Featured Post

It seems Pope Francis needs to brush up on his Tertullian!

It has been reported (in The ChristLast Media, I must note) that the current Pope does not like the phrase "lead us not into temptation...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, October 07, 2005

Why dogs are better than cats.

I can't even imagine that tiger that took out Siegfried's dance partner could capture a bunch of Germans.

Battle of the Day.

On this date in 2001, the military phase of Operation Enduring Freedom began. This war is ongoing.

Fyodor's Pro Football Picks of the Week.

1) The guys who set the lines are professionals. Their job is to make each game look as attractive as possible to everyone. That way they even out the amount of money bet on each side.
Instant translation: The house wins no matter who wins. That's why people get into the gambling business.

2) I am just a fan. I won't even keep track of these picks week to week if it gets too embarrassing.

3) There is no such thing as "inside information". Especially in the pros.

4) If those idiot touts on tv and in the paper were that good, they wouldn't go public with their genius. They'd sit at Harrah's sports book from open to close and then go out and buy $2,000 an hour hookers who dress like high school girls.

5) Gambling is stupid. You cannot win.

That being said, here are my NFL picks for this week.

Sunday 10/9

Baltimore (+1) at Detroit
Basically a pick 'em game. I'll pick the homestanding Lions.
FINAL: Lions 35 Ravens 17 - Fyodor wins! (Billick is a football genius. Just watch him land the number 1 pick in next year's draft.)

Chicago (+3) at Cleveland
You'll notice a lot of lines from 2.5 to 3.5 this week. The oddsmakers are letting the reality of the National 8 and 8 League sink in.
Instant translation: BEWARE.
I'll take the Browns here.
FINAL: Browns 20 Bears 10 - Fyodor wins!

Miami (+3) at Buffalo
Huh? See what I mean? I'll take Miami.
FINAL: Bills 20 Dolphins 14 - Fyodor loses! (See what I mean? Neither do I.)

New England (+3) at Atlanta
Atlanta is the smart pick in this one. I'll go with the Patriots on a hunch.
FINAL: Pats 31 Falcons 28 - Fyodor wins! (Bet on Brady, kiddies.)

New Orleans (+3) at Green Bay
I'm betting (figuratively) Green Bay will play all 4 quarters this week.
FINAL: Packers 52 Saints 3 - Fyodor wins!

Seattle (+3) at St. Louis
The Crummy (formerly Crappy) Game of the Week. I'll take the Rams.
FINAL: Seahawks 37 Rams 31 - Fyodor loses! (I hate it when these two play!)

Tampa Bay (-3) at NY Jets
Bucs are such an obvious pick! Vinny could get killed out there! Contrarian time? Nope, take Tampa.
FINAL: Jets 14 Bucs 12 - Fyodor loses!

Tennessee (+3) at Houston
Houston is bad. Titans are better than they play. Take Tennessee.
FINAL: Titans 34 Texans 20 - Fyodor wins! (Fyodor is very proud of the Titans this morning.)

Indianapolis (+15.5!!!!) at San Francisco
What's the deal here? I think Peyton's finally up to speed, but that number is just too big. Avoid this game as if you were a fat chick with low self-esteem and Clinton (either one) entered the room.
Still, I'll take the Colts.
FINAL: Colts 28 49ers 3 - Fyodor wins! (Heehee.)

Carolina (-2.5) at Arizona
Another tough call. Carolina should win and cover. So, just for fun, I'll take that idiot Denny Green's team. Cards cover at home.
FINAL: Panthers 24 Cards 20 - Fyodor loses! (What was I thinking?)

Philadelphia (-3) at Dallas
Normally, the home team gets 3 points just for playing at home. That makes this a pick 'em game. I don't get it. Eagles have been killing the Cowboys lately. I'll go with the Eagles.
FINAL: Cowboys 33 Eagles 10 - Fyodor loses! (Wow. Eagles need a running game to help McNabb plus their defense looked soft against Dallas.)

Washington (+7) at Denver
This is the week the 'Skins lose! Take Denver to win big.
FINAL: Broncos 21 Redskins 19 - Fyodor loses! (Could the Redskins be better than I think they are?)

Cincinnati (+3) at Jacksonville
The Steelers could use a Bengals loss, but I think they're going to have to take care of that themselves. Take Cincy.
FINAL: Jaguars 23 Bengals 20 - PUSH! (Thanks, Jags. Love, Steelers fans.)

Monday 10/10

Pittsburgh (+3) at San Diego
Beware the evil 3 point spread, kiddies! My heart says pick the Steelers and I'm a hopeless old romantic fool!
FINAL: Steelers 24 Chargers 22 - Fyodor wins! (But Big Ben goes down!)

Fyodor's College Football Picks of the Week.

1) The guys who set the lines are professionals. Their job is to make each game look as attractive as possible to everyone. That way they even out the amount of money bet on each side.
Instant translation: The house wins no matter who wins. That's why people get into the gambling business.

2) I am just a fan. I won't even keep track of these picks week to week if it gets too embarrassing.

3) There is no such thing as "inside information". Especially in the pros.

4) If those idiot touts on tv and in the paper were that good, they wouldn't go public with their genius. They'd sit at Harrah's sports book from open to close and then go out and buy $2,000 an hour hookers who dress like high school girls.

5) Gambling is stupid. You cannot win.

That being said, here are my college picks for this week.

Saturday 10/8

Wake Forest (+21.5) at Florida State
I'll take the 'Noles to cover.
FINAL: FSU 41 Wake 24 - Fyodor loses! (You'll see a pattern here. I have overestimated the strength of many teams.)

West Virgina (-4) at Rutgers
WVU wins, but Rutgers covers.
FINAL: WVU 27 Rutgers 14 - Fyodor loses!

Marshall (+34.5) at Virginia Tech
Take the Hokies to win big.
FINAL: VT 41 Marshall 14 - Fyodor loses! (See?)

Mississippi State (+27.5) at Florida
Bulldogs are not good. Florida is not great. Take Gators to cover.
FINAL: Florida 35 MSU 9 - Fyodor loses! (Ugh!)

Oklahoma (+14) at Texas
Texas finally beats the Sooners, but do not cover.
FINAL: UT 45 OU 12 - Fyodor loses!

Virginia (+7) at Boston College
Take Virginia and the points.
FINAL: BC 28 Virginia 17 - Fyodor loses! (Congrats to the Eagles, but I have no clue.)

TCU (+6.5) at Wyoming
Until they let me down, I'll keep picking the Cowboys.
FINAL: TCU 28 Wyoming 14 - Fyodor loses! (The Cowboys let me down.)

Arizona (+37.5) at USC
That is one large number. I wouldn't play this one if I were you. But just for fun, I'll pick Arizona.
FINAL: USC 42 Arizona 21 - Fyodor wins! (Yea!)

Georgia (+3) at Tennessee
I'll take Georgia, but my heart's not in it.
FINAL: Georgia 27 Tennessee 14 - Fyodor wins! (Stupid heart.)

Texas Tech (-4) at Nebraska
FINAL: TTU 34 Nebraska 31 - Fyodor loses! (Memo To Kiddies: Hate is a bad thing.)

North Carolina (+13) at Louisville
I'll take Louisville.
FINAL: Louisville 69 UNC 14 - Fyodor wins!

Utah (+4.5) at Colorado State
I'll take Utah in a mild upset.
FINAL: CSU 21 Utah 17 - Fyodor wins! (Take that, evil hook monster.)

Texas A&M (+ 3) at Colorado
A&M should win it.
FINAL: Colorado 41 A&M 20 - Fyodor loses!

LSU (-16) at Vanderbilt
Take Vandy and the points at home.
FINAL: LSU 34 Vanderbilt 6 - Fyodor loses! (What was I thinking?)

Ball State (+12) at Western Michigan
The Train Wreck System faces a tough test here. Take WMU.
FINAL: Ball State 60 WMU 57 - Fyodor loses! (Play "The World Turned Upside Down".)

California (+1.5) at UCLA
UCLA has been coming back to earth. I'll pick Cal.
FINAL: UCLA 47 Cal 40 - Fyodor loses! (Wanna know why they call it gambling, kiddies? I had this one in the bag when a "true freshman" [everything wrong with college sports is summed up in that phrase] Cal linebacker made a great play on a 2 point conversion try to keep the UCLA lead at 1 with only a couple of minutes to play. A few seconds later, a Cal interception set up the Bruins' last second touchdown that lost the game for those of us who picked Cal. I don't blame the Cal QB. I don't blame the UCLA coaches for not running out the clock with a one point lead. I don't blame anybody. This is EXACTLY why I don't really bet on sports.)

Ohio State (-3.5) at Penn State
Buckeyes should win easily. I'll go that way because I gotta pick somebody, but if the Lions play like they did last week...
FINAL: Penn State 17 The Ohio State University 10 - Fyodor loses! (I don't mind, though. Congrats to Coach Paterno and a giant ppffffffffttt! to his critics. Any coach who builds his school a library gets a pass from me.)

Oregon (+10) at Arizona State
ASU wins but does not cover.
FINAL: Oregon 31 ASU 17 - Fyodor wins!

Has anyone noticed the active terrorist cell in Oklahoma? Golly, I hope so.

The latest from Michelle Malkin on the Oklahoma Suicide Bomber. (Gee, The Third Terrorist doesn't seem so kooky today, does it kiddies?)

***update: live Norman, OK police department press conference scheduled for 3pm EDT/2pm CDT...will be carried on channeloklahoma.com...scroll for more updates/reax...***

Blogs continue to cover the Oklahoma suicide bomber story being ignored by the national MSM. Here's the latest:

Zombietime highlights an aerial photo of the crime scene and has an excellent round-up of links.

Mark Tapscott is reporting more new details:
- Hinrichs was Known to Law Enforcement Before Oklahoma Football Stadium Suicide Bombing
- Statement from Last Person to See Hinrichs Alive

Mark's exclusive report from last night on the contents of Hinirichs' car was echoed by local Oklahoma TV station, News 9.

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit notes that local TV station 9 News OK that Joel Hinrichs had tried to enter the OU game last Saturday night before blowing himself up on a bench outside the stadium.

Hoft points to the The Enid News and Eagle, which has pointed questions for OU president David Boren:

It's clear the FBI, which is in charge of the investigation, is trying to be tight-lipped because they don't have all the answers. They can state they have no direct evidence "at this time" to support any reports Hinrichs was involved with terrorist organizations or he intended to do harm to the fans in the stadium.
They probably are doing the right thing by limiting their comments until they have confirmed answers to all their questions. But, the information that is being ferreted out by the media is starting to paint a disturbing picture. Why would Hinrichs try to buy large quantities of a known explosive material? What was his motive for committing the suicide in such a public and dramatic way? What kinds of associations has he been involved with recently and what were his political views?
We applaud Boren for the attention he has given the matter and his daily briefings regarding the status of the investigation. Yet, we also believe there are more layers to this story than are being publicly disclosed at this time.

Rusty Shackleford is also keeping tabs on the story.

More blog coverage...
The Politburo Diktat
Classical Values here and here
Bill Hobbs
Explicity Ambiguous
Michael Wright at Bella Ciao covers the Boren angle
Protein Wisdom
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at The Counterterrorism Blog:

The household chemical explosive he used (the same used in London this past summer) is very unstable. My guess he did not intend to go out alone. Sooner fans got lucky. I'd like to know why he could not get into the stadium.

Who is Harriet Miers? Part 6

From Ankle Biting Pundits (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the heads up.) comes the latest misadventure from Dr. Masturbation:

ABP Exclusive: Democrats May Force Dobson to Testify
Posted by H-Bomb on Friday, 07 October 2005 (07:14:57) EDT
Contributed by H-Bomb

Will Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena James Dobson during the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings? The subject has been discussed in the halls of Democrat power, according to a source who works on Capitol Hill.

As issue are Dr. Dobson’s recent cryptic remarks that his endorsement of Ms. Miers was founded on “confidential” information he was “privy to” but which he was “not at liberty to talk about.”

Extreme leftists in the blogosphere lopped onto the comments right away. Shortly thereafter, extreme liberal groups piled on. And now, one liberal Senator, Ken Salazar from Dobson’s Colorado, has taken up the cause:


"It seems to me, all of the (information) the White House knows about Harriet Miers should be made available to the Senate and the American people. If they're making information available to Dr. Dobson - whom I respect and disagree with from time to time - I believe that information should be shared equally with a U.S. senator."

Insiders tell me that Sen. Salazar believes Dobson should be called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer frankly what he knows about Ms. Miers, when he knew it, and who provided him with the information. The unspoken suspicion is that someone in the Bush administration (Karl Rove, presumably) told Dobson that Miers is pro-life and has pledged to vote against Roe v. Wade should she be confirmed.

Salazar does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, so his input with respect to the “witness list” the minority is permitted to draw up is virtually meaningless. Nevertheless, Salazar’s top staffers have spent the last two days pitching the idea to top Democrat committee staff.

Pushback against this idea, surprisingly, comes from Salazar’s Democrat colleagues, specifically Minority Leader Harry Reid. Reid, who has expressed support for Ms. Miers, believes calling Dr. James Dobson before the committee as some sort of hostile witness would be a disastrous P.R. stunt that would further alienate the Democrat Party from Christian conservatives.

“We’re not going to conduct an Inquisition,” one top Hill staffer told me. “Salazar’s idea is half-baked.”

Nevertheless, another Hill staffer tells me that Sen. Ted Kennedy, who does sit on the Judiciary Committee, is rather taken by the idea and is working on a way to craft it as a “separation of powers” issue rather than a religious issue. If Democrats can make this about President Bush withholding information, the thinking goes, it might just work.

Stay tuned. The Miers hearings could be the biggest thing in Washington since the Thomas hearings.

Clinton's legacy of violence against women actually includes violence against the Violence Against Women Act.

Of course, the "conservative" FlyingBushMonkey regime is guilty of this nonsense too.

Violence Against Woman Act Funds Casino-Owning Tribes

Since it was enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been used to route more than $7.5 million in federal grants to 58 Indian tribes that currently own casinos. This conclusion is reached by comparing VAWA grants listed by the Department of Justice and a listing of casino-owning tribes published by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC).

Most of the grant money has been handed out since VAWA was reauthorized in 2000. Meanwhile, according to the NIGC, Indian gambling revenues have climbed from $5.4 billion in 1995 to $19.4 billion in 2004.

VAWA, originally approved as part of President Bill Clinton’s omnibus crime bill, initially authorized $1.6 billion in federal spending over five years to improve investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. In 2000, when it was reauthorized, the bill provided for $3 billion in federal spending as its scope was expanded to include such things as federally funded housing, transportation, food and even legal assistance to immigrants seeking visas. The new VAWA authorization, which passed the Senate this week, calls for $3.9 billion in spending over five years.

Well, lookee here. Lawrence Franklin is guilty.

Pentagon analyst says he didn't mean to harm U.S.

Oh yeah, Larry. That makes all the difference in the world.

You probably don't remember the good old days, kiddies, but once upon a time we used to execute traitors.

What was that, kiddies? Sorry, but I'm having a tough time hearing you over the voices of all the neo-cons apologizing at the top of their lungs for accusing everyone of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewishism, (All [Well, not all, of course. For the sake of argument, I'll leave it at that.] Jews are semites, kiddies, but not all semites are Jews.) and anti-Israelism.

Ha ha! That last one was a joke, of course.

Lawrence A. Franklin, 58, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran and Iraq, pleaded guilty Wednesday to three felony counts as part of a plea bargain. In exchange, federal prosecutors dropped three other felony charges.

Franklin said he leaked the classified information because he was frustrated with a U.S. government policy, which he did not specify.

"It was never my intent to harm the United States, not even for a second," said Franklin, who faces up to 25 years in prison at his sentencing Jan. 20. He would likely serve less time if U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III follows sentencing guidelines.

Franklin said during the plea hearing that he leaked classified information to two members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He said he hoped the two would provide the information to contacts of theirs on the National Security Council and possibly get the policy changed.

The council comprises top government officials who advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies.

An unusual exchange occurred late in the hearing, when Franklin objected to one of the government's allegations. Prosecutors told the judge that a one-page document faxed by Franklin to an AIPAC lobbyist was among the classified information he disclosed.

Franklin disputed that, and started to explain that the document was an unclassified "list of murders the Iranian government ..." before he was cut off by prosecutors who said he was about to disclose classified information in open court.

The judge agreed to place that small portion of the court transcript under seal.

Franklin also admitted giving classified information to Naor Gilon, a political officer at the Israeli embassy, but said information that he received from Gilon was more valuable.

"I knew in my heart that his government had this information," Franklin said. "He gave me far more information than I gave him."

In court documents, prosecutors did not mention Gilon by name, but said he and Franklin discussed classified information on numerous occasions, including information about a weapons test conducted by a Middle Eastern country.

The chairman of the Israeli parliament's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee said Israel had not known about Franklin's actions.

"I say very clearly that Israel is not spying in the United States or against the United States," Yuval Steinitz told Army Radio on Thursday.

Saint of the Day and daily mass readings.

Today is the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Pope St. Pius V established this feast in 1573. The purpose was to thank God for the victory of Christians over the Turks at Lepanto—a victory attributed to the praying of the rosary. Clement XI extended the feast to the universal Church in 1716.
Pray for us, Blessed Mother.

Today's reading is
Acts 1:12-14.
Today's Gospel reading is
Luke 1:26-38.

Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary

The Rosary

Our Mother of Perpetual Help
Prayers from EWTN
National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)
The Catholic Calendar Page for Today

Just in case you are wondering what exactly Catholics believe, here is

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.


Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful; O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.

St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.

Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)


St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Even George Freakin' Will has a blind-squirrel-with-a-broken-watch moment over La Miers.

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

Excellent, George.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.


He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.


Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

YES! Start the impeachment proceedings, George, I'm right behind you brother!

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Yeah, but what about Douglas, Blackmun, Ginsburg, et al.? (Ssshhhh! You'll distract Mr. Will.)

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

Perfect. Dispose of the Supreme Court's distaff potty chair and booster seat.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."


Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender. (Ack!)

Aw, crap, George! The word is "sex"! You had me going there for a minute, you neo-con, you!

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Laura Ingraham for SCOTUS!

I second that emotion.

Richard Miniter (at NRO) comes a happy fantasy for real conservatives: If you feel you need to nominate a skirt to replace a skirt (That's fascism, BTW.) why not nominate a skirt who lives and breathes the way you say you do? (With only an occasional lapse into animal worship and music only chicks could love.)

Leaning over the presidential podium in the Rose Garden Tuesday, Bush listened as a reporter posed the key question about Harriet Miers: Of all the women lawyers in America, is she really the most qualified?

Without hesitation, Bush said, "Yes."

Let's grant that Bush is right when he lauds her "stellar record of accomplishment in the law" and says she is "plenty smart" and an "enormously accomplished person."

Is Miers the best of the best by any objective measure? Since Bush made it clear that he wanted someone who did not have judicial experience, let's look at female lawyers who do not wear black robes. Just for fun, let's compare Miers's resume with that of radio-talk show host Laura Ingraham.

Miers's undergraduate education was completed at Southern Methodist University in Dallas in 1967. Ingraham graduated from Dartmouth College, in Hanover, New Hampshire. That's not to say an Ivy League education is a prerequisite for Supreme Court service. It's not. But as one of many details in one's background, a highly selective admissions process is not nothing.

Campus conservative? No, Miers was essentially apolitical in the 1970s and gave money to various national Democratic politicians in the Reagan years. By contrast, Ingraham was a regular contributor to the conservative Dartmouth Review and worked in the Reagan White House.

Miers attended law school at Southern Methodist University, not one of the nation's top 20 law schools at the time. Even today it is ranked 52nd best in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. Ingraham studied at the University of Virginia Law School, currently ranked eighth in the nation.

Federalist Society membership? It does not appear that Miers bothered to join. Of course, it was founded years after she passed the bar, but many conservative lawyers do join after law school. "But she supports the society," says White House press person Dana M. Perino, and Miers has spoken at a number of Federalist Society events. Ingraham of course was a member.

Clerked for federal judge? Yes, Miers clerked for a U.S. District court judge Joe E. Estes in Dallas. Ingraham clerked for judge Ralph K. Winter on the second circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Clerked for U.S. Supreme Court? Miers did not, while Ingraham researched for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Age does not seem to favor Miers either. She’s 60; two decades younger, Ingraham would have more natural staying power.

Plus Laura is currently undergoing radiation treatment for breast cancer. That by itself should enable her to gain the votes of the two senatorial harpies from Maine.

Attorney at a top-20 national law firm? While a lot has been said about Miers's accomplishments, her old firm is simply not a major player on the national stage. Even after a merger with another firm, the new outfit, known as Locke, Liddell & Sapp, was ranked no. 94 by The National Law Journal in 2003. That same year, Ingraham's firm — Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom — was ranked no. 3 by The National Law Journal. So, at best, Miers was a big fish in a smallish pond.

Both Miers and Ingraham have White House experience. Ingraham was a speechwriter for President Reagan in his last two years, helping craft the president's message on many of the vital issues of the day. Interestingly, despite what Bush describes as Miers's "stellar record of accomplishment in the law," he did not name her White House counsel in his first term. Instead, she was appointed staff secretary, a manager of presidential paperwork. While many distinguished people have served as staff secretary, including Brett Kavanaugh, it may say something about Bush's view of Miers's capacities that he first put her in such a detail-oriented staff job, rather than one grappling with major legal and policy issues. Miers only became counsel to the president, the top legal job in the White House, in February 2005. Seven months later, she was nominated for a Supreme Court seat.

Of course, Miers has other government experience. She cleaned up the mess at the Texas Lottery Commission. No doubt a vital public service. But Governor Bush did not urge her to join the state supreme court.
Meanwhile, Ingraham served in policy positions at the U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Education. This seems like a draw.

Miers does not have much a paper trail, or at least one that the public will be able to see. By contrast, Ingraham has written two books, including one bestseller, as well as many bylined articles in national newspapers and magazines.

Finally, Miers was all but unknown to the public until a few days ago, while Ingraham hosts the fourth most-popular radio show in the nation.

Much is made of Miers being the first woman president of fill-in-the-blank. Who cares? It is a Supreme Court appointment, not a pitch for cover story in Ms.. Being the first woman to do anything (however noble an achievement) does not tell us anything meaningful about judicial temperament, knowledge of the law, and so on. She is also very kind to her aged mother and helps out at her Dallas church. So she's a decent person. Good. Decent people elevate public life. But she is not being interviewed to join a condo board, but the Supreme Court. Credentials matter more than plaudits.

Another qualification trumpeted by the White House is that Miers fought to make the American Bar Association neutral on the issue of abortion. It is unclear what this reveals. She lost and did not resign. And she fought on a narrow legal ground: That Texas state law, as well as that of some other states, requires that state bar associations remain politically neutral while the ABA took a pro-choice stand. It was a technical legal argument. Perhaps it was a crafty way to advance a stealthy pro-life position or perhaps it was simply a persnickety perspective of a champion of legal procedure. At this stage, we can't know and she isn't likely to tell us.

We do know that many people who have worked with Miers over the years have described as obsessive of legal procedure. "She has earned a reputation as exacting, detail-oriented and meticulous — to a fault, her critics say," notes T. R. Goldman, writing in the Legal Times in December 2004. Goldman quotes a former White House staffer as saying Miers "can't separate the forest from the trees."

Another former White House official told the Legal Times that Miers was not seen as success in chief of staff's office. "She failed in [Andy] Card's office for two reasons," he said. "First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel to the president, which requires exactly those two talents." And now she may be going to the Supreme Court, which requires those talents in spades.

Another lawyer, James Francis, who was chairman of Bush's 1994 gubernatorial effort, told the Legal Times: "She doesn't make careless mistakes and doesn't tolerate careless mistakes in others."

Another White House talking point was Miers's "very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co., and SunGard Data Systems Inc." On closer inspection, her record in private practice looks like garden-variety corporate law. Sure, she represented Microsoft, but not in its landmark anti-trust case. Instead, she worked on a class-action suit that alleged that one of Microsoft's programs had a bug that caused it to lose data. It was dismissed on procedural grounds. Her work for Walt Disney involved slip-and-fall cases, trademark infringement, and other ordinary disputes.

Miers also represented SunGuard Data Systems. A lawyer who opposed Miers in that case candidly told the Wall Street Journal: "She may be the next Clarence Darrow for all I know, but in the one case that I had with her it was a plain vanilla commercial case that did not require anyone who was on either side to bring any unique talent to bear." That appears to be the case for all of Miers's private litigation experience.

The point is not that Laura Ingraham should have been nominated instead of Harriet Miers, but only that Miers is a perfectly competent but ordinary lawyer and that there are many more accomplished women with resumes better suited for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Left is crying cronyism and, despite the president's protestations, it hard to say that they are wrong. Does the president honestly think the Miers is the most-qualified American woman with a law degree? Even the ever-polite Laura Ingraham might disagree.

Behold the legacy of America's first psycho-onanist president!

Sometimes it seems Matt Drudge is the only reporter worthy of the name in the whole wide world. Get a load of Louis Freeh's (Goober II's FBI chief) new book. (It makes you wonder how the Flower Children let a real lawman into their political circle jerk.)

Thu Oct 06 2005 14:07:50 ET

Louis Freeh Speaks for the First Time About his Terrible Relationship with the President

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh says publicly for the first time that his relationship with President Bill Clinton – the man who appointed him – was a terrible one because Clinton’s scandals made him a constant target of FBI investigations. Freeh discloses this and many other details of his dealings with the Clinton White House in a new bombshell book: 'My FBI : Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror' -- set for release next week.

Freeh has taped an interview with Mike Wallace and CBSNEWS '60 MINUTES' to be broadcast Sunday, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.


In the book, “My FBI,” he writes, “The problem was with Bill Clinton -- the scandals and the rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

The director sought to distance himself from Clinton because of Whitewater, refusing a White House pass that would have enabled him to enter the building without signing in. This irked Clinton. “I wanted all my visits to be official,” says Freeh. “When I sent the pass back with a note, I had no idea it would antagonize the president,” he tells Wallace.

Returning the pass was only the start of the rift. Later, relations got so bad that President Clinton reportedly began referring to Freeh as “that F…ing Freeh.” Says Freeh, “I don’t know how they referred to me and I really didn’t care,” he says. “My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation,” Freeh says.

In another revelation, Freeh says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. After promising to bring to justice those responsible for the bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds, Freeh says Clinton refused to personally ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in custody – the only way the bureau could secure the interviews, according to Freeh. Freeh writes in the book, “Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis’ reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Says Freeh, “That’s a fact that I am reporting.”

Smells like treason to me.

The most unsavory of those investigations was the one concerning Clinton and Lewinsky. The White House intern had kept a semen-stained dress as proof of her relationship and a Clinton blood sample was needed to match the DNA on the dress. “Well, it was like a bad movie and it was ridiculous that…Ken Starr and myself, the director of the FBI, find ourselves in that ridiculous position,” he tells Wallace. “But we did it…very carefully, very confidentially,” recalls Freeh. As he explains the plan in the book, Clinton was at a scheduled dinner and excused himself to go to the bathroom. Instead of the restroom, he entered another room where FBI medical technicians were waiting to take a blood sample.

The only way this could be more perfect? If Goober II had to stick an appendage through a glory hole to get it pricked.

Freeh says he was determined to stay on as FBI director until President Clinton left office so that Clinton could not appoint his successor. “I was concerned about who he would put in there as FBI director because he had expressed antipathy for the FBI, for the director,” he tells Wallace. “[So] I was going to stay there and make sure he couldn’t replace me,” Freeh tells Wallace.

Fyodor cuts through the fog of politics enveloping the Harriet Miers nomination.

Here's the bottom line, kiddies. Bush owes us. He owes us an unambiguously conservative A-list nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a big reason many of us overlooked (and still overlook to this day) his inadequacies and the fact he is his father's (that lying elitist airhead) and mother's (that babykilling elitist hag) son.

Conservatives delivered the leadership of the Free World to him. Twice.

We owe him nothing. Especially not respect. And trust? He's the President of the United States of America, for crying out loud. If that doesn't say "trust" to him, maybe somebody should look up the word for him.


Memo To CuriousCowardlyGeorge FlyingBushMonkey:
Be a man. Stand for something other than getting elected before it is too late.


He owes us. Big time.

Coulter: Vote NO on Miers!

White hot Ann Coulter blisters Bush and mangles Miers. I'm surprised this column wasn't out twenty minutes after the announcement.

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the President meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues–loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...


Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by U.S. News & World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.


I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Irrelevant and wrong.

First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.


To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon–or on John Kerry–while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.

Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.

One Web site defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)


Actually, all the intellectual firepower in the law is coming from conservatives right now –and thanks for noticing! Liberals got stuck trying to explain Roe v. Wade and are still at work 30 years later trying to come up with a good argument.

They don't have to explain it, honey. People like killing kids.

But the main point is: Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre résumé who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367, I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.

Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

Very nicely said.

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them –as it does intellectual lightweights such as Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee– (Ouch! and heeheehee! - F.G.) by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.

However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.

Amen to that, Sister.

Buchanan: Vote NO on Miers!

Brother Pat demolishes the rising tide of nonsense threatening to engulf us.

“Sometimes, party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.

In asking conservatives to support Harriet Miers, prior to full Judiciary Committee hearings, George W. Bush asks too much.

Trust me, Bush is saying. Trust but verify, they should reply.


For as of today there is no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters on which her vote would be decisive to be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.


If she does not exhibit these qualities in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should be rejected. That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, a born-again Republican and Evangelical Christian is not enough. That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough. After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.

A-men! I'll go farther. Her name should be withdrawn immediately and a plainspoken, old fashioned, out of the closet, paper trail possessing, Scalia and Thomas worshipping, and constitution-understanding all-American God fearing CONSERVATIVE (whom EVERYBODY IMMEDIATELY recognizes as such) should be nominated instead.

Because of the immense damage the Supreme Court has done to our society over fifty years, seizing upon and dictating on issues beyond its constitutional province, imposing a social revolution from above, tearing our country apart over race, religion and morality, conservatives cannot take any more risks. We are too close, now, to the promised land.

Let's not forget Congress' unwillingness to curb the high court's purview.

After Nixon named Blackmun, Ford named Stevens, Reagan gave us the malleable O’Connor and Tony Kennedy and Bush’s father gave us that textbook turncoat Souter, presidential assurances are not enough. We must hear from Harriet Miers herself of her judicial philosophy and views of what the court has done and should do.


Why did Bush do it? Is he unaware of the history or savagery of this struggle? Does he not understand the cruciality of this one court appointment to conservatives who vaulted him to the nomination over McCain and gave him the presidency twice? Does he not care?

No, Pat he does not. He is a politician first, a Repansycan second, and a conservative somewhere way down the list. Just like his old man.

Since the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns of the 1960s, a great philosophical struggle over the Supreme Court has been waged. In that 40-years war, jurists like Clement Haynesworth and Robert Bork have been pilloried, smeared and rejected by a liberal Senate that realizes the stakes. Others like Clarence Thomas have survived brutal scourgings. Brilliant young lawyers and aspiring judges like Miguel Estrada have even been denied a vote for the appellate court because of liberal fears they may have the stuff of another Scalia.

Yet now we are told by the White House Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.” But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005.


This is now a qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court? To have been AWOL in the great social and moral conflicts of her time? This is like saying the ideal candidate to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an officer who has never seen combat or suffered a wound.


There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a “paper trail.” Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade?

Is this what the conservatism has come to? By the standard of “no paper trail,” we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or Ronald Reagan, who, with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries, had the longest paper trail in American history.

In claiming Miers is the most qualified person he knows to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush tells us more about himself than her. If she is truly that qualified, why did he hide this extraordinary talent in the paper-shuffling job of White House staff secretary? Why was she not named White House Counsel instead of Gonzales? Why was she not nominated to the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to give her judicial experience? If she is that good, why did Bush pass her over for John Roberts?

Twenty-four hours after he picked his personal lawyer for the Supreme Court, George Bush was in the Rose Garden trying to put out the firestorm he had ignited in his own base camp. How’s that for political brilliance?

His aides are now demanding that Republican Senators and conservatives rally around their president. They should not. They should tell the president, respectfully, that, though he went with Harry Reid, they will stay with their convictions.


It’s stand up time again, as in the days of old.

Oil Companies Give Us FREE Money...

...or, Oil dips below $60 per barrel...

It seems Bush is trying to accelerate our evolutionary decline by weakening our toes.

This comes from Haaretz.com. It starts out as looney pseudo-scientific bilge...

It was a modest newspaper item, almost an anecdote, published in the hot, dog days of late August: According to a study conducted by American paleo-anthropologist Eric Trinkaus, human toes have become thinner and weaker than they once were because of the use of supportive footwear. Or, in other words, homo sapiens (that is, us) and Neanderthals (who, unlike us, did not survive) were fashion victims. In every sense of the word.

If you take a moment to think about this article, it may well be the key to understanding, albeit only partially, the hottest fashion rage of recent years, which developed into a veritable craze during this past summer: flip-flops - those simple, flat sandals with a flexible upper and a thong that separates the big toe from the rest of the crowd. Thong sandals, or what we call beach shoes, are now no longer viewed as a mere fashion whim, but as a means of self-preservation.

And like all rehabilitation processes, the opposition did not go down without a fight:

In July, for example, a mini-scandal broke out on both sides of the Atlantic "Flip-flopgate," it was dubbed in the United States after a large group of young women, members of Northwestern University's lacrosse team, were invited for a meet-and-greet with the president at the White House. The outrage was exposed in all its shame in the official photograph, published on the university's Web site: At least four of the young women standing in the first row next to the president were wearing flip-flops.

The picture shows George Bush, looking as merry as ever, dressed from top to toe (in black shoes) holding two lacrosse sticks. The lovely players are standing tall, with their toes fully exposed for all to see, as if nothing in the world could be more natural. The Chicago Tribune, which discussed the affair at length, explained that the women did not think that there was anything irregular in their behavior and said their thongs were designer flip-flops, since you asked.

Eventually, the real reasons for writing this story appear. Boredom, the need to fill column inches, and sex. The weird swipe at Bush was probably just a reflex action.

In addition, the more accepted the flip-flop becomes, the more a new type of acceptance of what it is supposed to bare - the female foot - can be seen. No longer confined in a leather prison, elevated and adorned (some might say exciting), it finds its natural place in its original contour, exposed and free.

When the exposed foot becomes a common sight everywhere, it becomes accessible. And when it is accessible, those who nevertheless frown at them for their own reasons, find themselves inundated by it on all sides.

On the one hand, the foot represents a constant temptation - to steal a glimpse, to see if this particular human organ complements others parts of the body, if it is "pretty? - while on the other hand, because it is exposed for all to see, without the manipulations or distortions created by high heels and straps, it loses its suggestiveness, its traditional status, and most importantly, its rareness in social situations.

Oh yeah. Throw in an expert to make it sound serious.

Dr. Eyal Dotan, a local researcher of culture, sees no difference between a foot fetish and a shoe fetish, and does not think that a foot that becomes more "accessible" from one year to the next changes the balance of power.

"People can enjoy all kinds of objects without having the complex psychological makeup that involves fetishism, not pathologically in any case," says Dotan. "And, in general, most psychological characteristics are acquired, and acquired relatively quickly. They can be gotten rid of or held in check?

So what do those that take pleasure in bare toes benefit from? "Male enjoyment is by definition fetishism," says Dotan. "Men view women as objects; that's how they get enjoyment and that's fine. Some men become more specific [in their fetishism]. We can just call them 'specialists?

Tal Niv, the author, should have stuck with the evolutionary decline angle and then sold it to The Onion or Washington's other newspaper. You know, like this: "Western Civilization is doomed by footwear." or "Barefoot moslems are our superiors." Maybe take it all the way with lines like this: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy who can hang from trees with his bare toes?"

From The It Depends On Whose Al Is Being Gored Department:


What? Is that insipid braying jackass running again? That would be dangerous.

And now, another installment of a little feature I like to call IN VITRO, NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM.

In vitro, no one can hear you scream is dedicated to all those brave progressives who spend every waking moment trying to slaughter as many babies as possible.

CNSNews.com comes this story that proves the old adage "If you're making the Wisconsin legislature move to the right, you must be one huge bunch of wacked-out psycho mass murderers."

A Wisconsin Senate committee has approved a bill that would prohibit "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life" lawsuits in the state.

Under current Wisconsin law, if a child is born with a disability that a health care provider could or should have informed the parents about while there was still time for an abortion, that person may be liable for the costs of caring for that child.

The bill (SB 71) bans lawsuits brought by parents of disabled children who argue that their unborn babies were not properly evaluated for possible birth defects, thus denying the parents the opportunity to abort the child.

Oh. An opportunity, is it? See the language crumble before your eyes.

Pro-Life Wisconsin said such lawsuits discriminate against those born with disabilities.

"Both 'wrongful birth' and 'wrongful life' lawsuits send the dangerous message that people are 'products' that can be rejected if 'quality control' somehow failed," said Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin.

Such lawsuits also are hypocritical," said Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin's director of legislative affairs. "They contradict public policy and laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act that affirm and protect the lives of our disabled citizens," he said.

"It is hypocritical to encourage or allow the destruction of 'defective' lives before birth, yet to protect them after birth," Sande added.

Pro-abortion groups call SB 71 the "right to lie" bill.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said the bill is unconstitutional because it is intended to "place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman who might choose an abortion."

"This bill allows doctors to withhold crucial medical information from only pregnant women. There are no other areas of medicine that condone such a denial of information," NARAL said on its website.

NARAL also warned that the bill would eliminate legal remedies for malpractice victims; protect negligent and incompetent physicians who fail to provide proper prenatal care; and discriminate against women.

SB 71 cleared the Wisconsin Senate judiciary committee on a 3-2 vote, and the measure now heads to the full Senate for anticipated approval, Pro-Life Wisconsin said.

Headline of the Day: Python Explodes After Eating Alligator.

This one makes Alien vs. Predator look like a cheesy movie.

Yes, you read correctly. From the San Francisco Chronicle comes this gem of a headline: Python Explodes After Eating Alligator

Alligators have clashed with nonnative pythons before in Everglades National Park. But when a 6-foot gator tangled with a 13-foot python recently, the result wasn't pretty.

The snake apparently tried to swallow the gator whole — and then exploded. Scientists stumbled upon the gory remains last week.
The species have battled with increasing frequency — scientists have documented four encounters in the last three years. The encroachment of Burmese pythons into the Everglades could threaten an $8 billion restoration project and endanger smaller species, said Frank Mazzotti, a University of Florida wildlife professor.

The gators have had to share their territory with a python population that has swelled over the past 20 years after owners dropped off pythons they no longer wanted in the Everglades. The Asian snakes have thrived in the wet, hot climate.

"Encounters like that are almost never seen in the wild. ... And we here are, it's happened for the fourth time," Mazzotti said. In the other cases, the alligator won or the battle was an apparent draw.

"They were probably evenly matched in size," Mazzotti said of the latest battle. "If the python got a good grip on the alligator before the alligator got a good grip on him, he could win."

While the gator may have been injured before the battle began — wounds were found on it that apparently were not caused by python bites — Mazzotti believes it was alive when the battle began. And it may have clawed at the python's stomach as the snake tried to digest it, leading to the blow up.

The python was found with the gator's hindquarters protruding from its midsection. Its stomach still surrounded the alligator's head, shoulders, and forelimbs. The remains were discovered and photographed Sept. 26 by helicopter pilot and wildlife researcher Michael Barron.

The incident has alerted biologists to new potential dangers from Burmese pythons in the Everglades.

"Clearly, if they can kill an alligator they can kill other species," Mazzotti said. "There had been some hope that alligators can control Burmese pythons. ... This indicates to me it's going to be an even draw. Sometimes alligators are going to win and sometimes the python will win.

"It means nothing in the Everglades is safe from pythons, a top down predator," Mazzotti said.

Those folks on the Gulf Coast are our neighbors. You know what to do.

First, last, and always, PRAY. Pray for the survivors. Pray for the repose of the souls of those who were killed. Pray for the families and friends. Pray for the relief workers, the cops, the firemen, the troops, and the technicians. Pray for the volunteers.

It is time to step up once again, kiddies. "Do unto others", "I was naked and you clothed me", et cetera.

As time passes, the memory of these disasters will fade for those of us fortunate enough to live outside the devastated areas, but recovery and restoration will take years.Please, whatever you do, don't become a cynic. (I know, I know. But I just play one on the computer.) Of course there will be more horror stories like the abuse of the debit cards and that $250-odd billion federal package will produce insane amounts of corruption, but our fellow Americans will be suffering from Katrina for a long time.

True charity, (News Flash! Taxes ARE NOT charity.) like the money you donate to Catholic Charities will help the truly needy and will not foster dependency.

Catholic Charities USA is collecting financial donations to Catholic Charities agencies’ emergency and long-term recovery efforts in the wake of both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Catholic Charities USA is consistently ranked among the highest and most efficient organizations across the country. Approximately 96 percent of contributions made to the 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund will be used for emergency response and recovery efforts.

Mail Checks To:
Catholic Charities USA
2005 Hurricane Relief Fund
PO Box 25168
Alexandria, VA 22313-9788

Call:(800) 919-9338

Contribute Now Online

09/30/2005 — Many Heroes Make a Difference Helping Hurricane Evacuees in Chicago
09/30/2005 — Diocese of Tyler, Texas, Opens Catholic Charities 09/26/2005 — Catholic Charities USA Provides $2.2 Million in Initial Funding to Assist with Hurricane Relief Efforts
09/22/2005 — Florida Catholic Charities Continue to Offer Disaster Relief to Diocese of Biloxi
More news...

FAQ - Donations
FAQ - Hurricane Relief

Agencies Impacted:
Catholic Charities of Miami
Catholic Charities of New Orleans
Catholic Community Services of Baton Rouge
Catholic Social Services of Houma-Thibodaux
Catholic Social and Community Services of Biloxi, MS
Catholic Charities of Jackson, MS
Catholic Social Services of Mobile, AL

How you can help:
Unfortunately, Catholic Charities USA is unable to accept contributions of food, clothing, blankets and other relief supplies. Monetary donations will be used to provide for the emergency relief and long-term recovery of Katrina's and Rita's victims. Catholic Charities USA is consistently ranked among the highest and most efficient organizations across the country. Approximately 96 percent of contributions made to the 2005 Hurricane Relief Fund will be used for emergency response and recovery efforts.

About the Disaster Response Office
Catholic Charities USA, which has been commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops to represent the Catholic community in times of domestic disaster, responds with emergency and long-term assistance as needed. Its Disaster Response Office connects the Church's social service agencies and disaster planning offices across the nation.

And, as always, give generously to the special collections for hurricance disaster relief in your local parish.

Saint of the Day and daily Mass readings.

Today is the Feast of St. Bruno, founder of the Carthusian Order. Pray for us, all you angels and saints.

Today's reading is
Malachias 3:13-20.
Today's Gospel reading is
Luke 11:5-13.

Everyday links:

The Blessed Virgin Mary
The Rosary
Our Mother of Perpetual Help
Prayers from EWTN
National Coalition of Clergy and Laity (dedicated to action for a genuine Catholic Restoration)
The Catholic Calendar Page for Today

Just in case you are wondering what exactly Catholics believe, here is

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.


Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession,was left unaided.Inspired with this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful; O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy clemency hear and answer me. Amen.

St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse, pray for us.

Prayer to Saint Anthony, Martyr of Desire

Dear St. Anthony, you became a Franciscan with the hope of shedding your blood for Christ. In God's plan for you, your thirst for martyrdom was never to be satisfied. St. Anthony, Martyr of Desire, pray that I may become less afraid to stand up and be counted as a follower of the Lord Jesus. Intercede also for my other intentions. (Name them.)


St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the divine power, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Schumer's fascist goon squad seeks to ruin a black man's reputation.

More from Michelle Malkin's blog. (For the permanent link, click on the date at the top of her post.)

Two harridans who used to be on Little Chuckie's payroll (and until they got caught they were working for Big Democrass itself) illegally obtained the credit information of the Republican candidate for US Senate from Maryland, who just happens to be a black man.

The ironic thing is, black men are the group third most loved by Chuckie's party, behind only black women and dead black babies.

By Michelle Malkin · October 04, 2005 12:08 PM

The New York Times still hasn't published a word about the Democrats' credit report dirty trick involving two of Chuck Schumer's former employees.

Investor's Business Daily editorializes today on Schumer's plumbers and the lack of national media coverage:

One would think a potential felony by staffers for a top Democrat — a case being investigated by the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. as well as the FBI — would at least get a paragraph of coverage somewhere between the grocery coupons and the obituaries.

Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist, had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign? Frist would have been before a media firing squad faster than you can say Bill Bennett.

Indeed. Newsday, to its credit, has been advancing the story. On Sunday, the paper disclosed some interesting facts:

The two women at the center of the FBI probe have been keeping a low profile. Both have resigned from the committee.

[Katie] Barge and [Lauren] Weiner declined to comment through their lawyer, William Lawler III, the ex-president of the Washington, D.C., bar association who represented former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey during his 2004 sex scandal.The DSCC is picking up the tab for Lawler, who charges as much as $400 an hour.

Barge quit a job overseeing a research staff of six at David Brock's liberal watchdog organization Media Matters to take the DSCC job. She is highly regarded in the tight-knit community of Democratic researchers, friends and associates say.

Barge cut her teeth as a researcher on the campaign of failed North Carolina Senate candidate Erskine Bowles and other contests, friends said.

Weiner, a Scarsdale, N.Y., native who graduated from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, raised no red flags working for the Democratic National Committee last year, an associate said.

In April 2000, as an undergraduate at Northwestern University, Weiner published an article about Web access to personal records. In it, she wrote that "the Internet is threatening because it is all-empowering."

Sen. Schumer sure has a funny way of showing his commitment to protecting Americans' privacy.

Reader Dave L. writes:
Schumer questioning Miers on privacy rights will be an event made for the blogs and talk radio!

NY Times "looks into" Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Where's the MSM?
The NYTimes ombudsman is totally worthless
Democrat dumpster diving
A despicable Democrat dirty trick

TrackBack <7>


Scary stuff from the heartland, kiddies. Is your friendly neighborhood moslem-American planning to blow himself up and take you with him?

Michelle Malkin has the best conservative blog going. Check this out:


By Michelle Malkin · October 04, 2005 04:27 PM

***updated...attempted ammonium nitrate purchase?...bomb contained TATP...Hinrichs attended the same mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui?***

Veteran journalist Mark Tapscott raises red flags over the MSM's coverage of the Oklahoma suicide bomber.

Who is Joel Hinrichs?
Keeping an eye on the story...

***730pm EDT update. Hinrichs reportedly tried to buy ammonium nitrate. Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft has details.

The story was broken by KOCO 5 at Channel Oklahoma.com.

Flopping Aces reports: "Apparently the local CBS affiliate in OKC had a report that Hinrichs has been known to visit the local Islamic center around the corner from his apartment..."

Wizbang with details from this morning.

***555 am EDT 10/5 update: Channel Oklahoma reported last night that Hinrichs' bomb contained TATP, the same substance used by shoebomber Richard Reid:
Sources confirmed Tuesday night that at least one of the components in the bomb used by Joel Henry Hinrichs III Saturday night was a product called TATP.
Technically, TATP is triacetone triperoxide. However, it's called the 'Mother of Satan' by Islamist extremists. Experts say it is made by mixing common household items such as drain cleaner and bleach to create a white powder with a strong smell.
It's so volatile that it can explode even if it's merely dropped. It can even explode spontaneously, experts say.
There have been very few reports of TATP being used in the United States; however, there have been more documented cases overseas -- including Richard Reid, who was arrested after he used TATP in his shoe and tried to light it on a flight.

NewsOK.com confirms that Hinrichs tried to buy a "large quantity of ammonium nitrate fertilizer" at a Norman, Ok., feedstore four days before the bombing and reports that Hinrichs attended the same Norman mosque once attended by Zacarias Moussaoui. (Hat tip: G. Hancock and Jason Smith.)

Meanwhile, the FBI tells the Colorado Springs Gazette that Hinrichs had no known ties to extremist or terrorist groups. The national MSM is still AWOL.


Suicide bomber in Oklahoma

TrackBack <30>

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.


Blog Archive