Nebula. Just take a look at the last four decades of politics in Maryland. The political graveyard is littered with Democratic scandal. Dale Anderson. Marvin Mandel. Jerome Connell. Larry Young. Clarence Mitchell IV. Corruption in the anti-crime unit overseen by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Parris Glendening, putting his girlfriend on the state payroll. These are just a small number of the Democratic scandals from Maryland's past who have brought harm and disrepute to the state and to Maryland's Democratic Party.

Modern day Democrats are no better. Nathaniel Exum involved in a scheme to keep his employer's car inspection business open. Ulysses Currie's nondisclosure of his employment with Shopper's Food Warehouse. The two-year Sheila Dixon investigation, which has already yielded shady contracts, nepotism, and now personal relationships and receiving furs from contractors, during her time as City Council President. State Senator Thomas Bromwell went to jail. And Governor O'Malley was implicated in shady land deals with Eastern Shore property owned by a supporter and member of his transition team.

Democratic complaints about investigations launched by the independent state prosecutor are as misguided as it would have been for Bonapartists to complain about Napoleon's exile. The complaints only arose because of their own ineptitude in the first place. Maryland Democrats need to worry less about what the independent prosecutor does, and more about themselves. If Democrats want to avoid investigations for once they'll need to do the right thing, and not the easy thing. But all Marylanders need to do something in order to end this vicious cycle that continues to breed the culture of corruption.

RedMaryland Radio, on the air

The first real episode of "RedMaryland Radio", hosted by yours truly and Greg Kline, will be on the air on WAMD AM 970, Aberdeen tomorrow starting at 5 PM. Georgia Woerner, President of the Maryland Young Republicans, will join us at 5:40.If you are somewhere in shouting distance of Aberdeen tomorrow, tune in and give a listen and let us know how we do. This may become a semi-regular thing for us, so we appreciate the input.

The "Conservative Voice of Northeastern Maryland" is trying to establish the ability for folks to listen over the internet. Once that is established, you'll be able to listen to all of your favorite conservative shows and guests, also including RM's Kenny Burns and Mark Newgent, on Tuesdays, Wednesday, and Thursdays from 5-630.

Check below to see if you can hear us tomorrow night: (H/T Radio Locator).

O'Malley did appoint an Unregistered Democratic Lobbyist to the Board of Education

Yesterday, we talked about the fact that Governor O'Malley appointed an unregistered Democratic lobbyist to the Board of Education. And I got an email from Ms. Birge this morning confirming that very fact:

I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Teresa Milio Birge, and I'm the new District 32 appointee to the Board of Education. One of my friends recently put me on google alerts, and gave me a call this morning that I was the topic of your most recent blog. I thought I'd help you out and nip this in the bud for you. In 2005, after I gave birth to my second child, I stopped working. But I didn't want to lose touch with everyone I had known in my 10 years of nonpartisan work for and with the legislature. So, my mother, who at the time was a senior center director, knew that the Association of Senior Centers needed some help with the legislature. And I was bored. It was a perfect fit. We signed a $1500 yearly contract from July 1 2005 to June 30 2006 which we renewed through June 30 2007. I've been busier this year with my accounting work and knew that I would not be able to put in as many hours (charging them a ridiculously low rate of $25 an hour), so we agreed to just charge hourly. I haven't yet billed them for the year, but it will fall in far below the $1500 mark this year.

Would love it if you could clarify on your post. I even made sure when I forwarded my CV to the governor's office I explained this, because I certainly don't want anyone mistakenly assuming that I'm not registered when I should be.

If you have any questions, please call me or email me back - I'd be more than happy to answer them! My cell is [redacted].

Teresa Milio Birge

So, to recap, she is an unregistered Democratic Lobbyists, but falling within the guidelines of the ethics laws.

But man, does that message sound like backtracking or what? Between that and the comments made on the original post, the message I get from this is 1) I'm a lobbyist, but it's OK, an 2) God I don't want to make Governor O'Malley look bad.

Here's what we need to take from this. Whether or not any ethics laws were broken is really inconsequential to the larger problem. The problem is the fact that Governor O'Malley appointed an individual to represent District 32 who has spent the majority of her professional career as a Professional Lobbyist, either for the State of Maryland or for private companies such as this one. Birge has no professional experience with education issues, which of course flies in the face of the concept that this School Board Nominating Commission was going to give us qualified people to speak on issues surrounding education. And again, the Governor and the Commissioners he appointed tried to slip an unregistered Democratic lobbyist onto the Board of Education and hoped that nobody noticed.

Well, somebody did notice. And I don't find the Governor appointing Annapolis insiders to the Board of Education to be particularly humorous at all. We need people who are serious about Education. Not rubber stamps for the Governor's policies.

134 days until Election Day...

Did O'Malley appoint an unregistered lobbyist to the Board of Education?

Governor O'Malley appointed Tricia Johnson and Teresa Milio Birge to five-year stints on the Board of Education this past Tuesday, pending the approval of the voters in the ridiculously asinine process that the General Assembly set up for us. More details on their appointments in general here.

But did O'Malley appoint an unregistered lobbyist in Birge to the Board? Birge is listed by the Maryland Association of Senior Centers as their lobbyist. In her resume, Birge notes that for a "private client" she:

Manages government relations program for a state association; track and review legislation; draft amendments and testimony; draft oral and written testimony; testify before legislative committees on legislative and budget matters; facilitate meetings of members with legislators; conduct training for association members.

All of which sounds like the activities of a lobbyist. Except Birge is not registered as a lobbyist according to the Maryland State Ethics Commission, nor is the Maryland Association of Senior Centers listed as employing a lobbyist. And the summary of lobbying law seems to indicate that if Birge received more than $2,500 in personal compensation or if the MASC paid a lobbyist more than $2,500 in lobbying expenses, both should have had to register.

The evidence seems to point to an unregistered Democratic lobbyist being appointed to the Board of Education. I'm not exactly sure how flouting ethics laws makes Anne Arundel County's new appointment process a success, though is does give us the opportunity to right this wrong at the ballot box in November.