How to ruin Halloween for kids

Today's timely Google "How to" of the day is entitled "How to Give Healthy Treats for Halloween." Another title for this article could just as easily be "How to piss off a bunch of children", or "How to guarantee that the neighborhood snot-nosed little bastards will be rolling TP on your house this evening!" Excerpt:

Many parents dread the arrival of Halloween with its tooth-rotting, unhealthy fare. Make a change in your neighborhood with different treats that are healthy, useful or surprising. Challenge kids to expect something a little different this Halloween and they may just have even more fun.

1. Seek out healthier alternatives to candy. There are many ideas to consider:

Different flavors of popcorn - tie in small cellophane bags with ribbon (for parties only)

Individual packages of fruit or applesauce - even pudding is a better alternative than candy. These are usually sold in 4 or six-packs. Just break them up and give an individual pack to each child.

Little packets of organic raisins (sultanas) - but see dentist's concern below

Granola (muesli) bars (but watch their sugar content also)
...
Cheese sticks, wrapped cheese (like Babybel); cheese cubes for parties
...
Instant spiced apple mix or hot chocolate mix
Fruit bars - there are many pure fruit bars available now. The thin ones are especially good value and will slip into many treat bags as a filler
...
Plain dark chocolate is better than candy. Make sure it has no cream filling or high sugar content. Some claim chocolate even helps to prevent tooth decay. It has certainly been proven that the antioxidants in dark chocolate are healthy. Purchase small pieces in little packets or package small pieces in cellophane (for parties only).

2. Invest in small games, kits or novelty items instead. Look in dollar stores, party stores, toy stores etc. Buy in bulk if possible and repackage into little treat bags.
...
5. Give mini-toothbrush sets. Maybe this sounds corny but it is a healthy reminder to kids getting so much candy that brushing their teeth is really important.
...

My, what a nation of pansies we have become! Look, no one is a bigger health fanatic than I am, but for the love of (insert preferred deity here), people: it's freakin' Halloween!

Let the kids get their sugary treats, and let them eat some before going to bed. Contrary to popular belief, the sugar will not keep them up. Instead, they'll get a little sugar buzz, then they'll crash faster than Patrick Kennedy heading to the Congress for his 2:30 a.m. vote.

ABC reporter eschews "balance" in global "warming" reporting

From the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee:

ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore declared “I don’t like the word ‘balance’ much at all” in global warming coverage at a journalism conference in Vermont over the weekend.

Blakemore, who reported on August 30, 2006, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming, (http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2374968) said he rejects ‘balance’ in order to justify excluding any skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming from his reporting. He made his remarks at Friday’s panel discussion at the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Burlington.

Blakemore lamented “the deep professional shame that I discovered two years ago,” regarding how he believes the media had been manipulated by skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming.

“Of course [skeptics] play on the idea that we have to be ‘balanced,’” he noted.

“It was very lazy of us for 10 years when we were asked for balance from the [climate skeptic] spinners. We just gave up and said ‘Okay, okay – I will put the other side on, okay are you happy now?’” he said. “And it saves us from the trouble of having to check out the fact that these other sides were the proverbial flat earth society.”

Blakemore also took on the role of psychologist in explaining that global warming presents an “existential” dilemma and people face what he termed “psychological obstacles” about whether to believe the dire predictions that the planet is facing a climate crisis.

“We are looking at serious mainstream scientists now tell us that maybe - it’s over. It’s hard. It’s the kind of news you have to take in small doses,” Blakemore explained. [EPW note: Many scientists dispute the notion that mankind has created a climate doomsday. See: (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 )]

“Denial is initially natural and healthy; the psychologists tell us it is what we do to hold our meaning system together, so that we can at least function at first when trauma happens and we are all being delivered a major trauma here,” he explained. He added that greenhouse gas theory is akin to “3rd grade science.”

“Does [extreme weather patterns] fit exactly within the predicted pattern that we projected almost 30 or 40 years ago? This is the little logical problem that we journalists can still work on and solve,” Blakemore said. (EPW Note: 30 and 40 years ago, scientists were erroneously predicting a coming ice age. See last week’s Newsweek’s retraction of global cooling reporting 31 years after its initial report: (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=265087 ))

“The problem is we journalists have not stood up on our own feet and said ‘Excuse me, this is going to be my assessment of where the scientific assessment is.’ Because those spinners would say you got to listen to who -- for the scientific assessment and they will point to their favorable [skeptical] organizations.” He also said, “I am a professional journalist; don’t tell me how to do my job.”

Blakemore said skeptics of global warming should be ignored because some of them are being funded by industry. But he has failed to note that scientists he promotes such as James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, are both recipients of huge sums of money from environmental special interest groups.

When Blakemore reported on January 29, 2006, that NASA scientist James Hansen was alleging that the Bush Administration was censoring his scientific work, he failed to inform viewers that Hansen had received a quarter of a million dollars from Teresa Heinz Kerry's foundation, the Heinz Foundation, and subsequently endorsed her husband Democrat John Kerry for President in 2004 http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183 In addition, Michael Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of the group Environmental Defense.

Blakemore also told the journalism conference that global warming was an ever present entity that “affects everything in the weather, everywhere all the time and in every instance.”

Blakemore has also lavished praised on Vice President Al Gore and his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, comparing Gore to Shakespeare and Robert Frost. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/05/al_gore_and_an_.html

I'm just sure this reporter's view never makes its way into ABC reporting, right? Nope...no liberal media bias!

Kerry's Quote of the Day

Un-freakin'-believable! From Jean-François Heinz-Kerry:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Translation: If you do good in school, you can go to Yale like me; if you don't, your dumb #ss is relegated to the armed forces. Is it OK to question their patriotism now? What about their purported "support" for the troops...can we question that now?

What a condescending, arrogant #sshole! No wonder 70% of the military voted against him in 2004! I guess the soldiers, who are able to detect bullsh#t when they see it, weren't "stupid" enough to vote for his blueblood #ss, were they? Do I even need to mention that (a) HE was in the military (a point he reminds us all of ad nauseum), (b) many servicemen (and women) use the G.I. bill to pay for their college at the conclusion of their military service, or (c) there are college-educated personnel in the service right now in enlisted and/or combat capacity? No, instead Kerry lets his inherent contempt for the military slip through. For my veteran visitors here, remember that: Kerry thinks you're stupid.

Congrats, Senator Ketchup, on being a first class sonofabitch. I hope your party is stupid enough to give you their nomination again in 2008.

Update: Michael J. Fox is a Democrat tool

I asked in a prior post if Michael J. Fox was serving as a tool for Democrats during this campaign season. I think it's clear now that he is. From ABC via Stop the ACLU:

Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.
Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.

I thought I should put this up since it will probably be mostly ignored by the Lame Stream Media. Although, I’m sure Rush Limbaugh will not be ignoring it. It is interesting how he used his star power to push for something he admits now to not have full understanding of. He goes on to say he's against cloning, so is he still for the Missouri legislation?

I noted how Fox was campaigning against Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) and gave the distinct impression that Talent was against stem cell research, which is untrue. I noted how Fox was campaigning for Rep. Ben Cardin (D-MD) for supporting stem cell research, despite Cardin's vote against funding it. Therefore, if you need further proof, how about "I'm campaigning for passage of an initiative that I haven't even read yet"?

Don't tell me this isn't political for MJF, because it clearly is.

Lynn Cheney bitchslaps Wolf Blitzed

From Drudge:

LYNN CHENEY IN CNN SITDOWN, SLAPDOWN: DO YOU WANT AMERICA TO WIN?
Fri Oct 27 2006 18:29:49 ET

Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, took on CNN Friday evening during an interview with anchorman Wolf Blitzer.

Transcript:

CHENEY: You made a point last night of a man who had a bookstore in London where radical islamists gathered. Who was in Afghanistan when the Taliban were there. Who went to Pakistan. You know, I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.

WOLF: You are receiving to the CNN "Broken Government" special. This is the one John King reported on last night.

CHENEY: Right there, Wolf. 'Broken Government.' What kind of stance is that? Here we are. We are a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We've been through 9/11, we've been through Katrina. The president and the vice president inherited a recession. We are in a country where the economy is healthy. That's not broken. This government has acted very well. We have tax cuts responsible for the healthy economy. We are a country that was attacked five years ago. We haven't been attacked since. What this government has done is effective. That's not broken government. So, you know, I shouldn't let media bias surprise me, but I worked at CNN once. I watched a program last night.

WOLF: You worked on CROSSFIRE.

CHENEY: ...And i was troubled.

WOLF: All right. Well that was probably the purpose, to get people to think. To get people to discuss these issues. Because --

CHENEY: Well, all right. Wolf, I'm here to talk about my book. But if you want to talk about distortion --

WOLF: We'll talk about your book.

CHENEY: Right, but what is CNN doing? Running terrorist tape of terrorists shooting Americans. I mean, I thought [Rep.] Duncan Hunter asked you a very good question, and you didn't answer it. Do you want us to win?

WOLF: The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There's no doubt about that.

CHENEY: Then why are you running terrorist propaganda?

WOLF: Well all do respect, this is not terrorist propaganda.

CHENEY: Oh, wolf.

WOLF: This is reporting the news. Which is what we do, we are not partisan.

CHENEY: Where did you get the film?

WOLF: We got the film, look, this is an issue that has been widely discussed. This is an issue we reported on extensively. We make no apologies for showing that. That was a very carefully-considered decision why we did that. And I think, I think --

CHENEY: Well I think it's shocking.

WOLF: If you are a serious journalist, you want to report the news. Sometimes the news is good, sometimes the news isn't so good.

CHENEY: But wolf, there's a difference between news and terrorist propaganda.


Cheney also took on Virginia senate challenger Jim Webb.

JIM WEBB: There's nothing that's been in in of my novels that in my view, hasn't been either illuminating surroundings are defining a character or moving a plot. I'm a serious writer. I mean, we can go and read Lynne Cheney's lesbian love scenes if you want to get graphic on stuff.

CHENEY: Jim Webb is full of baloney. I have never written anything sexually explicit. His novels are full of, um, sexual explicit reference to sex. Sexually explicit references to, well, I don't want my grandchildren to turn on the television set. This morning Imus was reading from the novels. And it's triple X-rated.

Get this woman on TV more often! For her to have challenged Blitzed on his employer's decision to air jihadist snipers' snuff films that show them kill American soldiers...well, that kind of challenge is long overdue!

Pardon me for accusing Blitzed of being a damned liar when he said (a) that he and his CNN brethren want America to win the war, and (b) that CNN is not partisan. If CNN isn't partisan, then Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry shops at Wal-Mart!

Harold Ford, Jr., utters Bushism, plus a "Quote of the Day"

From Powerline:

Harold Ford speaks:

My friend Lincoln Davis who chairs our campaign says there are, there’s one big difference between us and misfortunate Republicans when it comes to our faith: he said that Republicans fear the Lord; he said Democrats fear AND love the Lord.

Does the precept that pride goes before a fall still obtain? I guess we'll find out. (Thanks to Instapundit.)

JOHN adds: Glenn says that Ford has been making a lot of "unforced errors" lately. That's true, but isn't it time to draw the conclusion that Ford is a lightweight who is trying to skate by on his family name? Sort of like a Patrick Kennedy without the rehab. Corker should win this one going away.

"Sort of like a Patrick Kennedy without the rehab"? Holy shizit, that's hilarious!

Powerline observes that by using the word "misfortunate" (and for those of you on the left, the word is actually "unfortunate" or "misguided", not a combination thereof): "If he were a Republican, he'd be stupid." Indeed. However, since he's a Dem, he probably just "misspoke." Funny how that works.

Danny Rolling's execution

I was going to write about this last night, before I got distracted by Jim Webb's kiddie p0rn. My reflections on the execution of 1990 Gainesville serial killer Danny Rolling:

I had just begun my classes at Florida State University in Tallahassee. The first week of classes, at that. It was my first foray into living away from home, fresh out of high school and excited (yet nervous) about what was ahead of me.

As I watched the news those evenings, I was horrified by what was happening to these coeds in Gainesville. The "Seminoles vs. Gators" rivalries were completely wiped out of our collective minds in Tallahassee, as we were mortified by the carnage that was gripping the Gainesville community in fear.

I remember seeing that the Tallahassee law enforcement community was worried about a potential copycat situation happening in Tally. This fear was exacerbated by the execution of former Tallahassee serial killer Ted Bundy about a year and a half before the Gainesville murders, therefore the reminder of what Bundy had wrought on the Tallahassee community (and the FSU campus, in particular) was still semi-lingering. I'm sure my parents had been more than sufficiently worried during the time.

I remember thinking, "My God, the anguish that the parents of these kids must be experiencing!" It's every parent's worst nightmare to lose a child. It's also every college student's parent's greatest sense of anxiety when their child goes off to college to face the great unknown for the first time in their lives. Combine these two fears, and the sadness that must have choked these poor families had to have been overwhelming at the time...and perhaps even still today.

The beast who commited these acts of barbarism was a piece of human debris named Danny Rolling. By the time he was caught, four years later, he had savagely killed five people: Sonja Larson, 18; Christina Powell, 17; Christa Hoyt, 18; Tracy Paules and Manny Taboada, both 23. He confessed to the crimes and was sentenced to die, and after sixteen years of delays and appeals, Rolling was lethally injected two days ago. In various interviews since then, the victims' families feel that they have justice and closure, even if their pain never completely goes away.

This isn't a political post, just my own personal reflections of the time that the Gainesville murders happened. If you folks want to comment on any aspect of this, even the death penalty, feel free (though this wasn't intended to be a forum for the death penalty, I won't be offended if you guys want to weigh in on it). May God keep the families and friends of these five young people strong.

BREAKING NEWS: I got your "macaca" right here!

Disturbing news about Jen's guy in Virginia, via Drudge:

ALLEN'S REVENGE: EXPOSES UNDERAGE SEX SCENES IN OPPONENT'S NOVELS
Thu Oct 26 2006 20:05:37 ET

Sen. George Allen, R-VA, unleashed a press release late Thursday that exposed his rival's fiction writing, which includes graphic underage sex scenes.

Whoa! I wonder what the folks on the left who've been piling on Foley for getting off on underage sexual innuendo have to say about this development? Probably something like "Well, it's different...and Foley is worse, because (insert partisan illogical excuse here)!" More:

The press release, as provided by the Allen Campaign:

WEBB’S WEIRD WORLD

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land:

– Lost Soldiers: “A shirtless man walked toward them along a mud pathway. His muscles were young and hard, but his face was devastated with wrinkles. His eyes were so red that they appeared to be burned by fire. A naked boy ran happily toward him from a little plot of dirt. The man grabbed his young son in his arms, turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.”

Ø Bantam Books, NY, 1st Edition, 2001, (hard cover), page 333.

Ø Quote is from para. 10,.Chap. 34.

– Something to Die For: "Fogarty . . . watch[ed] a naked young stripper do the splits over a banana. She stood back up, her face smiling proudly and her round breasts glistening from a spotlight in the dim bar, and left the banana on the bar, cut in four equal sections by the muscles of her vagina."

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 36.

Ø Avon Books, New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 35

Ø Quote is from para. 29, Chap. 2 “The South China Sea,”, Section 2

– A Country Such as This: "[He] could see Jawbone and Ashley Asthmatic [two guards at a Vietnamese prison camp] napping together in the grass. They faced inward, their arms entwined. It looked like they were masturbating each other. It didn't surprise him. … It was common to see men holding hands, embracing, playing with each other. Some of them [the guards] had wanted him. He could tell in those evanescent moments between his bao cao bow, the obligatory deference when a guard entered his cell, and the first word or blow that followed it… Quick, grinding voices, turgid with repressed passion. An exploratory reaching of the hand near his groin…”

Ø Doubleday & Co., Garden City, NY, 1983 (hardcover); page 396.

Ø Bluejacket Books, 2001 (Trade paperback edition), page 396

Ø Page numbers are the same in the Naval Institute Press (paperback) edition, 1983.

Ø Quote is from fifth para, Part 5 “A Country Such As This,” Chap. 24, Section 1

– A Sense of Honor: “Nurse Goodbody, dark and voluptuous (Lenahan had forgotten her actual name, it was something long and Italian), was a bedtime friend to many of the doctors in Bethesda. She had hinted to Lenahan that she simply could not contain herself. Doctors tending to patients, she explained, aroused her. Morphine Mary (again Lenahan could not remember her exact name) was a thin, nervous drill sergeant type, a disciplinarian who did not allow her patients even to complain. Lenahan was convinced that Morphine Mary did not even sleep with her husband. She wasn’t bad looking, he mused again, staring at her thin frame. If she’d just get laid every now and then she’d mellow out and stop being such a damn witch.” (p. 164) (Lenahan brings Goodbody home with him and has sex, pp. 188-190)

Ø Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Ø Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 164

Ø Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 164

Ø Quote is from fourth para in Part 3, “Chapter 4:1600”

– Something to Die For: "[Fogarty] has been thinking of the firm, springy skin and the sweet smells of a young Filipina woman named Maria in whose bed he had spent three nights almost twenty years ago. . . . She was a deliciously bad young woman. . . . On the second night, he had brought her a box of Godiva chocolates . . . . he had awakened to find her in the bathroom, sitting on the toilet with her knees underneath her chin, eating chocolates and counting her rosary beads as she prayed."

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 32.

Ø Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 30

Ø Quote is from third para in Chapter 2 “South China Sea,”, Part 2

– Something to Die For: "We're on our way to becoming the world's recreational center, a nation [USA] not to be taken seriously. Where are we still the undisputed leader? Music. Movies. Fast food. Drugs. . . . the billboards fifty years from now as you come over the bridge and stop at the tollbooths outside Manhattan: A smiling beautiful naked woman, and the sign saying AMERICAN ASS IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT PRODUCT."

Ø William Morrow and Company, Inc., NY 1991, 1st Ed. (hardcover), p. 199.

Ø Avon Books New York, 1992 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 237

Ø Quote is from para. 38, Chap. 13, Part 1, (five paras before Part 2).

– Fields of Fire: Snake (the protagonist) sees his mother on the bed: "She looked as if she were carefully attempting to re-create a picture from some long-forgotten men's magazine . . . . She was naked underneath the robe . . . . and the robe fell loosely away, revealing her. Snake shrugged resignedly."

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), p. 8

Bantam Books "mass market [paperback] edition" published in Sept. 2001. p. 9.

Quote is from paragraphs 18-23, Part 1 “The Best We Have”, Section 1

(NOTE: Part 1 is after the Prologue)

– Fields of Fire: "He saw the invitation with every bouncing breast and curved hip. . . . He was thirteen. . . . She was fifteen . . . . In a few moments she drew him to her and he murmured in his quiet voice, 'I am still small.' 'You are large enough,' she answered. And he found he was."

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978 (Hardcover, 1st edition), pp. 211-212

Bantam Books "mass market [paperback] ed." published in Sept. 2001, pp. 280-81.

Quote is from paragraphs 8-20, Part 2 “The End of the Pipeline,” Chapter 24

– A Sense of Honor: “… that is, if you knew who your sister was, Brustein, and if she’d been born with anything between her legs except an asshole, I’d be happy to bring some class to your low-rent name by knocking the bitch up.” (p. 223)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 223

Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 223

Quote is from 17th para in Part 4, “Chapter 7:1930”

– A Sense of Honor: “You wouldn’t have believed it, Swede. She just dropped her britches and lifted up her skirt and pissed like a man. Didn’t lose a drop, either. Not a drop.” (p. 183)

Prentice-Hall, New York, 1981 (hardcover)

Bantam, New York, 1982 (Mass-Market paperback edition), p. 183

Trade paperback edition, Bluejacket Books, 1995, p. 183

Quote is from 23rd para in Part 3, “Chapter 8: 2300”

Three questions come to mind:

1. Did no one read the damned book before now?

2. Any predictions as to what the left will say in a spirited defense?

3. "Macaca"...macaca who?

Virginia was sooooooooooo close, too! Oh, well, there's still other states to work on.

Didn't get the memo

"Sen. Frist to GOP: De-Emphasize Iraq"

In other news, Bush held a press conference about Iraq.

D'oh!

"The difference between D's and R's"

A great column by Michelle Malkin is here, and it sums up things better than I could. In light of a recent comment thread here where competing views outlined what Dems offer vs. what Republicans offer, I think this post is timely. Excerpts:

A few weeks ago, while blogging on the road (always a somewhat risky thing to do), I glibly mentioned the possibility of sitting at home for the midterms over heated disagreement with the Bush administration on immigration. Many grass-roots conservatives have grievances with how the White House has handled a number of issues, from Harriet Miers to spending to Iraq.

But we should not sit out the election. And grievances with the White House are no reason to give Nancy Pelosi the gavel. Congressional Republicans shouldn't be blamed for Miers, the amnesty plan, etc.

My column today dovetails with the President's comments at his press conference this morning about the fundamental difference between D's and R's. Video highlights here. Let me repeat what he said:

"I think the coming election a referendum on these two things: Which party has got the plan that will enable our economy to continue to grow? And which party has a plan to protect the American people? And Iraq is part of the security of the U.S. If and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more secure. If we don't succeed, the country is less secure...I understand some people in Washington don't think we are at war. They are just wrong, in my opinion. The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe have from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have WMD in order to attack us. These are lethal, cold-blooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people, including questioning detainees and listening to their phone calls from outside the country to inside the country...and as you know, there were some recent votes on that issue. And the Democrats voted against giving our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people.

...I do not question their patriotism. I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this world is...

...
As one of those post-9/11 security moms, it all comes down to a simple question for me: Who will keep this country — and my children — safer from harm?

I have many heated differences with the Bush administration over its refusal to fully enforce immigration laws; soft-headed pandering to jihadist lobbying groups; profligate spending on illusory transportation security; failure to confront the spread of sharia law; and kowtowing to Saudi princes eager to send over more young students to learn aviation in our universities.

For all the White House's faults, however, there is no doubt in my mind that Republicans as a group are better informed, better equipped and better able to lead this country in a time of war than the Democrats. The donkey party is led by thumb-sucking demagogues in prominent positions who equate Bush with Hitler and Jim Crow, call him a liar in front of high school students and the world, fantasize about impeachment and fetishize the human rights of terrorists who want to kill me.

Put simply: There are no grown-ups in the Democrat Party.

Maybe this is what a prematurely giddy Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meant when she told the Los Angeles Times this week: "The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

Yep. Put the gavel in the hands of Pelosi and the Democrats, and you will put the gavel in the hands of children. Couldn't put it better myself.

Out of the mouths of babies, huh? I would say "Out of the mouths of babes", but no one is going to accuse Pelosi of being a "babe" any time soon. Malkin, on the other hand...but I digress.

Another clarifying moment that underscores the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on matters of national security, seriousness and secrecy took place on June 29, 2006.

That was the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the decision by several newspapers — led by the newspaper of wreckage, The New York Times — to publish details of the Bush administration's classified program to track terrorist financing. Known as SWIFT, the program had led to the capture of a key Bali bombing suspect and identification of a convicted al Qaeda helper based in New York City, as well as helping investigators probing domestic terrorist cells and suspected Islamic charities fronting for jihad. Under specious claims by anonymous accusers that the program's legality and oversight were in doubt, the Times splashed details of the program all over its front pages. Democrats dutifully piled on to condemn the White House for its "illegal" "abuses of power."

But House Republicans refused to roll over for the blabbermouth media and the blabbermouth Democrats. They put Washington on record with a vote on a nonbinding resolution stating the obvious — that news organizations may have "placed the lives of Americans in danger" by disclosing SWIFT and that Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations" in keeping classified programs secret.

The resolution passed 227-183, with only 17 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in condemning the leak-dependent news media and supporting the surveillance program.

Since then, even the NYT admits it shouldn't have run with the story. The Dems still think that violating federal law by releasing and publishing classified information was a good idea, its impact on the war on terror be damned!

Malkin is right in that with all of the warts that the GOP has (and God knows there are plenty), the choices are clear. The Democrats will attempt to wreck the economy through their time-and-again discredited socialist policies, and they will attempt to wreck the war on terror through their ignorance of the true nature of our enemy. The Dems will not keep us safer, and I pray that America comes to recognize this irrefutable fact come Election Day. If not, may God have mercy on this country, because Allah's bloodthirsty followers will not.

Immigration officials to GA police chief: "Piss off, redneck"

From the AJC:

They're the faces of law enforcement in a country that doesn't always enforce immigration laws.

But Roswell Police Chief Edwin Williams has found an unlikely ally to help him feel true to his duty: the fax machine.

At least once a day his jailers fax the names of inmates suspected of being in the country illegally to immigration agents in Atlanta. It's a practice Williams started a decade — and roughly 10,000 names — ago, long before illegal immigration grew into a front-burner issue.

Today, Roswell stands alone in the area covered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) regional office in Atlanta. No other jurisdiction in the Carolinas or Georgia sends such a list, said Kenneth Smith, the office's special agent-in-charge.

The north Fulton city of 100,000 has faxed the booking sheets of 1,396 detainees to ICE in the past nine months alone, according to police department records. Immigration agents have picked up three of them, Williams said, or one out of every 465.

Once, an immigration official called to say the police department was wasting its time with the daily faxes, Williams said. So the jailers quit. When the chief found out, he went ballistic. "I said 'You will continue,' " Williams recalled. "I don't care if they just throw it away. It's my fax paper."

The daily faxes are Williams' way of navigating the widening gap between local expectations and national realities on immigration. A broken federal system may be to blame for the estimated 12 million people living in the United States illegally, but all levels of law enforcement — from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Main Street, USA — are feeling the heat.

We all know the feds are not even remotely serious about stopping illegal immigration. The Chamber of Commerce likes the cheap labor and greases enough palms in DC to stymie efforts at reducing illegal immigration. But for the feds to tell the cops to stop "wasting their time"? That's pretty damned galling!

Hysteria over NJ "gay marriage" court ruling

My conservative friends may disagree in whole or in part on this issue, but what's a little disagreement among friends? From the AP:

The gay marriage issue in New Jersey is moving from a legal dispute to a political one.

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that New Jersey must extend all the rights of marriage to gay couples. But the justices left it to state lawmakers to decide whether to provide those rights in the form of marriages, civil unions or something else — and gave the Legislature 180 days to reach a decision.

The NJ Supreme Court is a liberal activist court most of the time. After all, recall that in 2002, they legislated from the bench in declaring that the NJ legislature's law stating the deadline that ballot changes could be made was to be ignored...and the court implemented its own deadline, contrary to (and circumventing of) state law. However, in this case, the NJ SC decided to defer to the legislature. Why now, I don't know. But it is what it is, and the fact is that the NJ legislature should indeed be the one addressing the issue.

However, let the hysteria begin:

Several Democratic lawmakers said they will push for full marriage rights.

But some Republicans, the minority party in both houses of the Legislature, said they will seek a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris, vowed to have the justices impeached.

"Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.

A state constitutional amendment is certainly a viable option to circumvent a court's ruling. But on what grounds would Merkt have the justices impeached? Seems reactionary and poorly thought out to me.

WARNING: Juvenile humor advisory! In three...two...one...OK, you've been warned:

National gay rights advocates embraced the ruling. Lara Schwartz, legal director of Human Rights Campaign, said if legislators have to choose between civil unions and marriage, it is a no-lose situation for gay couples.

"They get to decide whether it's chocolate or double-chocolate chip," she said.

Or perhaps "fudge or double-packed fudge"? I know, I know, that's horrible...hey, you were warned!

I've made my thoughts on gay marriage clear before, so allow me to sum it up for those who have arrived since then: I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions. Marriage is a bond of holy matrimony, while civil unions have nothing to do with religion and allow two consenting adults to have the same benefits (health insurance, etc.) that married couples have. Maybe it's just semantics, but that's my take.

Plus, let's get real: gay marriage will never be the law of the land, especially since some states have already amended their constitutions to prohibit it. Just as a total ban on abortion will never occur, nor will universal gay marriage...whether anyone likes it or not.

Is Michael J. Fox a Democrat tool?

I'm not trying to be an #sshole here, especially since it's usually obvious when I am trying to be one. But I'd like to know if Fox is being shamelessly exploited by Democrats here. For those who haven't followed the story, here's a brief recap, courtesy of the Washington comPost:

Limbaugh mocks Michael J. Fox political ad
Conservative talk show host accuses actor of faking Parkinson's disease

Wow...Rush said or implied that Fox doesn't really have Parkinson's disease? What a b#stard! Except for one thing...he did no such thing. Digging a little deeper, we see what he really said:

Possibly worse than making fun of someone's disability is saying that it's imaginary. That is not to mock someone's body, but to challenge a person's guts, integrity, sanity.

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

There's a HUGE difference between saying someone doesn't have a disease, and saying that they have it but they're exaggerating the effects of it. To be fair, it looks like Rush may have been speaking out of ignorance here:

"Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease," said Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist in Baltimore who co-wrote "Parkinson's Disease and the Family." "Any other interpretation is misinformed."
...
Limbaugh's shock at Fox's appearance is a measure of the disease's devastation, advocates say. Contrary to the charge that Fox might not take his medicine to enhance his symptoms, the medicine produces some of the uncontrolled body movements.

In other words, according to doctors and not talk radio hosts, his medicine may have had a lot to do with the movements. If it's all the same to you folks, I'll believe the doctors before I believe Limbaugh. Rush did apologize, as the article reveals.

So is Fox, then, being shamelessly exploited? I would say "Abso-freaking-lutely", and here's why: the MSM keeps referring to opponents as "opponents of stem cell research" instead of "opponents of additional federal funding of embryonic stem cell research."

Need further proof? How about the fact that Fox is endorsing Dem Congressman Ben Cardin in his Senate race in MD against Republican Michael Steele...despite the fact that Cardin voted against federal funding for stem cell research? He also ran ads against Jim Talent in MO, despite the fact that Talent supports stem cell research! So much for sincerity and principle!

The problem is that the left has been successful at framing opponents of using federal taxpayer dollars to fund additional embryonic stem cell research as being against the research itself. Another problem is that the GOP has been anemic at responding to the blatant misrepresentation of the left's position. Here's a similar analogy, one that even you lefties can follow:

Let's say that Candidate Demi Crat says that she thinks all children should own bicycles, and that Candidate Rip Ublican agrees. Let's say that while Rip thinks all kids should own a bike bought by their parents or guardians, Demi thinks that the federal government should buy these bikes...again, for ALL kids in America. Rip says that it's not the proper role for the federal government to fund purchasing the bikes, and that parents should buy the bikes themselves or go through private or non-profit organizations (or even their state governments) to get the bikes. Rip notes that a federal program (perhaps a pilot program) is already in existence that allows 100 bikes to be purchased and given to poor families, but he doesn't see a need to expand the program.

Demi immediately calls a press conference to denounce Rip as a man who wants to prevent American children from owning bicycles and, on top of being a Grnich and a Scrooge, is thereby contributing to the childhood obesity problem in America! Rip has said no such thing, and has merely insisted that there are other avenues (more constitutional ones) to take in order to provide "universal children bikeage" in America. No matter...Demi and her leftist ilk have gotten the word out via their friends in the MSM that Rip wants fat, bikeless children.

Sounds absurd? It is...yet it is happening today in America, with Fox and his leftist enablers disingenuously (some, including me, would say "knowingly dishonestly") arguing Demi's position.

The Beeb is biased...just ask them!

For anyone who labors under the perception that the BBC is unbiased, labor no more...they're not. Just ask them.

BBC executives have been forced to admit what critics have known for years - that the corporation is institutionally biased.

The revelation came after details of an 'impartiality' summit called by its chairman, Michael Grade, were leaked.

Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities. (Affirmative action on steroids, perhaps? - Ed.)

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran.
...
Even one of the BBC's most senior journalists, political pundit Andrew Marr admitted that the corporation was unrepresentative of British society.

He said: "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly-funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people.

"It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias."

BBC 'diversity tsar' Mary Fitzpatrick claimed women newsreaders should be allowed to wear what they liked on air and went on to say this should include a Muslim veil.

She spoke out after criticism was raised of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce wearing a necklace with a cross on it.
...
The BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused his own employers of being anti-American saying they treated it with scorn and derision and "no moral weight".

He revealed that he had got deputy director general Mark Byford to secretly help him to "correct" it in his reports.

Business presenter Jeff Randall said he complained to a senior executive at the BBC about the corporation's pro-multiculturalism stance.

He claimed he was told: "The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism, it believes in it and it promotes it."

He told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work and was rebuked with: "You can't do that, that's like the National Front!"

One senior BBC executive admitted that the summit had opened people's eyes to how biased the BBC had become.

He admitted: "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

"Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom.

If only such a candid analysis could occur within the American MSM! Hey, a guy can dream, right?

To those of us whose heads aren't buried in liberal sand, the contents of this report come as no shock to us (granted, we never really expected it to be admitted, though). Those of you who worked tirelessly to continue believing that the Beeb was unbiased and "called it like they see it", I am happy to relieve you of your burden.

MA moonbat Congressman fraudulent in his "veteran" claim

Thanks to Skul for alerting me to this. From Cape Cod Today:

South Shore radio station WATD (95.9 on the dial) has apparently nailed our incumbent US Congressman William Delahunt in a fraudulent claim as a veteran.

This is important because in Massachusetts the election laws allow the designation as "veteran" to appear after a name on the ballot.

Delahunt's apparent fraudulent claim has already been used in the primary elections and the November 7th ballots are already printed.

Christine James, News Editor of WATD News said, "if this was a southern state this would be the end of Delahunt's career."

But it's not a Southern state. The People's Republic of Taxachusetts is a state that allows drunken murderers (Ted Kennedrunk) and child molesters (Gerry Studds) to serve with impunity in the legislature. After all, their women and children are acceptable collateral damage if their state is to be protected from "evil" Republicans. So why would Delahunt, a barking moonbat buddy of and apologist for Hugo Chavez, be any different? Continuing:

Two candidates running for office in the tenth congressional district claim to be veterans; but according to the paperwork, it looks like only one, can in fact, claim to be a veteran. And it's not the incumbent, Congressman Bill Delahunt, but his Republican challenger Jeff Beatty.

Scituate resident Rich Hagert is the State Representative of the Veteran's Party of America. He says from reviewing both candidates dd-214's (military discharge papers) Delahunt's claim that he's a veteran 'appears to be fraudulent' because most of his 180 days in the service were for training which does not count under Massachusetts General Law. Massachusetts General Law says a veteran had to have served 180 days of active duty to be called a veteran - it does not include time training as a reservist in the armed forces of the United States.

Jeff Beatty served in the Army, with nearly ten years of active duty-- including time as a Delta Force Officer.

Jeff Beatty has served his country well, but it matters not in batsh#t crazy Kennedrunk-Studds country.

Need a reason to vote Libertarian?

How about a pair of reasons? From FNC (thanks, Kira):

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Loretta Nall, the Libertarian Party's write-in candidate for governor of Alabama, is campaigning on her cleavage and hoping that voters will eventually focus on her platform.

"It started out as a joke, but it blew up into something huge," said Nall, a 32-year-old with dyed blond hair.

Her campaign is offering T-shirts and marijuana stash boxes adorned with a photo of her with a plunging neckline and the words: "More of these boobs." Below that are pictures of other candidates for governor — including Republican incumbent Bob Riley and Democratic Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley — and the words: "And less of these boobs."

Forget the other reasons to vote Libertarian: bucking the two major parties (the Demicans and Republocrats), sending a message to the power brokers, etc. Just vote for the Libertarian with big hooters! Oh, yeah...her web site is here.

"Democrats Suffer Bouts of Optimism, Prozac Sales Plunge"

Awesome piece of satire from Scrappleface:

October 23, 2006
Democrats Suffer Bouts of Optimism, Prozac Sales Plunge
by Scott Ott

(2006-10-23) — With polls showing Republicans could lose control of Congress after the November elections, Capitol Hill physicians have been swamped with Democrats reporting symptoms of optimism, a condition almost unknown among their people.

Eli Lilly, the maker of the anti-depressant drug Prozac, annouced today that sales in the Washington D.C. region have plunged in the weeks since former Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, stepped down in the wake of scandal involving lurid emails to Congressional pages. And each time CNN announces a new body count plateau for American troops in Iraq, the company said, Prozac sales in the D.C. area dip again. ('Twould be funny if it weren't so true! - Ed.)

“Our core customer base in this area is rapidly vanishing,” said an unnamed Lilly spokesman.

“However, longterm prospects for Prozac look bright,” he added, “since optimism is an acute condition among Democrats, not chronic.”

“They’re only optimistic about winning and about power,” he said. “Even if they sweep in November, their view of America’s future will lead them right back to the pharmacist, but this time they’ll have long coat-tails, bringing much of America with them.” (God help us! - Ed.)

“For the anti-depressant industry,” he added, “a Democrat-controlled Congress means happy days are here again.”

Kudos to Scott for nailing the doom-and-despair party on this one.

The Democrat leadership getting their campaign theme out

"Yet Another Democrat-Skewed Poll"

From Newsbusters:

It seems the closer we get to Election Day, the more polls we’re going to be subjected to that over-sample Democrats. The latest entrant comes from Newsweek (hat tip to Stop The ACLU). In this one, 24 percent more Democrats were surveyed than Republicans.

Frankly, I have no interest in sharing any of the results from this survey, for if a polling agency can’t create a sample that accurately reflects the electorate, why should anybody care about the data it produces?

Maybe more importantly, why would a news organization pay for such results? After all, there are now 300 million people in America. It shouldn’t be hard to find equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats to answer questions, especially when the total sample is only 1,000.

In this instance, as reported by Reuters: 282 Republicans were questioned versus 349 Democrats and 330 Independents. As such, assuming it was important for the sample to accurately reflect the electorate, telemarketers could have smiled and dialed for another hour or two to make sure that was the case. In fact, a media outlet concerned with the integrity of the data it is disseminating would demand and pay for nothing less.

Of course, as these are the same media that subscribe to the junk science involved in advancing global warmingism, we shouldn’t be at all surprised by their love for junk math when it comes to polls that assist them in advancing their agenda.

I apologize for beating a dead horse, but every time a major MSM outlet releases a poll that is oversampled with Democrats, I will not keep quiet about it, even if it borders on redundancy.

Nope...no liberal media bias!

Lobster theft

This isn't a political post, but interesting nonetheless. From Aggieland:

28-year-old homeless man remained jailed Sunday after Red Lobster employees said he walked into the College Station eatery a day earlier and pulled a live 3-pound lobster out of its tank.

When police caught up to the man later, he said he had left the crustacean with the restaurant's competitor, College Station Seafood, according to court documents. A short time later, the animal was recovered from the restaurant, police reported.

The man was detained by police in the bathroom of a Texas Avenue office building after a Red Lobster employee followed him there and reported his whereabouts to police, documents state.

He left the stolen Red Lobster lobster at College Station Seafood? How did this transpire?

College Station Seafood: Hey, Homeless Dude! Come here. We've got a proposition for you. How'd you like to earn $50 right now?

Homeless Dude: Sounds great! What do I need to do?

College Station Seafood: Red Lobster's been kicking our #sses for years. We want to know what they're serving over there that gets so many people to bypass us and go to them. Go into Red Lobster and bring back a trade secret that might help us.

(Hours later...)

Homeless Dude (panting): Here...it...is! Where's...my...money?

College Station Seafood: Here ya go...nice job! (Reflecting on lobster) Wow! Red Lobster is selling...lobster! Who knew? Those evil genius b#stards! Why didn't we think of that? Oh, well, at least we know their trade secret now! Mwahahahahahahahaha!

Handle Muslims like France does?

A recent visitor suggested at Texas Rainmaker that America should deal with Islamic fascists the way that France does. I'd rather not, thanks. From LGF:

Last year when the Islamic riots were raging in France, a seemingly endless parade of apologists told us over and over that the violence was due to economic oppression and alienation, and had nothing to do with radical Islam. Those who labeled it a “French Intifada” were mocked and derided as “Islamophobes.”

What will the apologists say this year when the riots repeat, as even French police have stopped denying the nature of the enemy? A horrifying statistic shows how bad it’s gotten: Why 112 cars are burning every day.

FLAMES lick around a burning car on a tiny telephone screen. Omar, 17, a veteran of France’s suburban riots, replayed the sequence with pride. “It was great. We did lots of them and then we went out and torched more the next day.”

Omar, whose parents immigrated from Mali, was savouring memories of the revolt that erupted 12 months ago from his home, the Chêne Pointu estate in Clichy-sous-Bois, in the eastern outskirts of Paris. “We’re ready for it again. In fact it hasn’t stopped,” he added.

Before next week’s anniversary of the Clichy riots, the violence and despair on the estates are again to the fore. Despite a promised renaissance, little has changed, and the lid could blow at any moment.

The figures are stark. An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism.

“The thing that has changed over the past month is that they now want to kill us,” said Bruno Beschizza, the leader of Synergie, a union to which 40 per cent of officers belong. Action Police, a hardline union, said: “We are in a civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.”

Pardon me if I don't want to model this country after Eurabia when it comes to handling the jihadists, m'kay?

Barron: GOP will win

Someone's been hittin' the "optimism" pipe a bit hard. Sorry to start Monday off pessimistically, but I can't help but feeling that Barron's is placing too much emphasis on "He who has the most money wins"!

JUBILANT DEMOCRATS SHOULD RECONSIDER their order for confetti and noisemakers. The Democrats, as widely reported, are expecting GOP-weary voters to flock to the polls in two weeks and hand them control of the House for the first time in 12 years -- and perhaps the Senate, as well. Even some Republicans privately confess that they are anticipating the election-day equivalent of Little Big Horn. Pardon our hubris, but we just don't see it.

Our analysis -- based on a race-by-race examination of campaign-finance data -- suggests that the GOP will hang on to both chambers, at least nominally. We expect the Republican majority in the House to fall by eight seats, to 224 of the chamber's 435. At the very worst, our analysis suggests, the party's loss could be as large as 14 seats, leaving a one-seat majority. But that is still a far cry from the 20-seat loss some are predicting. In the Senate, with 100 seats, we see the GOP winding up with 52, down three

We studied every single race -- all 435 House seats and 33 in the Senate -- and based our predictions about the outcome in almost every race on which candidate had the largest campaign war chest, a sign of superior grass-roots support. We ignore the polls. Thus, our conclusions about individual races often differ from the conventional wisdom. ...
...
Is our method reliable? It certainly has been in the past. Using it in the 2002 and 2004 congressional races, we bucked conventional wisdom and correctly predicted GOP gains both years. Look at House races back to 1972 and you'll find the candidate with the most money has won about 93% of the time. And that's closer to 98% in more recent years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Polls can be far less reliable. Remember, they all but declared John Kerry president on Election Day 2004.

Our method isn't quite as accurate in Senate races: The cash advantage has spelled victory about 89% of the time since 1996. The reason appears to be that with more money spent on Senate races, you need a multi-million-dollar advantage to really dominate in advertising, and that's hard to come by.

But even 89% accuracy is high compared with other gauges. Tracking each candidate's funding is "exceptionally valuable because it tells you who has support," says William Morgan, executive director of the renowned Mid-West Political Science Association in Bloomington, Ind. The cognoscenti, he says, give the most money to the candidate they believe has a good chance of winning.

Bookmark this post and check back after Election Day to see if these guys were right or full of crap.

Kennedrunk and the Soviets in bed together in 1983?

Oftentimes, those of us in normal America accuse the left of being a bunch of commie sympathizer pinkos. Usually, it's inflammatory rhetoric aimed at getting a rise out of people who don't need much to set them off. However, little did we know just how right we were. From Ace:

The enemy of my country is my friend:

Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts."

Jawa, only somewhat hyperbolically, wants to know the statute of limitations on treason.

JunkYardBlog cautions going out to far on a limb regarding a report from the "exuberant" CNS news service. (Good point, especially if it came from CBS News and the source was hailed as "unimpeachable" by Dan Rather! - Ed.)

Still: We need some answers.

Fortunately, we have a mainstream media that's anxious to get to the truth of important public controversies, no matter which political party that truth might harm.

So, like, we've got that covered.

Here's guessing that that the last two paragraphs were examples of Ace's sarcasm.

That evil b#stard Karl Rove must be behind this! For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was an example of my sarcasm.

Is it OK to question their patriotism now?

Fired Dem staffer worked for...Jane Harman! Plus, Jane's bigger headache.

The loudest cries of outrage for a firedDem staffer leaking classified intel to the media was from Jane Harman (D-CA). Now we see why...it was her guy!

That, however, is the least of Jane's problems. From Riehl World View:

Did a Democratic member of Congress improperly enlist the support of a major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart of an ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman of California and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated the law in a scheme to get Harman reappointed as the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out of the U.S. government.

The sources tell TIME that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which has simmered out of sight since about the middle of last year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf. Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any investigation of — or allegation of improper conduct by — her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Harman has no knowledge of any investigation. "Congresswoman Harman has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She is not aware of any such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true... . No one from the Justice Department has contacted her." It is not, however, a given that Harman would know that she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Harman hired him this morning because she takes seriously the possibility of a media report about an investigation of her, even though she does not believe it herself.

"Culture of corruption", stones and glass houses, pots and kettles, etc.

Webb gets jihadis' endorsement

Wow...he must be proud. From North Virginiastan:

Muslims in Virginia are poised to play a sizable role in next month’s election, with nearly 60,000 registered Muslim voters in the state, according to a local political organization.

Mukit Hossain, president of the Virginia Muslim Political Action Committee, said his group is working to mobilize voters to get out and vote Democratic. In a Senate race as tight as the one between Democrat Jim Webb and incumbent Republican George Allen, 60,000 voters can be the difference between a win and a loss.

Population estimates show Virginia’s Muslim population at about 300,000. Most reside in Northern Virginia.

“I think we can make sizeable impacts,” Hossain said. “I think we made a difference in the gubernatorial race” between Tim Kaine and Jerry Kilgore. The group supported Kaine, the winner of the race by just more than 113,000 votes.

Hossain said the group does not have a political affiliation and attempts to be nonpartisan. He said the PAC is endorsing Webb and the Democratic House candidates in Northern Virginia based on their views on civil liberties, human rights, immigration, foreign policy, health care and education.

Muslims...lecturing us about human rights? Subjugating women, decapitating infidels, howling when we nab terrorists...and they want to lecture us about human rights?

Yeah, yeah, "they don't ALL do it", right? Of course they don't. However, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community are quieter than Hillary during intercourse when it comes to pointing out the rogue elements within their religion, and I seem to recall hearing someone about five years ago say that "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." The name escapes me.

It is indeed telling that Muslims are mobilizing for the party that they know will wage a "more sensitive" war. Ask France and the UK how that coddling of jihadis is working out for them.

"Pelosi no shoo-in for job as speaker"

From the Washington Times:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's prospects for becoming the nation's first female House speaker depend not only on a Democratic victory in November but also on her ability to prevent any Democrats from voting against her -- primarily centrists opposed to her liberal stances.

At least one Democratic House candidate has pledged not to support Mrs. Pelosi, and others in conservative districts have refused to commit their support -- potentially leaving Mrs. Pelosi shy of the 218 votes required for the chamber's top post.

Democrat Charlie Stuart, who hopes to unseat Republican Rep. Ric Keller in Florida, already has said he opposes Mrs. Pelosi and would prefer Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, the more conservative No. 2 Democrat in the House whose strained relations with Mrs. Pelosi have been well-chronicled on Capitol Hill.

"He's a centrist," Stuart spokeswoman Sultana Ali said of the Florida Democrat. "His values really are more in line with Steny Hoyer than Nancy Pelosi."

Really? So Stuart also values bigotry against black Republicans? That's too bad.

Look, let's not kid ourselves here. "Moderate" Dem House candidates fear that their opponents will (rightfully) assert that a vote for Dem X is a vote for Speaker Pelosi, so they're trying to either (a) publicly refuse to support her, or (b) publicly refuse to "commit"...which means they'd end up committing. When it comes to organization of both chambers of Congress, party loyalty is strictly enforced.

In the unlikely event that the above scenario occurs, what would happen?

Such protest votes are a sign of dissension within a party. But in the upcoming Congress -- where Democrats could hold the majority by just one or two seats -- any members who vote for someone other than Mrs. Pelosi or simply decide not to vote could trigger parliamentary mayhem.

If Mrs. Pelosi were to fail to win, the speakership would go to the highest vote-getter, most likely Mr. Hastert. Democrats would later win it back by settling on a leader after an intraparty showdown that could pit Mrs. Pelosi against Mr. Hoyer.

How weird, albeit temporary, would it be for a Dem-controlled House to have Speaker Hastert? At any rate, it's all speculation and makes for entertaining conversation, just like my prior post about Senate predictions. Gives us political junkies time to kill before Nov. 7.

Senate prognosticating

With a little under three weeks until the midterm election, I thought I'd have a little fun and gaze into my crystal ball to see what's going to happen in the Senate races. Feel free to venture your own guesses, as it could make for an interesting thread.

Disclaimer: In a drunken stupor, Ted Kennedy grabbed my crystal ball and, mistaking it for a bowling ball, managed to stumble through seven frames of bowling before I found him and seized it back from him...all while he mumbled something about me and a convertible on a bridge. At any rate, as a result, my crystal ball may be slightly cracked and hazy, so if my predictions don't materialize, it's Kennedrunk's fault.

Predicted outcome: 50-50, with Cheney's vote keeping it in GOP hands.

Defeated incumbent GOP
Conrad Burns, MT. His opponent, Jon Tester, may be a Kos kook (he's met extensively with the Kos kiddies), but Burns is an old fart who was deeply tied to Jack Abramoff. Plus, Burns has been like Gore and Daschle in that he forgot his roots after being in DC too long. Tester has run a great campaign and has been ahead in the polls for quite some time, though the latest Rasmussen poll has Tester ahead by 3%, within the margin of error. Still, I see this as a loss.

Rick Santorum, PA. Face it, friends, PA is just not a GOP state. His opponent, Bob Casey (gravytraining off of his old man's popularity as former governor) has looked like an idiot and a lightweight in the debates. No matter. Casey's been ahead by double-digits for quite some time.

Lincoln Chafee, RI. I almost put this in the "Defeated Dem" column until I remembered that Chafee is a Republican. You'd never know by his voting record. Anyway, R.I. is a deep blue state, and a RINO Senate candidate would keep the Senate in GOP hands. R.I. isn't going to allow that to happen, and with polls showing Chafee trailing by nearly 10%, R.I. will finally have a Dem to go with a seat that was already liberal to begin with.

Mike DeWine, OH. DeWine's "Gang of 14" stunt didn't win him any fans in OH, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. The Ohio GOP has been horribly bumbling and incompetent, and their embattled governor Bob Taft has approval ratings in the single digits! GOP Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is running for governor, and he's getting creamed. Basically, the whole state has soured on the OH GOP, and as a result, DeWine has been trailing certified moonbat Sherrod Brown. Polls show a range from 6% - 14% lead for Brown, whose demonstrably crazy leftist voting record would normally scare off Ohioans. However, they appear to be so ready for a change in OH that they'll hold their noses and vote for Brown.

Jim Talent, MO. This one is currently a toss-up, and a recent Zogby poll (which you people know I take with a truckload of salt) shows Talent has overcome a deficit and pulled into a slight lead within the margin of error. His opponent, state auditor Claire McCaskill, has been a real ditz in the debates, and she even said that "Clinton was a great prez...but I wouldn't want him around my daughter." (I thought Kerry was MA, not MO?) Talent eked out a 20,000-vote victory over Jean Carnahan in 2002 (which was a special election, thus his need to face the voters four years later), and he's not been all that popular (nor unpopular) since then. If conservatives in MO stay home, Talent will be there with them come January. This is a gut pick for me, but I think Talent loses in a squeaker.

Defeated challenger GOP
Michael Steele, MD. See my prior post, including the comments section, of everything that Steele (a black Republican) has had to endure. Don't forget that Chuck the Schmuck Schumer had his staffers illegally check Steele's credit report, too. At any rate, though one recent poll has Steele and his Dem opponent Cardin tied, MD is a hopelessly blue state, and this Senate seat being vacated by the business-killing Paul Sarbanes will remain in the business-killing column.

Tom Kean, Jr., NJ. His father, the popular former governor and chairman of the 9/11 Commission, should be proud of him for having run a respectable race for a Republican in NJ. Truth be told, many Jersey folks who aren't political junkies think that Tom Sr. is the one running, which helps Jr. here. Incumbent Bob Menendez has not been popular, especially due to his association with unpopular former NJ Senator and current governor Jon Corzine, as well as an ethical cloud hanging over his head. Kean has had an uphill battle trying to win in a heavily blue state, and yet he's made it a dogfight for Menendez. Zogby may have Kean in a 3% lead, but everyone else has Menendez in a slight lead. Unless an "October surprise" investigation happens to Menendez, I don't think that NJ can bring themselves to vote Republican.

Defeated incumbent Dems
Sorry to say, but I don't see any. Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL were all vulnerable...provided that the GOP could find formidable competition for them. They didn't, and as a result, all three will cruise to re-election.

Defeated challenger Dems
Harold Ford, Jr., TN. This is for Frist's seat, since he's leaving the Senate (presumably for a White House run, God help us). Ford has run a great campaign, masking his pro-tax record by pretending to be a conservative. With the assistance of national donors and the MSM, he's made cherry-red TN into a real horse race. His opponent, the Frist-picked Bob Corker, hasn't run a great campaign and has less charisma than Ford. Recent polls have shown Corker coming from behind into a lead, though with the exception of Zogby (Corker by 7%), the lead has been within the margin of error. Ford can still definitely win this, but my cracked crystal ball says that Tennesseans will wake up and realize that Ford just brings the Senate one step closer to "Majority Leader Harry 'Land Deal' Reid", and they won't allow it.

Jim Webb, VA. Incumbent George Allen has done everything possible to give this election away: some of it by his own hand (the now famous/infamous "macaca" incident, being more DC than VA, etc.), much of it exacerbated by a willing MSM ("George! George! Are you a bigoted Jew?"). Allen has cared more about presidential ambitions than senatorial ones, and his opponent has been able to exploit that resentment among Virginians. VA is more a "pink" state than a red one, having elected supposedly "moderate" Democrats as their last two governors. Be that as it may, Webb will not win this seat. Webb has never had the lead in any poll, though he's been within the margin of error since the "macaca" flap. Like Ford, Webb can win this...but he won't.

So there you have it. Again, with nearly three weeks to go, much can change. Three weeks is a political eternity. However, in order for the Dems to take the Senate, they need six seats currently held by Republicans. Four of them appear to be theirs for the taking (Burns, Chafee, Santorum, DeWine), but they need two of three toss-ups (TN, MO, VA) plus hold serve in NJ & MD in order to do it.

What do you guys think?

NY Times sandbagging for "voting irregularities" excuse

The financially failing NY Times, apparently fresh out of security-compromising stories to publish, has decided to issue excuses beforehand should the Dems not win control of the House and/or Senate. Lacking originality as always, the NYT has settled on the left's main boogeyman: "voting irregularities"! From the Treason Times:

As dozens of states are enforcing new voter registration laws and switching to paperless electronic voting systems, officials across the country are bracing for an Election Day with long lines and heightened confusion, followed by an increase in the number of contested results.

In Maryland, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, a shortage of technicians has vendors for new machines soliciting applications for technical support workers on job Web sites like Monster.com. Ms. Oakley, who is also facing a shortage, raided the computer science department at the University of California, Davis, hiring 60 graduate students as troubleshooters.

Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania are among the states considered most likely to experience difficulties, according to voting experts who have been tracking the technology and other election changes.

“We’ve got new laws, new technology, heightened partisanship and a growing involvement of lawyers in the voting process,” said Tova Wang, who studies elections for the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. “We also have the greatest potential for problems in more places next month than in any voting season before.”

Election officials in many of the states are struggling with delays in the delivery of machines before the election as old-fashioned lever and punch-card machines are phased out. A chronic shortage of poll workers, many of them retirees uncomfortable with new technology, has worsened matters.
...
Meanwhile, votes in about half of the 45 most competitive Congressional races, including contests in Florida, Georgia and Indiana, will be cast on electronic machines that provide no independent means of verification.

“In a close race, a machine error in one precinct could leave the results in doubt and the losing candidates won’t be able to get a recount,” said Warren Stewart, policy director for VoteTrustUSA, an advocacy group that has criticized electronic voting.

There's more, if you care to read it, but I think you get the point: if the Dems lose, it's because of vote fraud, Bush's buddies at Diebold, or (insert paranoid leftist fantasy here) that's the reason. However, I wonder if the Dems win if they'll finally shut up about "voting irregularities"? Somehow, I doubt those curmudgeons will ever run out of material about which to stop kvetching.

More union stupidity

Neal Boortz was driving into work in Atlanta and observed the following situation:

A union worker was picketing Cox Newspapers for whatever the labor dispute du jour happened to be. How did said worker pass the time?

By reading the Atlanta Journal-Constitution...a Cox newspaper! I'm telling you, you just can't make this stuff up!

The NorKoms wanted nuke technology for energy, huh?

Here is a recent satellite photo of North Korea and South Korea at night:

Notice how South Korea is bright, rife with electricity and lights? Now, observe how North Korea is as dark as the Kos kooks' hearts?

But wait a second! I thought that Bubba's nuclear exchange program with the NorKoms was supposed to give them the technology to power themselves? Weren't we told, nay promised, that the NorKoms were going to use the technology NOT for building nuke weapons, but for energy production? Yet we see where the NorKoms are dark, yet their nuclear bombs burn bright.

Next time you get a Clinton/Carter/Albright apologist who insists that the 1994 agreement with North Korea was a smashing success, remember this picture before informing said apologist of his/her/its "bovine feces", m'kay?

Foley's replacement candidate loses court battle

From al-Reuters:

The candidate replacing Florida's disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley on the ballot in next month's election has been barred from posting signs at polling places clarifying that votes for Foley will actually go to him, authorities said on Wednesday.
...
Rules prohibited taking Foley's name off the ballot so close to the November 7 election. So the Republicans' replacement candidate, Joe Negron, had asked election supervisors to post signs at the polls telling voters that ballots cast for Foley would elect him instead.

But Florida Circuit Court Judge Janet Ferris ruled against posting the signs outside the nearly 300 precincts in the eight-county congressional district once represented by Foley.

"The problem with posting or delivering such notices at polling places, which would speak only to the District 16 Congressional race, is that the legislature did not authorize them," Ferris wrote in an order granting the Florida Democratic Party's request for an injunction blocking the signs.

Democratic party officials had said the notices would amount to a last-minute campaign boost for Negron, a state representative who jumped into the race with less than five weeks to go amid the mushrooming scandal that now threatens Republican control of Congress.

The judge is correct in her ruling. There are elections laws on the books that forbid campaign signs at the polls. If the legislature wanted to pass a law for situations like this, whereby a candidate was on the ballot despite his/her not running, then the legislature is free to do so. It is not up to a judge to legislate this from the bench.

After all, those of us on the right despise leftist judicial activists, correct? Well, we should be just as opposed to a right-wing activist court trying to undermine the legislature. I do not know what Judge Ferris' political leanings are, and as far as this case goes, I don't care...she got the ruling 100% correct.

Zogby's bias, AAR's failures

Now that (Dead) Air America has gone belly-up, the libs are trying it again in a different package. Hey, give them their due for not giving up! Sure, this one may be destined for the radio dial trash heap, too, but they disagree...and they're bringing in faces old and new. From Radio Equalizer:

Less than two weeks after their last- ditch proposal to purchase Air America Radio and avert a bankruptcy was rejected by its management, Sheldon and Anita Drobny have instead decided to launch a rival, Franken- free liberal talk network.

Insert The Truth (With Jokes) here.

Backing them is Dr Mike Newcomb, a Phoenix- area talk host who has been named CEO of their company, Nova M Radio LLC.

Sheldon Drobny, the eccentric Democrat Party fundraiser, Huffington Post blogger and investor with known LaRouchian sympathies, even has his first talk hosts hired and ready to go: Deaniac frat- boy Joe Trippi, as well as pollster John Zogby. From Air America, they're bringing over former evening host Mike Malloy.

John Zogby, the pollster guy? Yes, that John Zogby. The same John Zogby that just so happens to have had Democrats winning the 2002 and 2004 elections, including a comfy 311 electoral vote total for Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam). Current Zogby polls have Dems performing better than they are in other polls. In light of Zogby's recent track record, as well as his new affiliation with leftist radio, I think it's safe to say that it'd be a good idea to have a little "healthy skepticism" about the Zogger's poll results.

By the way, the Radio Equalizer has a great post on how the MSM is running interference for (Dead) Air America, insisting that its failures had nothing to do with sh#tty programming and even sh#ttier talent (is that an oxymoron..."sh#tty talent"?). Nor were the failures due to a stunning ignorance of capitalism and the radio industry, particularly advertising. No, the failures of AAR were due to...I swear, I'm not making this up...weak tower signals, so not enough listeners could hear AAR!

That must be it! If only the signals were stronger, more people could tune in! I don't suppose the owners of AAR thought to do any research on the kW of the towers they were getting, did they?

Bigotry is apparently only a one-way street

If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. From Maryland:

Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele rapped a high-ranking Democratic official on Tuesday for his comment that he ‘‘slavishly follows the Republican Party.”

‘‘At some point, I expect Ben Cardin to tell his team to sit down and shut up,” Steele said.

Steele, a Republican, is in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate with Cardin, a Democratic congressman.

‘‘He’ll read anything he can into anything someone says so he doesn’t have to talk about the issues,” Cardin said, after being told of his remarks.

The ‘‘slavishly” comment came in an MSNBC report that was posted Tuesday on its Web site. The report includes this passage:

‘‘Cardin, a dry and detailed-oriented career legislator, was upstaged at his Upper Marlboro event Sunday by the irrepressible Rep. Steny Hoyer, who did a comedy routine about the event’s host, Cool Wave Water, and told the audience that Steele had had ‘a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.’”

Hoyer "did a comedy routine" and referred to Steele with the "s-word". Yeah, that Hoyer is a riot. He'll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen...remember to tip your waitress! By the way, can anyone fathom the outrage if a Republican not only called a black Democrat a slave, but told him to get over it and stop reading anything into it? Continuing:

Hoyer (D-Dist. 5) of Mechanicsville issued a statement Tuesday evening: “If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense let us assure him none was intended. But Mr. Steele continuously tries to direct attention away from the fact that he's an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.”

His office also supplied this comment, from Melvin Forbes, the CEO of Cool Wave Water, the event’s organizer: “This was largely an African-American audience and there was absolutely no offense taken or noticed. It was obvious that Steny was simply talking about Steele's constant support for the Republican agenda."

So because the audience was packed with black Democrats who think of Steele as a slave and an "Uncle Tom", Hoyer can wash his hands of the matter? "So, you were offended, huh Darkie? Well, the other blacks in the room don't like you, so it's all good for me, Dawg! So shut up, eat your watermelon, and go back to being Bush's house slave...my peeps in the 'largely African-American audience' got my back on this one, Playa!"

Robert Byrd (KKK-WV) uses the N-word on FNC a few years ago? No big whoop. Her Highness Shrillary says that Republicans were running the House like a plantation? Who cares? Chris Dodd lionized Robert Byrd, the only Klansman in the Senate? Whoppity doo!

Trent Lott says the country would have been more problem-free had Strom Thurmond been elected President? "Off with his head!" Lott lost his leadership position and held on for his political life. Yessirree, ya just gotta love those Dems for their racial consistency, huh?

Baker: Iraq a "helluva mess"

I respect James Baker and his opinion, so I read the article with great interest. From Breitbart:

Former US secretary of state James Baker was visibly shocked when he last visited Iraq, and said the country was in a "helluva mess", the BBC reported.
Baker is leading a review of the situation in Iraq by a bipartisan US committee of experts, and is expected to recommend a change in US strategy for rebuilding Iraq.

Citing a unnamed close friend and ally of Baker's, himself a top politician, the BBC said that Baker added that "there simply weren't any easy solutions".

Baker was secretary of state to US President George W. Bush's father, president George H. W. Bush.

Citing unnamed members of Baker's committee, The Los Angeles Times on Monday said that two options under consideration would represent reversals of US policy: withdrawing American troops in phases, and bringing neighboring Iran and Syria into a joint effort to stop the fighting.

The BBC also reported that a third possibility was under consideration -- to concentrate on getting stability in Iraq, and stop aiming to establish a democracy there.

The 10-member commission has agreed that change must be made, the Times report said.

"It's not going to be 'stay the course,'" the paper quoted one participant as saying. "The bottom line is, (current policy) isn't working. There's got to be another way."

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my more conservative friends here, I must concur with Baker. I don't think the current policy in Iraq is working, and I think we should explore other ways.

Before you guys flame me, allow me to unequivocally state that I don't think the Murtha approach (cut-and-run and set up shop in Okinawa for a quick strike...5k miles away>?) is an option. Neither is the hippies' approach of "bring them all home now." I'm not fond of Baker's idea to bring Iran and Syria into the situation, considering they're contributing to the mess. However, as Baker admits, there are no easy solutions, and unlike most Dem politicians, he at least has some ideas that we can discuss and debate.

So, what do you think? Is Baker on to something, or is he on something (crack, heroine, etc.)?

"Poor and unpopular" camelhumper terrorist's lawyer given slap on the wrist by Clintonista judge

Thanks to Kira for passing on this editorial. My friends, this column illustrates why we trust the left to prosecute the war on terrorism at our peril. From the NY Post:

Twenty-eight months for Lynn Stewart? Why not 28 minutes?

Why not an apology to the convicted terrorist facilitator for the inconvenience of having to stand trial in the first place?

All the radical activist did was collaborate with terrorist mastermind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman - an architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

She could have - and should have - been sentenced to 30 years.

Instead, U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl - former President Bill Clinton's gift to the federal bench - gave her just 28 months, and stayed execution of the sentence pending her appeals. (Yet another reason to fear Dems getting a hold of the Judiciary Committee gavel! - Ed.)

And then he all but nominated her for the Nobel Peace Prize.

"It is no exaggeration to say that Ms. Stewart performed a public service, not only to the court but to the nation," intoned Koeltl.

The judge - a former First Amendment lawyer - hailed Stewart as a "lawyer to the poor and the unpopular" and rejected a lengthy term, having found "no evidence that any victim was in fact harmed."

Imagine that: As long as the terrorists and their facilitators, like Lynne Stewart, don't actually pull off another 9/11 - that is to say, as long as they don't kill thousands of Americans - they get wrist slaps.

So, let's recap:

Abdel-Rahman, a k a "the blind sheik," led the group that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six. He was then convicted of conspiring to destroy the U.N. headquarters, the George Washington Bridge and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.

Though she claimed she was only acting as a zealous defender, Stewart wasn't convicted of offering legal advice. A jury - after 13 long days of deliberations, following six months of testimony - found that she had smuggled into prison a message to Rahman from terrorist Rifa'l Ahman Tara. The message asked the sheik to support renewed Islamic violence in Egypt.

Then she smuggled back out a coded dispatch that led to the dissolution of a cease-fire between Abdel-Rahman's Islamic Group and the Egyptian government.

How many innocent people were "harmed" - that is, killed - as a result of that collaboration can only be guessed. Apparently, Egyptians don't count as "victims" in Judge Koeltl's eyes.

When she took on the sheik's case, Stewart agreed to and signed rules that barred her from passing any messages to and from her client. Yet she now claims she only "tested the limits" solely to "serve my client."

On the witness stand, however, Stewart made clear that when it came to Abdel-Rahman and his murderous thugs, she was not just a legal mouthpiece - she was a zealous supporter.

"I believe that entrenched institutions will not be changed except by violence," she boasted. "I believe in the politics that lead to violence being exerted by people on their own behalf."

Some First Amendment heroine.

Some "public service . . . to the nation."

And so much for the notion - still held by many Democrats - that the War on Terror should be fought in courtrooms, not on the battlefield.

Should Osama bin Laden ever find himself in clueless John Koeltl's court, he'd likely get no more than time served hiding in his cave.

As for Stewart, she was enjoying herself yesterday.

She went into court, buoyed by hundreds of supporters, and begged for the right to "live out the rest of my life productively, lovingly, righteously."

Afterward, she said of her sentence: "You get time off for good behavior usually at the end of your prison term. I got it at the beginning."

Then, she added - with contempt? - "I can do that standing on my head."

She was grinning broadly. But the joke was on the American people.

There's a big "Screw you!" from this androgynous piece of Jabba the Hutt dingleberry, aided and abetted by another pro-jihadist anti-American liberal judicial activist. Keep this in mind when coastal elites and Kerryphiles parrot Jean-Francois' "terrorism is a nuisance and a law enforcement issue" claptrap, m'kay?

Are you a "poor and unpopular" jihadist? This hermaphroditic slug is willing to lend an ear!