ACLU -- Anti-Christian Lawyers Union

Ever wonder what the founders of the ACLU would think of the abomination the organization has become today? It'd be an interesting research project because I can't believe the organization was founded to advance the far left atheistic pornographic agenda they pursue today.

Today, first and foremost, it's an organization of blantant hypocrites. While I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly (he's kind of a self-absorbed blow hard), but he nails the ACLU's hypocrisy in this edition of his Talking Points Memo.

The ACLU Exposed
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly

The ACLU exposed: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".

Last night, we reported that the Supreme Court of Oregon had ruled 5 to 1 that live sex shows are permitted in that state under the freedom of expression banner. The ACLU and The Oregonian newspaper both filed briefs in favor of that ruling. But why would the ACLU do that? What's in it for them?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states and local communities have the right to limit expression. This is the U.S. Supreme court, in a time, place, and manner, application of standards. That is, you can't have sex on your front lawn, even if it's a personal expression on private property. The Supreme Court realizes the Constitution requires boundaries for what Americans do. If you don't have boundaries, you have chaos. Thus, community standards and public safety trump personal expression.

But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes.

• Item: The ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association, saying that although the organization champions the criminal rape of children, it has a right to do that under free expression.

• Item: The ACLU endorses virtual child pornography and has defended the right of people to obtain real child porn.

• Item: the ACLU opposed the Minutemen protests at the border, obviously, a legitimate form of expression.

So it seems the ACLU cherry picks its cases. The Minutemen certainly have a right to protest the porous border situation, but the ACLU opposes that expression. — Off the chart hypocritical.

So let's apply the no spin concept to this. The ACLU simply wants a different country, a nation where conduct it approves of, public sexual displays, child molestation literature is allowed. But the ACLU wants to inhibit conduct it disagrees with, like protesting the border and celebrating the birth of Jesus. That's what's going on.

Now my next comments are directed at our liberal viewers. How can you support a group as nakedly, pardon the pun, radical as the ACLU? This isn't about freedom. This is about imposing a radical secular progressive agenda on a country that has traditionally voted on public policy issues. If the live sex act initiative was put on the Oregon ballot, it'd be voted down big. Remember, Oregonians voted against gay marriage.

So once again, the ACLU is using an activist court to undermine what the folks want. This isn't democracy. This is judicial fascism.

It's also a joke. The founding fathers didn't write the First Amendment with live sex shows in mind, OK? Everybody understand that? You can easily pervert the Constitution by saying every kind of expression is protected, but again, that would lead to chaos and conflict.

"Talking Points" believes the 400,000 members of the ACLU should wake up and smell the totalitarianism. This organization is bent on undermining freedom, not fighting for it. And everybody should understand that.

And that's "The Memo."

'Nuff said!!

Rush Takes it to the Libs

Last week Howard Fineman wrote a piece saying that the conservative outrage over the Miers nomination was the beginning of a "conservative crack up". Naturally, this was just liberal wishful thinking.

Today, the WSJ has the definitive response from Rush Limbaugh. An excerpt:
The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Execrable Chicago Tribune

Went out for the Sunday paper yesterday to read the coverage of the White Sox (btw, they won the AL pennant last night and are on the way to the World Series!!! :-)

Unfortunately, the place I went to was out of the Chicago SunTimes and I got a copy of the Tribune instead. I guess it would have been ok if I'd just read the Sports section. However, once I was done with the sports, I picked up the first section and started reading the "news".

Oh, how the Tribune has fallen. For anyone who knows any history, the Tribune used to be criticized for its hard line conservative stances. Not anymore! And, boy are they trying to make amends -- it's almost as if they've abandoned any pretense of objectivity or any attempt to maintain a facade of presenting fact-based news reporting. In short, what passes for "news" at the Chicago Tribune is nothing more than liberal agitprop.

Here's what the Tribune's "news" section had to offer yesterday:

• "Antoine's Next Course" -- this was a story about the famous New Orleans restaurant that is trying to recover from Hurricane Katrina. It was a pretty straightforward human interest news story. But, inevitably, it had to insert the required liberal theme of how the "rich" were recovering in New Orleans and how the "poor" restaurant employees were not faring as well. (At least they refrained from blaming Bush for causing the hurricane).
• "Museums Take Up Evolution Challenge" -- To be honest, I couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs of this story. The article is about how natural history museums around the country are addressing the "challenge" of defending "well-established" evolution science against the onslaught from the unscientific ravings of the brainwashed Christian right.
• "Illinois Republicans Souring on President" -- The Trib couldn't resist gleefully reporting on its own poll which appears to reflect a drop in Bush's approval ratings among Illinois Republicans. Yawn.
• "Pregnant and Proud in Trafalgar Square" -- This was a glowing article on some depraved "artist" who put up some semi-pornographic statue of a nude, pregnant, physically disabled woman in London's historic Trafalgar Square. My, my, how bold and daring he must be to mock and defame hundreds of years of British history.
• "10 Years Later, An Inclusive March" -- I have to give the Tribune's agitator, oh, I mean "staff reporter", kudos for his dexterity on this article. It was about the Nation of Islam's "Millions More March" on Saturday. Well, even though the march was more "inclusive" (they opened it up to all the usual liberal interest group suspects -- feminists, Latinos, American Indians, and homosexuals), they didn't quite turn out a crowd in the "millions". In fact, the crowd looks like it wasn't more than a couple of thousand. Whatever. :-) The good news is that those on hand got to hear hours of liberal invective from the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. What I found humorous was, although the organizers had purportedly invited a homosexual activist to give a speech, they somehow forgot to issue him a pass so he couldn't get access to the stage area. Oops, so sorry! Never fear, no slight to the homosexual community will go unchallenged in the queer-friendly Trib. So, there was a sharp criticism of the Nation of Islam on this point buried amongst the glowing praise of the 'blame it all on whitey' liberal guilt trip.

Ugh. I've learned my lesson. I will never again spend one dime on a Tribune. It's not even worth using for lining my bird cage.

Go White Sox!!!!!

Sox are Series bound for 1st time since '59

Posted: October 16, 2005

Associated Press

ANAHEIM, Calif. — Not since Shoeless Joe Jackson have the Chicago White Sox caused this much of a commotion.

World Series, here they come — for the first time since 1959.

A.J. Pierzynski came out on the right side of yet another umpiring ruckus, Jose Contreras pitched a five-hitter for Chicago's fourth straight complete game and the White Sox beat the Los Angeles Angels 6-3 Sunday night to win the AL championship series in five games.

"In the end, our pitching was amazing," Pierzynski said. "I don't know if you'll ever see it again."

The White Sox ran back on the field after the game to pose for pictures on the mound as their fans behind the first-base dugout cheered. They'll get two days off before resuming workouts and will take on either Houston or St. Louis, starting at home Saturday night.

After nearly a half-century of ho-hum baseball, the White Sox will get a chance at their first title since 1917.

And they will get a shot at some long overdue redemption — they lost the most infamous World Series ever, when Shoeless Joe and his "Black Sox" threw games against Cincinnati in 1919 and gave the sport a black eye.

The 46-year gap between Series appearances is the longest in major league history. The Chicago Cubs would end up with an even longer one, if they ever get back — their last NL pennant was in 1945.

"It finally puts us above the Cubs, because they've been getting all the credit," said bench coach Harold Baines, who played more than 13 of his 22 seasons with the White Sox.

Whoa Nellie!

The last time the Windy City's South Side team made it this far, it was all about Nellie Fox and his Go-Go Sox of 1959, who lost to the Los Angeles Dodgers in six games.

"We're in the World Series!" White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf hollered in his suite after the final out.

Reinsdorf once said he would trade all six NBA titles won by his Chicago Bulls for one World Series championship, and his opportunity is coming.

"I still can't believe it," he said, heading to the clubhouse to celebrate with his team. "I'm numb right now. Honest to God, it hasn't sunk in. I think something really good is happening, but I'm not sure what it is."

It's pitching, that's what.

Not since the 1956 New York Yankees beat the Brooklyn Dodgers behind five straight complete games from Whitey Ford, Tom Sturdivant, Don Larsen (his perfect game), Bob Turley and Johnny Kucks had a staff thrown as many as four in a row in a postseason series.

"I think it's great because we proved a lot of people wrong, and I think I like that," said manager Ozzie Guillen, who at 41 wasn't even born when the White Sox last made it to the World Series. "I call it low key. We took a lot of beatings this year during the year about my team, and we just kept playing. Good thing my players don't listen to what I was saying to the media."

Pitching in drizzle on an un-California-like night, Contreras retired his final 15 batters. He followed Mark Buehrle's five-hitter in Game 2, Jon Garland's four-hitter in Game 3 and Freddy Garcia's six-hitter in Game 4.

"You might call it lucky, you might call it great, but we stepped it up," Contreras said through a translator.

It was complete domination — Chicago's bullpen was needed for just seven pitches in the whole series — two outs by Neal Cotts in the opener.

"It seemed like they were competing against each other, trying to one-up each other," general manager Ken Williams said. "You hope to get one (complete game) and give your bullpen a rest, but this is ridiculous."

Chicago held the Angels to a .175 batting average and 11 runs — one more than the fewest in an ALCS of five or more games. Los Angeles had just 27 hits — the fewest in any LCS going five games or longer — and 2004 AL MVP Vladimir Guerrero was 1-for-20 (.050) at the plate.

"I've never seen four horses like that that come out of the gate," Angels manager Mike Scioscia said. "You might have to go back to Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, that group, or the group Baltimore had in, I guess, '66."

Los Angeles was leading 3-2 when Joe Crede hit a leadoff homer in the seventh against loser Kelvim Escobar.

Escobar struck out four in a row, and five overall, before walking Aaron Rowand with two outs in the eighth.

Then, Pierzynski found himself in the middle of another contested call.

In Game 2, he struck out with two outs in the ninth but reached when umpires ruled catcher Josh Paul didn't catch the ball. Crede followed with a winning double that tied the series.

In Game 4, Pierzynski admitted his mitt nicked the bat of Steve Finley, who hit into an inning-ending double play that ended an Angels' rally attempt as umpires failed to make the call.

This time, he hit a comebacker that bounced off Escobar, who instead of throwing to first ran to toward the foul line to make a tag play. He tagged Pierzynski with his glove — but the ball wasn't there, it was in his bare right hand.

"I tried to get the ball in the glove. I didn't have a chance," Escobar said. "Everything seemed to go their way."

Pierzynski initially was called out, but Guillen argued and umpires conferenced and reversed the call, bringing Scioscia out for a dispute.

"They got the call right," Scioscia admitted.

Los Angeles then brought in closer Francisco Rodriguez to face Crede. K-Rod threw a 1-2 breaking ball that the crowd thought was strike three but was called a ball by plate umpire Ed Rapuano.

"I think it was close enough to call the pitch," Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez threw another ball, pushing the count to 3-2, and Crede hit a perfectly placed slow grounder up the middle as many fans in the crowd of 44,712 gasped.

Second baseman Adam Kennedy dived on the shortstop side to stop it and threw home from a half-sitting position, but the throw was off-line and late as Rowand scored the go-ahead run.

ALCS MVP Paul Konerko (2.86, two homers, seven RBIs) added a run-scoring double in the ninth and Rowand boosted the margin with a sacrifice fly.

It was the sixth AL pennant for the White Sox, who have won the Series just twice.

Chicago took the initial lead for the fourth straight game, on Crede's second-inning sacrifice fly off starter Paul Byrd.

Kennedy's RBI single tied the score in the third, but Jermaine Dye made it 2-1 Chicago with an RBI double in the fifth that chased Byrd.

The Angels then brought out that scoreboard Rally Monkey who became famous during their run to the 2002 World Series title — and the monkey business worked.

Chone Figgins, hitting just 1-for-15 in the series, doubled into the right-field corner and Kennedy, who was at first, was allowed to score because a fan reached over the low wall and touched the ball. Garret Anderson's sacrifice fly put Los Angeles ahead 3-2.

After the opener, the Angels held a lead at the end of only two innings.

"They took it to us pretty good," Kennedy said. "Whatever the controversy, they took advantage of it. They took advantage of everything they got."

Conservative Trifecta

Was out running an errand last night and caught Ann Coulter and Brent Bozell together on the Sean Hannity radio program.

Coulter, no surprise, was on her game and devastating. She refused to give an inch, even when Hannity tried to throw the White House some softballs (e.g., "Ann, what if Miers turned out to have a great track record as a justice, wouldn't you then think she was a good pick?" Coulter: "No!")

Bozell, however, made the most compelling point. Referring to Ronald Reagan, he said that Reagan would be willing to take on a fight -- even if he knew he would probably lose -- if he thought the principle was worth fighting for. Bozell said (and I'm paraphrasing big time) that sometimes you make more progress towards your goal by losing a fight because you call attention to the issue and show you are willing to stand and fight for your principles.

Unfortunately, for a lot of conservatives, George Bush looks like he's doing just the opposite -- putting up an unqualified nominee because he's unwilling to fight for a qualfied conservative nominee.

More Noonan on Miers

Peggy Noonan is just about the smartest, thoughtful, insightful columnist writing today. She has another terrific column on the Miers nomination in Opinion Journal today with some sound advice for the White House on how to extricate themselves from the mess they made.

Noonan:
Can this marriage be saved? George W. Bush feels dissed and unappreciated: How could you not back me? Conservatives feel dissed and unappreciated: How could you attack me? Both sides are toe to toe. One senses that the critics will gain, as they've been gaining, and that the White House is on the losing side. If the administration had a compelling rationale for Harriet Miers's nomination, they would have made it. Simply going at their critics was not only destructive, it signaled an emptiness in their arsenal. If they had a case they'd have made it. "You're a sexist snob" isn't a case; it's an insult, one that manages in this case to be both startling and boring.

And again:
An essential White House mistake--really a key and historic one--was in turning on its critics with such idiotic ferocity. "My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old. Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.

As for Ed Gillespie and his famous charge of sexism and elitism, I don't think serious conservatives believe Ed is up nights pondering whiffs and emanations of class tension and gender bias in modern America. It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend.

Read the whole article here.

"I Have Changed My Mind About Harriett Miers ..."

So says John Fund of the WSJ's Political Diary in an article here.

Fund says that Miers is a stealth candidate even among conservatives. About the only person who seems to know her is Pres. Bush. However, my thinking is like that of a number of conservatives in rejecting the "trust me" assurances coming from the White House.

And believe me, I'm about as far from an elitist as you can get. :-)

Peggy Noonan on the Miers Nomination

The always terrific Peggy Noonan nails the mistake that is the Miers nomination in today's Opinion Journal.

Noonan:
"[T]he Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.

The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.

He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight."

Read the whole article here.

Python Explodes After Eating Alligator

Oct 05 3:40 PM US/Eastern

By DENISE KALETTEAssociated Press Writer
MIAMI

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.

Not only can the python kill other reptiles, the snakes will also eat otters, squirrels, endangered woodstorks and sparrows.

While there are thousands of alligators in the Everglades, Joe Wasilewski, a wildlife biologist and crocodile tracker, said its unknown how many pythons there are.

"We need to set traps and do a proper survey," of the snakes, he said. At least 150 have been captured in the last two years.

The problem arises when people buy pets they are not prepared to care for.
"People will buy these tiny little snakes and if you do everything right, they're six-feet tall in one year. They lose their appeal, or the owner becomes afraid of it. There's no zoo or attraction that will take it," so they release the snakes into the Everglades.

A reproducing snake can have as many as 100 hatchlings, which explains why the snake population has soared, Wasilewski said.

The Burmese snake problem is just part of a larger issue of nonnative animal populations in South Florida, he said. So many iguanas have been discarded in the region that they are gobbling tropical flowers and causing problems for botanists, Wasilewski said.

A 10- or 20-foot python is also large enough to pose a risk to an unwary human, especially a small child, he added.

"I don't think this is an imminent threat. This is not a 'Be afraid, be very afraid situation.'"

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

What They Didn't Teach You in High School

RULE 1
Life is not fair - get used to it.

RULE 2
The world doesn't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

RULE 3
You will NOT make 80 thousand dollars a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice president with a laptop, cell phone, and Blackberry until you earn them.

RULE 4
If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss. He doesn't have tenure.

RULE 5
Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping they called it Opportunity.

RULE 6
If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

RULE 7
Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you are. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your room.

RULE 8
Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as many times as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

RULE 9
Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you “find” yourself. Do that on your own time.

RULE 10
Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to work.

RULE 11
Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

Sen. Lott Punts the "Trust Me" Rationale

Showing the good sense to agree with me, Sen. Trent Lott today dismissed Pres. Bush's "trust me" advise on stealth candidate Miers.

In today's WSJ, Lott was quoted: "I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent up," Sen. Lott told MSNBC. "I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know."

Read the entire article here.

I think Bush may get more resistance on this nominee from the right than from the Libs.

Following the MSM Could be Hazardous to Your Health

Apart from local bloggers, Michelle Malkin seems to be about the only one following this story. She has information and links to a local OK City TV station and a newspaper in Colorado Springs. That's it as far as I can tell for media coverage.

Think about it. Sticking with ABC, CBS, CNN, the WaPo, and NYT could be hazardous to your health as they ignore the threats to us because they are afraid of offending Muslim sensibilities.

Here is a brief story from the OK City TV station on how the dead college student recently tried to buy ammonium nitrate -- the same stuff that McViegh used to blow up the OK City federal building.

Hinrichs Tried To Buy Ammonium Nitrate
POSTED: 5:16 pm CDT October 4, 2005
UPDATED: 10:03 am CDT October 5, 2005

NORMAN, Okla. -- The general manager of a Norman feed store said Tuesday that Joel Henry Hinrichs III had inquired about purchasing ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the primary ingredient used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Dustin Ellison, the general manager of Ellison Feed & Seed on Porter Avenue, said that a man matching Hinrichs' description had come into the store days before he blew himself up on OU's campus. Ellison said the man asked about ammonium nitrate, but couldn't offer a reason why he needed it.

According to an AP report, Ellison said that Hinrichs acted strangely and was wearing a vest with what appeared to be wires in it when he asked for ammonium nitrate fertilizer.

After the bombing, Ellison said he thought nothing of it. However, when he saw Hinrichs' photo, it triggered his memory.

To this point, authorities still suggest Hinrichs' only motive for blowing himself up was suicide. The FBI released a statement Tuesday evening saying that "there is no known link between Hinrichs and any terrorist or extremist organization(s) or activities."

The release also indicated that the FBI believes there is "no known current threat posed by any additional explosive materials."

Ellison noted that his store doesn't carry ammonium nitrate any longer after recent legislation required new paperwork for stores to sell the product.

Stay tuned to Eyewitness News 5 for further details.

Are We Being Blind, Stupid, is this some PC Death Wish?

Did you hear about the suicide bomber at the college football game last week? No? Neither did I.

I did read about some kid who killed himself on the campus of the University of Oklahoma. They said he was some smart but lonely freshman and no one knew what drove him to kill himself, etc., etc.

I'm hearing now, however, that this kid didn't shoot himself, or take some pills, or hang himself in his dorm room. He was outside the Univ. of OK football stadium -- which coincidentally was filled with 80,000 people watching a game -- when his backpack filled with explosives went off.

Now, is this the typical way someone commits suicide? Or, perhaps, was this an attempted terrorist attack that was only foiled because the bomb went off prematurely?

9/11 was four years and more than a lifetime ago for some people. Why is the media ignoring this story? Do we have to wait until x thousand more people die -- again -- before we wake up and take the threat of terrorism seriously?

Miers Fallout

Michelle Malkin has some more good round up of the virtually unanimous conservative disappointment (anger, frustration, sense of betrayal) on the Miers nomination.

She has a link to a blog, Froggy Ruminations, that makes some good points:
In my opinion, this is the President’s way of saying that its naptime. He tried to get the Social Security package through and failed, he's taken a beating on Iraq and Katrina, and now he seems to have lost his stomach for a fight. He may have accepted his lame duck status early, and with the Hammer out of the picture, he doesn’t have a good pitch for the count so he’s going to ride the pine for the rest of the game. I hope I’m wrong, but this funk surrounding the White House has been thickening for a few months now, and I am not confident that it will lift.

Here’s the big question. Do the Democrats smell blood in the water and bork her anyway (with the cooperation of Senate conservatives) and put the President on the run? Or do they count their blessings, confirm her, and step up the lame duck rhetoric and use Republican frustration against the White House to stymie further legislative priorities? Because Republicans often eat their own over principled disagreements, Dems can capitalize on this and we lose our tax cuts and get to choke on more Katrina/Entitlement/Welfare spending.

The main defense for Miers seems to be "chill out and trust Bush". A lot of conservatives are rejecting that and I agree with them.

1. First and foremost, we've already been asked to go with CJ Roberts on trust. His limited track record was an issue early on, but those concerns disappeared during the hearings. They haven't gone away -- at least not as far as I'm concerned. Roberts has yet to hand down a single Sup. Ct. opinion and until he has issued several, we're still in "trust me" mode. Check some of Ann Coulter's previous columns for more on this thinking.
2. Damnit, why should we even have to go with a "trust me" nominee at all?? The last time I checked we had a Republican president, a Republican House and a Republican Senate. If that's the case, why don't we have an assertive conservative agenda? Why are we pussy-footing around with a stealth candidate? Nominate a solid conservative and tell the Dems to stuff it if they don't like it. The American people voted for the Republicans. If the Dems want to control the agenda and dictate policy then WIN AN ELECTION!
3. Finally -- and I know I said this before -- Bush should know the Dems are going to put up a fight and trash his nominee, so why not nominate someone worth fighting for!! For crying out loud, does the White House really believe that the Dems are going to give Miers a pass because she has no paper trail? Do they think they aren't going to dredge up, or more likely make up, some objections? To the contrary, like whipped curs, you can expect them to come a runnin' because the liberal agitators will have been using those whips with a fury as they vent their rage on Schumer, Kennedy, et al for letting Roberts "off the hook" so easily.

I read one conservative blogger who said he wouldn't go as far as vote for Dems, but wouldn't support Republicans again. Hear. Hear. I am thoroughly sick of Republicans who run as conservatives and govern as moderates -- or worse. Where is the party of conservatives who will actually govern as conservatives for the conservative voters who can elect them?

Bush Caves

It may turn out that Pres. Bush is shrewd as a fox on his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but I doubt it.

I did a quick scan of the conservative blogs at lunch (Michele Malkin has a thorough round-up) and the consensus is that Bush wasn't up for a fight with the Dems and picked a woman because she's a woman and picked a Texan because he's comfortable with her. :-(

This afternoon, Power Line is positing an even more depressing theory: that Bush was provided a list of "acceptable" candidates by the Dems and picked the best of what I'm sure was a bad lot. According to Power Line:

What did happen within 30 minutes of Bush's announcement was a press release by Harry Reid that included the statement, "I like Harriet Miers." It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Bush's nomination of Miers reflects some kind of deal with the Senate Democrats. Such as, the Dems gave Bush a list of candidates they would deem "acceptable" (pending Judiciary Committee hearings, of course), and Bush chose the best candidate he could off that list.

Is that what happened? I don't know, but the theory seems to fit the facts. Why would Bush accede to the Democrats rather than fight for another Roberts-type conservative? The only reason I can think of is that liberal Republicans in the Senate, starting with Arlen Specter, told him they wouldn't back him up if he replaced Sandra O'Connor with a strong conservative. There are enough RINOs in the Senate to make such a threat credible, I think.

This is pure speculation, but it is one scenario that seems to fit the facts as we know them so far.

What frosts me is that the Dems are going to trash whoever Bush nominates. They have to in order to appease the rabid anti-Bush wing of their party who are livid over the "free pass" given to John Roberts. If you're going to have a fight over your nominee, CHOOSE SOMEONE WORTH FIGHTING FOR!!

Finally, if this isn't despressing enough, keep in mind that John Roberts is not a "for sure" conservative. Remember his slim track record? Remember the concerns loudly exhorted by Ann Coulter that he could be another David Souter?

If Miers turns out to be an appeasement pick and Roberts turns out to be Souter-like, instead of making progress on the Supreme Court, we could actually lose ground. Argh!

SCOTUS Buzzing

is for Karen Williams -- at least that's what they're hearing over at Red State.org blog. Keep in mind though, that rumors and mis-information were rampant before Pres. Bush announced John Roberts nomination. This could easily be more of the same.

There's not much information readily available about Judge Williams. However, I did come across this article from her local paper, the (Orangeburg, SC) Times and Democrat:

Did You Hear? Karen Williams mentioned for open U.S. Supreme Court slot

By NANCY C. WOOTEN, T&D Features Editor

Orangeburg's own federal appellate court judge, Judge Karen Williams of the Richmond, Va.-based 4th Circuit, has been mentioned as a possible replacement to retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by respected news sources.

Justice O'Connor, 75, appointed as the first woman on the court in 1981, said Friday she will retire upon the naming of a successor. President George W. Bush will nominate a replacement and thereby affect the future direction of American law.

Because Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, who suffers from thyroid cancer, had been expected to retire, short lists of possible successors had been prepared earlier in this week. When O'Connor made her announcement, those lists, as well as new ones, made their way onto wire reports, Web news sites and blogs.

Judge Williams was named on the CBS News Midday Report Friday as one of three women on a list prepared after the O'Connor announcement.

Greg Stohr, a reporter for Bloomberg.com, an online news service, reported that the departure of the court's first female justice may put pressure on Bush to nominate a woman to accompany the only remaining female on the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The list of possibilities Stohr provided, in addition to Judge Williams, was Judges Edith Jones and Edith Brown Clement of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Susan Black of the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit and Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington.

Judge Williams also was listed on campaignline.blogspot.com among eight female judges whom President Bush might choose to fill the seat. On the University of Pittsburgh's Law Web site, known as jurist.law.pitt.edu, Judge Williams is listed as a potential Bush nominee in a mini-Guide to future Supreme Court appointments obviously written before the O'Connor announcement.

Williams is the former Karen Johnson of Orangeburg. She married Charles H. Williams, son of the late state Sen. Marshall Williams, and graduated from Columbia College. The Williamses have four children and four grandchildren. After teaching school, she graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Law and practiced in the law firm of Williams and Williams. At the proposal of U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, Williams was nominated to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush, father of the current president. She has remained very active in the Orangeburg community as a member of First Baptist Church and various civic organizations.

Most news sources expect President George W. Bush to nominate a judicial conservative, and the Fourth Circuit is known as the most conservative of the appeals courts. Two other Fourth Circuit judges, both males, had been on the short list prepared when Rehnquist was expected to be the first to retire: Judges J. Michael Luttig and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Now that O'Connor is retiring, the pressure to appoint a woman will be greater. The past six Supreme Court nominees have come from one of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. Judge Williams is the only Circuit Court appointee of the senior President Bush who is under 55.

The World's Shortest Fairy Tale

Once upon a time, a guy asked a girl "Will you marry me?"

The girl said, "No".

And the guy went fishing and hunting, played golf a lot, drank beer, rode his motorcycle whenever he wanted to, and lived happily ever after.

The End.

Belatedly Honoring a Hero

Saw a mention of this on Power Line linked from the Mudville Gazette, which, in turn, led me to a link to this story posted on Free Republic. This is a great story and well worth the time to read it.

After long campaign, Jewish veteran
will finally be honored by U.S. military

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 14 (JTA) — On Sept. 23, as Tibor Rubin enters the White House, generals will stand at rigid attention, President Bush will rise, and then he’ll drape the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for gallantry in combat, around the neck of the 76-year old Holocaust survivor and Korean War veteran.

Rubin and a legion of supporters have waited almost 55 years for this moment of triumph of camaraderie and persistence over bureaucratic lethargy and the prejudice that embittered the lives of so many old-time Jewish GIs.

Oddly, Rubin still does not know precisely which of his wartime feats met the Medal of Honor criterion of “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, in actual combat against an enemy armed force.”

He guesses it might have been the time he secured a retreat route for his company by single-handedly defending a hill for 24 hours against waves of North Korean soldiers.

Or it might have been any of the other actions that earned him four recommendations for the Medal of Honor by his commanding officers or fellow soldiers, two times for the Distinguished Service Cross, and twice for the Silver Star.

Had he received all those awards, he would have become the most decorated American veteran of the Korean War. What he actually got were two Purple Hearts for combat wounds and a 100 percent disability.

Rubin, known as “Tibi” to his Hungarian childhood friends and “Ted” to his army buddies, was born in Paszto, a Hungarian shtetl of 120 Jewish families, one of six children of a shoemaker.

At age 13, Rubin was transported to the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria, where he was liberated two years later by American troops. His parents and two sisters perished in the Holocaust.

He came to the United States in 1948, settled in New York and worked first as a shoemaker and then as a butcher.

“I was a handsome dog in those days, and the ladies who worked with me always brought me lunch,” he reminisced fondly.

In 1949 Rubin tried to enlist in the U.S. Army, both as an assumed shortcut to American citizenship and, he hoped, to attend the army’s butcher school in Chicago. He first flunked the English language test but tried again in 1950 and passed, with some help from two fellow test-takers.

In July of that year, Pfc. Rubin found himself fighting on the frontlines of Korea with I Company, 8th Regiment, First Cavalry Division. There he encountered the terror of the company — First Sgt. Artice Watson.

According to lengthy affidavits submitted by nearly a dozen men — mostly self-described “country boys” from the South and Midwest — Watson was a vicious anti-Semite who consistently “volunteered” Rubin for the most dangerous patrols and missions.

Rubin’s bravery during such missions so impressed two of his commanding officers that they recommended him three times for the Medal of Honor. Both officers were later killed in action, but not before telling Watson to initiate the necessary paper work to secure the medals for Rubin.

Some of the men in Rubin’s company were present when Watson was ordered to put in for the medals, and all are convinced that he deliberately ignored the orders.

“I believe in my heart that First Sgt. Watson would have jeopardized his own safety rather than assist in any way whatsoever in the awarding of the medal to a person of Jewish descent,” wrote Cpl. Harold Speakman in a notarized affidavit.

Toward the end of October 1950, massive Chinese troop concentrations crossed the border into North Korea and attacked the Americans. After most of his regiment had been wiped out, the severely wounded Rubin was captured and spent the next 30 months in a prisoner-of-war camp.

Faced with constant hunger, filth and disease, most of the GIs simply gave up.

“No one wanted to help anyone. Everybody was for himself,” wrote Sgt. Leo Cormier Jr., a fellow prisoner.

All except Rubin: Almost every evening, he would sneak out of the camp to steal food from the Chinese and North Korean supply depots, realizing that he would be shot if caught.

“He shared the food evenly among the GIs,” Cormier wrote. “He also took care of us, nursed us, carried us to the latrine . . . He did many good deeds, which he told us were ‘mitzvahs’ in the Jewish tradition . . . He was a very religious Jew, and helping his fellow men was the most important thing to him.”

Survivors of the camp credited Rubin with keeping 35 to 40 people alive, and recommended him for the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star.

Sgt. Carl McClendon, a soldier saved by Rubin, wrote: “He had more courage, guts and fellowship than I ever knew anyone had. He is the most outstanding man I ever met, with a heart of gold. Tibor Rubin committed everyday bravery that boggles the mind. How he ever came home alive is a mystery to me.”

For some 30 years after his discharge, Rubin lived quietly in a small house in Garden Grove, Calif. with his wife Yvonne, a Dutch Holocaust survivor. The couple reared two children: Frank, an Air Force veteran, and a daughter, Rosalyn.

Rubin finally got his American citizenship in 1953. He tried to resume his old job as a butcher, but crippling afflictions traceable to his war wounds forced him to quit.

It wasn’t until the 1980s that Rubin’s old army buddies started protesting the army’s inaction in recognizing the man who had saved so many of their lives. They were soon joined by others.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced a special bill on Rubin’s behalf in 1988. Former Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) pleaded for recognition of his constituent. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and former Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-N.Y.) kept harassing the Pentagon.

The Jewish War Veterans have championed Rubin’s cause for many years and at one point collected 42,000 signatures on a petition presented to President Reagan. But nothing appeared to penetrate the wall of bureaucratic indifference.

Then, in the mid-1990s, the U.S. military, now a model equal-opportunity employer, was forced to revisit its record of discrimination against minorities during World War II and the Korean War.

Responding to criticism that the military consistently had squelched recommendations for high medal awards to minorities, the army, navy and air force started to review their old files.

In 1996 the Pentagon belatedly awarded Medals of Honor to 21 Japanese-American and other Asian-American veterans, and eight to former African-American servicemen who were institutionally segregated during World War II.

Congress passed a bill in 2001 providing for a review of selected Jewish veterans, known as the “Leonard Kravitz Jewish War Veterans Act.” Kravitz, the uncle and namesake of rock musician Lenny Kravitz, was killed manning his lone machine gun against attacking Chinese troops during the Korean War, allowing the rest of his platoon to retreat in safety.

Kravitz was recommended for a Medal of Honor, but the award was downgraded to a Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest decoration.

A year later, under the terms of the Kravitz bill, a list containing the names and wartime records of 138 Jewish veterans was sent to the Pentagon. All the men listed had received the service cross from one of the military branches. The exception was Rubin, though his file was the thickest of all.

Rubin is the 15th Jewish recipient of the Medal of Honor since it was instituted during the Civil War by an Act of Congress signed by President Lincoln, according to archivist Pamela Elbe of the National Museum of American Jewish Military History.

“It would have been nice if they had given me the medal when I was a young handsome man,” mused Rubin. “It would have opened a lot of doors.”

Nevertheless, ex-Cpl. Rubin is deeply impressed that high brass now address him as “Mister” or “Sir” and that he will have an escort of a major and a master sergeant on his way to Washington.

Furthermore, when he wears his medal, tradition requires that even five-star generals salute him and that the president of the United States stand when Rubin enters a room.

He is bound to get a lot of salutes at the White House, and later that day in a ceremony at the Pentagon hosted by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rubin is allowed to invite 200 guests for the White House ceremony, and among them will be the survivors of his old company and their families. There also will be relatives, but Rubin doubts that his cousins in Israel will be able to make it.

When Rubin was interviewed three years ago, he told this reporter, “I want this recognition for my Jewish brothers and sisters. I want the goyim to know that there were Jews over there, that there was a little greenhorn, a little shmuck from Hungary, who fought for their beloved country.”

Times have changed.

“Now,” Rubin said with a self-deprecating laugh, “It’s Mister Shmuck, the hero.”

Homeowner thwarts break-in with handgun
Two suspects left with gunshot wounds after N. Ky. incident

By Sheila McLaughlin
(Cinicinatti) Enquirer staff writer

Two burglary suspects were hospitalized Saturday after a 79-year-old homeowner said he opened fire on them after they broke into his residence.

The men, whose names were not available, were listed in serious and fair condition at University Hospital in Cincinnati, a nursing supervisor said. They were flown by medical helicopter after the pre-dawn shooting.

Gayle Martin, who lives alone, said he was awakened shortly before 5 a.m. by the sound of his back door being battered. He grabbed his .357-caliber Magnum handgun and went to check out the noise. He said he saw two men and figured they were going to rob him.

"They were in the house. They had just broke in. I didn't let them get any farther," Martin said. He started shooting and the men ran from the house. Martin said he did not recognize either man.

Sheriff's deputies arrived at Martin's house after receiving a 911 call from the residence at 4:55 a.m. They found the suspects, suffering from gunshot wounds, after searching the area.

Grant County Sheriff Randy Middleton called Martin lucky. "He's very lucky. They probably would have killed him."

Middleton also said Martin's marksmanship was impressive. "He's a good shot," he said.

Neighbor Nancy Collins, who has lived on Ellen Kay Drive for 30 years, said break-ins in the somewhat rural neighborhood are uncommon. "I felt safe on this street until now," she said.

She described Martin as a "very nice gentleman," who "stayed off by himself."

Deputies have not filed any charges in the case.

"We probably won't, because they were trying to break into his house," said Middleton.

Six hours after the shooting, Martin said he was feeling lucky that he wasn't hurt.

"I'm still a bit shook up," he said.