Christmas Lights Too Uni-Cultural

Via DhimmiWatch comes a story from the Times Online edition: Christmas lights fail to shine in equality zone

A COUNCIL is planning to scrap grants for festive lights because Christmas does not fit in with its “core values of equality and diversity”. A report drawn up by the council in Suffolk concedes that the move could lead to officials being accused of “not supporting the spirit of Christmas”. The move is the latest in a string of decisions by organisations to downplay the celebration of the birth of Christ — ostensibly to prevent offence being caused to non-Christian religions. Last week it emerged that Lambeth council in south London had insisted on renaming its Christmas lighting displays as “winter” or “celebrity” lights. The latest is Conservative-controlled Waveney council in Lowestoft which provides grants totalling £10,000 for festive lights. Its report states that because Christmas focuses only on the Christian faith, continuing the funding would “not fit well with the council’s core values of equality and diversity”. Officials are proposing to cut the lights grants to £5,000 next year and to stop them altogether by 2007. The report is due to go before councillors on Thursday.

Now, they say that it is an economic decision. The money usually granted for "festive" lights could be better used elsewhere. The chairman of the lights committee, Sue Allen, said: "It will just mean that we will have to work harder to raise funds for the Christmas lights in the future." I still would like to know how the celebration of the birth of Christ, by Christians, causes offense to those of non Christian religions. Eid, Channukah, and Diwali do not offend me. Here's another story I just found at BBC: Row as Christmas lights renamed

A decision to call Christmas lights "Winter Lights" in south London has been condemned as showing a "total lack of respect" for Christians. Advertisements for the switch-on of the lights in multi-cultural Lambeth have renamed them, apparently for fear of offending other faiths. Tory councillor Bernard Gentry told the BBC: "Christmas appears to have been cancelled in our borough". A spokesman said it was an error by a junior official and not council policy. In three of Lambeth's main town centres, the lights were referred to as "Winter Lights", while in a fourth they were called "Celebrity Lights". The council spokeswoman said an official was concerned about people from other religions. She said: "It was a junior-level decision and it happened to go into print which was an error basically. "I think it was certainly not a council policy that we should call the lights winter lights." But it has led to a series of headlines such as "Christmas is banned" and "The PC [politically correct] lights show" and led some members of other faiths to call it "ridiculous". And Mr Gentry, a Conservative member of the joint Lib Dem-Tory controlled borough, told the BBC it went against efforts to promote respect for all faiths. "It just seems totally against everything that we as members of the council have said, when officers try to airbrush out one of the main festivals of what is still the biggest religion in Lambeth." "The idea that, in some way, the religious festival of Christmas is offensive to others is just daft - I have never heard a single person who's said that." The advert appeared in Lambeth Life - a newspaper distributed by the council - and on posters.

I started to put my Christmas lights up last Friday, but they were broken so I had to buy new ones. I put them up yesterday. I'll plug them in on Thanksgiving. For me, Christmas lights make a silent Joyful Noise unto the Lord. Some people Shout: (see UglyChristmasLights.com for more) Others are more subtle: Previous stories: Free Piglet Now It's Piggy Banks And Now The Three Little Pigs Too Peppermint Pigs for Christmas! "Holiday Tree" Too Inclusive Welcome A Lady's Ruminations and Anchoress readers!

Check your Christmas Lights

Today was a beautiful day. Sunny. 68 degrees. I took down the lighted ghost and spider web that had been up since early October.

Since I already had the ladder out, I thought I'd get out the Christmas lights and put them up (not to light yet, just to get them up).

After I had one string up, I decided to test it by plugging it in. Oh no! Half the string didn't work! (Lesson learned: Check the lights before you climb the ladder!) Check the other strings: One doesn't work at all, the other was another half. Well. These lights were used for the past few years, they're old. Back down to the crawlspace to get the three strings that were only used one year, several years ago. Two strings don't work at all. One string works, but there is a broken bulb in the middle and I can't get the broken bulb out. So, it's time to buy new Christmas lights! JEFF ADDS: Thanks for the reminder. Every year, as I try to balance a ladder in two feet of snow with my hands freezing because I can't wear my mitts while trying to adjust the bulbs, I promise myself that the next year I would have a little foresight to put the lights up earlier when the weather was better.

Alito Hearings

Per Senators Specter and Leahy: 3,700 opinions need to be digested. Hearings to begin January 2, 2006 with expected floor vote January 13th. The AP says the 9th with a committee vote on the 17th and floor vote on the 20th. I heard what I published above when I was listening to the presser, but perhaps I misheard. UPDATE: OK. I was right and wrong. I heard what I heard about the 2nd and 13th, but Specter went on to add that after consultation with Leahy, the week would start at the beginning so hearings would be from the 9th to the 13th, with executive on the 17th, floor debate the 18th to the 20th and a vote on the 20th. Political Teen has the video.

9th Circuit

According to the 9th Circuit :

...we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right.

also:

We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.

This is from Flopping Aces who also has a link to the .pdf of the opinion. Parents brought suit against the Palmdale school district over a survey that was taken of elementary students asking questions about the frequency of the childrens' "thinking about sex" and "thinking about touching other people's private parts". The court has said that what a parent thinks about sex education for their children doesn't matter in the least and that the schools can provide information on that subject in any forum or manner that they select. These are elementary school students. Elementary students are first grade through eighth grade. Elementary students are six to thirteen years old. Most are prepubescent. Why is there a need for public school sex education for children in this age group? Curt notes:

The only bright spot is that it’s from the 9th Circuit. The bench whose opinions get overturned regularly by the Supreme Court. According to the ACLU and many on the bench it’s ok to take God out of the pledge, erase Christmas and Easter from the calenders, but it’s ok to teach a child about sex without the Parents consent. What a world we live in.

More at Confirm Them The children involved were between the ages of seven and ten. Definitely prepubescent. Schools should not be asking these types of questions, or discussing this subject, with children of that age. The parents were asked to sign a permission slip for a survey to be given to children in first, third and fifth grades.

While parents were informed that the survey would cover “baseline . . . exposure to early trauma (for example, violence),” it specifically did not mention sex. In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these: 8. Touching my private parts too much 17. Thinking about having sex 22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts 23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to 26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside 34. Not trusting people because they might want sex 40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex 44. Having sex feelings in my body 47. Can’t stop thinking about sex 54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

Parents found out about the questions when the children came home and told them. Cross-posted at Oh How I Love Jesus Welcome Anchoress and A Lady's Ruminations readers!

NYCLU Does Its Own Searches - And They Are Not Random

On O'Reilly's "Most Ridiculous Item" tonight, the text of a sign at NYCLU headquarters reads:

Please have photo ID ready for inspection. All packages are subject to inspection upon entering and leaving the premises.

The New York Sun wrote an editorial about it.

Either the NYCLU believes its headquarters are at greater risk of a terrorist threat than the city's subway system, or it believes ordinary New Yorkers don't deserve the same safety precautions that they do.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal, or email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Malkin vs Wolff

Michelle Malkin was on Dayside today with Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair as her "opponent". I think Michelle won hands down. Here follows the transcript of the session. Mike Jerrick: We are back with the CIA leak investigation, the Supreme Court confirmation process and the ongoing war in Iraq. Criticism from the left has reached a fever pitch. Michelle Malkin, the author of the new book Unhinged Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. Michael Wolff is here too. He's a columnist for Vanity Fair magazine. He wrote a pretty good article, in fact it was a very good article, in this month's issue, Inside the White House Meltdown. Before we get into this topic here, I was looking at the back of the book Michelle. It's always great to have you on the program. But my goodness. Some reaction to this book. She "ought to be shot between those Viet Cong eyes!." Number two there, "this is what happens when you send a yellow woman to do a white man's job". And they get worse and worse. She's "dishonest", she's a "shill", "race-baiter", "war profiteer" and a "fascist". Welcome to the program. What in the world? Now these reactions to your book came from where? Off the internet? Bloggers, etcetera? Michelle Malkin: A lot of email readers and liberal websites. People who fashion themselves serious political commentators. Mike Jerrick: Why did you put them on the book? Michelle Malkin: I thought that these quotes speak for themselves. I mean I'm exposing the myth of liberal tolerance and civility and really turning a caricature on its head. Because it's conservatives who are always portrayed as the ones who are angry and racist and sexist and hatefilled. And I think it's time that the other side confront their own ugly portrait. Mike Jerrick: So we're talking about meltdowns and people becoming unhinged. {to Kiran} Kiran, what's going on? Are a you all right? Kiran Chetry: I'm feeling great. {laughter} {to Michelle}Actually, I think it's terrible when you see just how personal the attacks got. And Michael, let me ask about this, because even, we just saw it yesterday, within the Senate, the one that's supposed to be the refined arm of Congress. They were going at each other and even Senator Bill Frist was making some personal statements about fellow democrats. What is going on in Washington? Michael Wolff: Well, I think there's a lot going on in Washington. But also, I mean there's an interesting point about this, these kinds of, those kinds of comments because anybody who is in a public role of any kind, left, right, it doesn't matter who you are, the stuff that comes in through your email box is um... Michelle Malkin: Vicious sometimes. Michael Wolff: Is breathtaking. And I don't think it has anything to do with left or right. It has to do with some people are crazy and some people are not crazy. Michelle Malkin: Well, I beg to differ with that. And look at just the headlines today. Democrats, black democrats in Maryland, are saying that it's okay to pelt a black republican, the Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele with Oreo cookies because he's a traitor to his race. I haven't heard a single mainstream democrat condemn that, and I would like to see that. Michael Wolff: Yeah, but that's, that, you've just, you've just equated two things which are not, are not, remotely, remotely similar. You've got, you've got anonymous people coming over the internet. Michelle Malkin: Well they're not anonymous actually. They all have some email address. Michael Wolff: Well, ah, yeah, but they are merely using the, when you see an email address, everybody gets this. This has nothing to do with you. I mean I know, I think you... Michelle Malkin: It's not about me. I just gave you an example of Michael Steele. I mean the point {crosstalk} Michael Wolff: You put it on the back of your book. It's obviously, obviously you take it personally. Michelle Malkin: I'm saying it's a {crosstalk} Michael Steele: Everybody has, every other writer, gets the same kind of mail. Michelle Malkin: No. No. I think it's very different. Michael Wolff: I'll match my mail... Michelle Malkin: I think it's very unique. I think that the criticism of minority conservatives and minority republicans is uniquely vicious and uniquely ad hominem. I think it's something that mainstream democratic leadership has to confront. Michael Wolff: Again, you've done the same thing. People on the internet... Michelle Malkin: Do you think that Howard Dean should condemn those remarks or not? Michael Wolff: {pause}The remarks against you? Michelle Malkin: The silence is telling. I'm talking about Michael Steele. I'm talking about these kind of smears against minority conservatives and republicans. Calling them traitors, saying that they're not really their ethnicity. Saying that they're white on the inside. Can you just say that it's despicable? Because it is. Michael Wolff: Okay. So your point. Let me just. Your point is that... Michelle Malkin: Okay you still haven't answered... Michael Wolff: People are coming on you because you are a minority who is a conservative. Michelle Malkin: I'm saying that there is a liberal... Yes, I think there is a distinct liberal impulse to condemn conservatives who are minorities because they believe that they are traitors to their race. Regardless of the grounding and principles of what they believe. Michael Wolff: Possibly, possibly and that sounds despicable, but if it's something else Michelle Malkin: Do you think it's okay for black democrats to pelt a black republican with cookies? Michael Wolff: No, no, no. But let's, let's look at the Kiran Chetry: Michael, I think there's someone in the audience who wants to answer that question. Mike Jerrick: I don't know, I'm kind of fascinated by this conversation. Would you real quickly. Ma'am, you wanted to say something. Audience Member: I think she's absolutely right. I think there's, they just gotten unhinged. Michael Wolff: If the logic is something else. If essentially they're saying that, questioning the logic of minority conservatives saying, saying it's like a gay conservative. You know, why would you be a gay conservative if the essential conservative philosophy is against you? Um, I mean I think you can reasonably say that about, about somebody who is, um, a black conservative. Why would you be a conservative if the whole thrust of the conservative message, or a substantial thrust is against you. Now, now maybe people say this in ways that they shouldn't say it. Audience {No} Mike Jerrick: Ok I hear someone. Yes? Audience Member: Well, I mean to say that conservatives are against blacks is actually Michael Wolff: No, no, no, no. I, I.. Audience Member: That's actually what you said. Michael Wolff: You're taking that out of context. Michelle Malkin: That's the logical conclusion of what you just suggested. Michael Wolff: No, if. If you. If that is the logic, and certainly I'm not saying that conservatives are against blacks, but if you, if you do believe that in some... Let me go back to the gays which I think works more clearly, there are gay conservatives, but would you say, would you say that's odd to be gay and a conservative at the same time? Michelle Malkin: No. No, I do not think so. And actually I'm glad you brought that example up because do you think it's okay for Bill Clinton, who commented earlier this year, that Arthur Finkelstein was self-loathing. This is a republican, gay, political strategist. And Bill Clinton says something like that, that he loathes himself? Michael Wolff: Well, yeah, look. Let's look at this. This, you're doing two two things, you're saying Mike Jerrick: Michael, we're going to have to look at it later, we have a hard break coming up. We appreciate it. It was a good discussion. No meltdown. Nobody became unhinged. Kiran Chetry: Almost. Mike Jerrick: Well maybe one person. Kiran Chetry: Michelle Malkin and Michael Wolff, thank you very much. It's the liberals who keep telling everyone what the conservatives think and feel and it's not how the conservatives really think and feel. I think Michael Wolff really showed that mindset today. It's never the conservatives "outing" an gay conservative, it's the liberals doing so, hoping that the conservatives will "disown" that person. Conservatives aren't concerned with someone's race or sexual orientation.

Howard Dean - Alito, Libby and Cheney

Alan Colmes interviewed Howard Dean on Hannity and Colmes last night. My comments in maroon, all italics mine. Political teen has the video Alan Colmes: What’s your reaction to the nomination of Alito? Howard Dean: Ah, a couple of reactions. First of all I think it shows the President’s weakness. The extreme right of the party seems to be driving the judicial nominations process and I think that’s unfortunate. Secondly, we still wonder when the President’s going to ask Karl Rove to resign since he’s now been identified by the special prosecutor as the person who leaked the name. So, this all comes, uh, as kind of a, at kind of a difficult time. Uh, I don’t. I think the President’s really using this as a distraction right now to get away from his ethical troubles. {Mr. Dean, what does Karl Rove have to do with reaction to Alito's nomination? You just cited one reaction to Alito and then went off on a total tangent. Also, when did Patrick Fitzgerald identify Karl Rove as the person who leaked the information? I checked the Special Prosecutor's website again and there are no new press releases there. Just the links for the indictments and the press release of Friday, October 28, 2005. I did a search of both documents and Karl Rove's name does not appear in either.} Alan Colmes: I want to get to Rove and the indictment in a moment, but I want to ask you what, do you know the level of consultation this administration had, with democrats, before the nomination? Howard Dean: None. Ah, I’ve talked to Senator Reid and apparently there was no consultation whatsoever with any democrat that we know of. So I think it’s, this nomination is going to be in trouble. Um, ah, Judge Alito is apparently a nice person, but he’s got some pretty extreme rulings. For example, he, uh, in a dissent said that he didn’t think congress had the right to regulate the sale of machine guns. Ah, he held that, ah, in a very specific search warrant, where the police went in, could search a house and a guy suspected of something, they also strip searched his ten-year-old daughter and his wife, which was not in the warrant and Judge Alito didn’t see much trouble in that. A lot of sexual harassment cases and disability cases where the judge raised a very, very high standard of proof, including some really gross discrimination, so I won’t read it on your show. {Julian Sanchez of Reason has rebuttals to most of these talking points which are also being used by Think Progress and the Center for American Progress} Alan Colmes: Do you expect there could be a filibuster in this case? Howard Dean: I think it’s much too early to tell that. I think we need to know a lot more. But the preliminary findings are that Judge Alito is well outside the mainstream of what most Americans believe the courts should be doing. And I think we’ll have to see to learn more about that. {As I said in a post below, the dems and media are defining mainstream to mean anything that agrees with their worldview} Alan Colmes: What could he say during confirmation hearings to convince you and other democrats that he is worthy of the job? Howard Dean: Well I think he, we should find out if he believes that, uh, the courts ought to be used for, to stop discrimination against people. I think we ought to find out to what extent he believes that the police have a right to do anything they want. I think we ought to find out to what extent he thinks firearms ought to be regulated by the federal government, if at all. And I think we ought to find out whether he believes that a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her healthcare, or whether the government should do that for her. {a woman's healthcare = abortion on demand, any time, for any reason, at any age} Alan Colmes: Is it your belief that the President chose today to make this choice as a distraction from the indictment news? Howard Dean: Oh sure. But the indictment is not going to go away. The President promised he would fire anyone who leaked. Karl Rove has now been shown to have leaked, even though he wasn’t charged with a crime. This is a big ethical problem for the President. The President gave us his word that he would fire anyone who leaked. So far he hasn’t done that. We’re waiting to see if the President will keep his word. {Hey Howie, do you have the press release? It still isn't on the Special Prosecutor's website} Alan Colmes: Well, there have been three different standards. First, McClellan said anybody involved in, then he said if anybody leaked, then if anybody committed a crime. Are you calling for the resignation of Karl Rove? Howard Dean: Absolutely. Karl Rove has no business having a security clearance having now been established as a leaker by the special prosecutor. As I say, he wasn’t charged with a crime, what he did was, not, certainly unethical. And he ought not to have a security clearance and he ought not to be working and being paid for by the taxpayers’ money. {Howie, it still isn't on the Special Prosecutor's website} Alan Colmes: What do you think the democrats need to do? I mean, the argu, the criticism of democrats is usually well there’s no vision, no unified message. What do the democrats need to do at this point to convince the American people that their vision is a better vision? Howard Dean: Oh I think we do have a vision and we do have a unified message. The first vision is we want honesty in government. We have seen a culture of corruption that’s been brought to Washington and by state capitols like California and Minnesota, uh, and, uh, uh others. Ohio being the worst, by republican governments. We need to change that, we will change that. We’ll put in tough ethics legislation that will have to be complied with by people in our party, not just the re, opposite party. Secondly, we want a balanced budget. We want jobs in this country to stay in this country. We want somebody to balance the books. We haven’t seen a republican do that for forty years. Third, we want a healthcare system that covers everybody. Fourth, we want a strong public education system and we want, we want a strong defense. We want a real strong defense that depends on telling the truth to our allies and telling the truth to the parents of soldiers who are being sent abroad to fight for America. {Firstly, see No Agenda and Gateway Pundit to see the culture of corruption that exists in the democrat party. I would be happy to see tough ethics legislation if I could be absolutely sure that it would also cover democrats. Let's start with stopping the fight over requiring picture ID to vote. Secondly, a balanced budget would be great, but you dems would have to give up a lot pork and entitlements. Thirdly, healthcare for everyone. Well. As noted above women's healthcare means abortion, so you want abortion for everyone? Does that include the aborted? Fourthly, we want a strong public education system too. That means actually teaching our children and getting rid of teachers that can not do that. Fourthly part two, a real strong defense equals telling the truth to allies and the parents of soldiers? UPDATE: I have to add something here. Why is it that only the parents of soldiers are indicated here? Why not the spouses and children of soldiers? Oh yeah, it's the Cindy Sheehan wing speaking. All soldiers are just little kids that have been misled into volunteering in the United States Armed Forces. All the soldiers are children first.} Alan Colmes: Do you think there should be a broader investigation, we've had Gerald Nadler on our show for example, referring to criminal statutes that call, that basically state, that you are prohibited from making false and fraudulent claims to congress. Some democrats have said that there should be a larger investigation to the conspiracy to move us toward war. Do you believe that should be the case? Howard Dean: Well, I'm not so sure about that although if there is such a thing, it'll be in the Vice President's office. And I do think there needs to be more investigation in the Vice President's office. One of the things established by the special prosecutor in the indictment is that Vice President Cheney was the source of Scooter Libbity's, Libby's knowledge about who the CIA agent was. The question is, did the Vice President instruct Scooter Libby to reveal that name. If he did, the Vice President probably is criminally negligent and that he ought to be indicted as well. I think we'd better find that out because I suspect that, Fitzgerald has a reputation of being ruthless, relentless and totally non-political and I think that's just the kind of person you want this position. Alan Colmes: Are you calling for a broader investigation of the Vice President? Howard Dean: Oh, I think there should be. I suspect strongly that, frankly that the prosecutor's already doing that because he, himself identified the Vice President as a source of some of the information that got leaked. {Mr. Dean, Vice President Cheney had every right to know that information and he had every right to discuss it with his chief of staff/national security advisor Scooter Libby. That is NOT a crime of any kind whatsoever.} Alan Colmes: Chairman Dean, we thank you very much for being with us tonight. Good to see you. Howard Dean: Alan. Thanks for having me on. Alan Colmes: Thanks very much. Welcome readers of A Lady's Ruminations and Gateway Pundit (He's found a old speech of Wilson's)! Please look around. Lettori Benvenuti Di Ideazione!

Mainstream

Today there's been a lot of comment from the democrats and the media about Judge Alito being out of the mainstream. But who is defining mainstream? The democrats and the media. Of course, their definition of mainstream is "whatever agrees with our worldview". Too bad they are out on a tributary and just don't know it...

Halloween

Today is the Right Place's first blogiversary! They are celebrating with a masquerade party! They've been taken over by Dr. Evil who has renamed them the RightEvil Place! Go see who's posting and try to figure out who they are under their "costumes".

Halloween a Day Early

Our village has trick-or-treating on the Sunday before Halloween from 1 pm to 5pm. We had a pretty big crowd this year, larger than last year, but today was a very nice day. Here's our little Batman just before he set out trick-or-treating with his daddy. The purchased costume included the mask and the cape. I took a plain black t-shirt and painted the bat signal on it. He was a very happy Batman who came home tired from a long walk with a bucket full of candy. Now it's time for Mom and Dad to pick out all the good stuff!

Fitzgerald on Subpoenaing Journalists

During the press conference this afternoon Patrick Fitzgerald was asked about Judy Miller's incarceration and the proposed journalist shield laws. This was the very best explanation I have heard for needing to subpoena Judy Miller even though she had never printed anything.

I think what people don't understand, I understand why it is that newspapers want sources. And I read newspapers. And I'm glad you have sources. This is different. This was a situation where the conversation between the official and the reporter may have been a crime itself. It wasn't someone saying, "Hey so-and-so is doing something really, really awful down the hall and I might get fired if I tell you." If you're transmitting classified information is the crime itself, but also, the reporter is the eye witness. And what I think people don't appreciate is that we interviewed lots of people, very high officials, before we ever went to the reporters. And if, as apparent, the grand jury is investigating to find out whether Mr. Libby lied under oath about his conversations with reporters, how could you ever resolve it without talking to a reporter? You couldn't walk in and responsibly charge someone for lying about a conversation when there are only two witnesses to it and you talk to one. That would be insane. On the other hand, if you walked away from it with a belief that that conversation may have been falsely described under oath, you are walking away from your responsibility. And that's why, when the subpoenas are challenged, we put forward what it is that we knew and we let judges pass on it. So I think people shouldn't read this exceptional case as being something more than it's not and I think there's a pendulum that shifts. I'm not recommending that reporters be subpoenaed to my colleagues, this is not, we have to maintain a balance. I think what people are recognizing is this was narrow grounds, that they were justified, followed the Attorney General guidelines, that the court found that we satisfied those guidelines, the court found that we met any bar, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals found unanimously, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. I think we need to step back, take a deep breath, and appreciate what the facts were here. That it was not the ordinary case before we rush into debates about balancing two very important things, the first amendment and national security. I don't take either lightly.

(emphasis mine) She wasn't subpoenaed to "give up her source", she was subpoenaed to be a witness to a conversation that she was one of two participants in. Political Teen has the video here and also has the video of Joe Wilson's attorney pleading "privacy" and the picture from Vanity Fair magazine... Welcome Political Teen readers! Please look around. Welcome GOPINION readers! Welcome Wide Awake Cafe readers! Please look around.

Waiting for the Horse's Mouth

Waiting for Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference due at 2 pm EDT today. Still waiting for that, but Fox News reports that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts, two false statement counts, two one obstruction of justice counts, and one two perjury counts. Fox also reports that Libby has resigned. Nothing yet Indictments are now available on Fitzgerald's website.

Two Kitties Looking For A New Home

Newton at Oh How I Love Jesus is fostering two sweet girls who need a home. They are mother and daughter.

PinotNoir (daughter)	Keyboard (mother)

If you are in or know someone in the South Texas area who would like to give these girls a home, click on the link above.

Ted Olson

I agree with the American Princess... The man is eminently qualified. Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement does not have to be "diverse"...

Harriet Miers Withdraws

Says it was the documents issue. Maybe we can all get over this and come together for the next nominee. In a letter to Bush released by the White House, Miers said she was concerned that the Senate confirmation process "presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country." Update: Ann Althouse says:

Should I say something more about the Miers withdrawal? I keep thinking I should, but somehow I feel so calm about it all. I'm glad that the difficulties are over. But we shouldn't be complacent, because the new struggle is about to begin.

Go read the rest. Others (some happy, some sad) (updated with more reax): The American Princess - So You Wanted Someone Worse The Anchoress - Harriet, Bring the Cannoli! Ankle Biting Pundits - Miers Withdraws!!!! Ann Althouse - Miers Withdraws" Bench Memos - many posts Big Lizards - Miers Withdraws from Supreme Court Consideration Blogs for Bush - Miers Withdraws Captain's Quarters - The Krauthammer Option Wins Out Confirm Them - The Miers Withdrawal Danny Carlton alias Jack Lewis - Miers withdraws (finally) Gateway Pundit - Miers Withdraws Nomination GOP Bloggers - Miers Requests Withdrawal of Nomination LaShawn Barber - Blog Swarm Strikes Again: Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination Mark In Mexico - Harriet Miers withdraws Michelle Malkin - Harriet Miers Withdraws: Relief Opinipundit - Meirs Withdraws!! Patterico - Breaking News: Miers Withdraws PoliPundit - several posts Powerline - Miers Withdraws Red State - several posts Right Wing News - Happy Harriet Miers Withdraws Day, Everyone Roger Simon says: Miers out! Is anyone surprised? Stop the ACLU - Miers Withdraws Wide Awake Cafe - Miers Withdrew Her Nomination Wizbang - Miers Withdraws SCOTUS Nomination A Large Regular - Miers Withdraws Name from Nomination A Lady's Ruminations - Success: Miers Withdraws Betsy's Page - Whoosh! Conservative Cat - Harriet Miers and the Cubs/Sox Rivalry Instapundit The Jawa Report - Miers Withdraws as Supreme Court Nominee Sigmund, Carl and Alfred - No Fair Hearing for Harriet Miers: A Jihadi Win Volokh - The Miers Withdrawal The Right Place - Miers Withdraws Publius Rendevous - The Final Chapter[?] Junk Yard Blog - Miers Withdraws Nashville Truth - Miers Does The Right Thing, Helps The "Coolest and Bestest" President Ever Save Face Basil's Blog - Miers Trackback Link Festival Don Surber - Miers Withdrawn Happy? GOP and the City - Icy Hot Judgaz Member Withdraws Nomination Oblogotory Anecdotes - Miers Withdraws!!! Daly Thoughts - Breaking: Miers Withdraws and Democrats Making a Strategic Error Right Now Kate at Electric Venom is "neither shocked nor awed" Oh How I Love Jesus - Miers Withdraws her Nomination Slobokan's Site O'Schtuff - Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination RCP Blog - Miers Withdraws Stolen Thunder - Evil Triumphs Pundit Guy has another huge list

Peppermint Pigs for Christmas!

Buy Peppermint Pigs for Christmas. Peppermint Pigs are hard candy pigs (the hammer shown in the photo is to break them up). Saratoga Sweets is the Home of the Peppermint Pigs.

I have absolutely no connection to this company, I just like pigs.

No Plame Indictments Today

Hurricane Plame is hitting Washington D.C. and New York City hard. Rumors are flying everywhere! My personal prediction (wishful thinking): Joe Wilson gets indicted for outing his own wife. The weight-challenged lady hasn't yet begun to sing... she isn't even at the theater yet.

The Difference Between a (D) and an (R)

Sean Hannity was interviewing Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on Hannity and Colmes last night. The following exchange ensued:

HANNITY: I'm listening to what you're saying. So you're saying when the President told the nation that Saddam's nuclear threats are a real grave danger to America and Saddam's WMDs are a threat to America, you're saying that George W. Bush purposely lied to America? Is that what you're saying? HINCHEY: I'm saying whoever wrote that speech gave false information to the Congress. Whether or not the President knew it when he gave the speech, I'm not sure. Whoever wrote that speech certainly did. HANNITY: The only problem is Congressman, the words I just said to you were John Kerry's words. John Kerry said that to America. You voted for John Kerry. Now I'll ask you, did John Kerry give false information to America? HINCHEY: John Kerry, I think, made a mistake and voted for the resolution — HANNITY: Oh, he made a mistake and Bush is a liar.(Via MediaBlog at NRO)

Just before Hannity's last line above I said to my husband. So, if President Bush had said it, it was a lie, but because Kerry (we still haven't seen your military records) said it, it was just a mistake. That's the difference between having a (D) after your name or having an (R) after your name. Remember though, that this is Maurice Hinchey. Back in February he was the one who said that Karl Rove was behind the documents that played such an important role in Ra^thergate. See our posts: Karl Rove - Evil Mastermind and Hinchey Sums it up for the Dems More at Blogs for Bush Welcome PoliPundit readers! Please look around...

And Now the Three Little Pigs too...

From the BBC via GOP Bloggers - The Three Little Pigs will no longer be read to under-seven-year-old students at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley

Somebody warn Glenn and Bear! Porkbusters will be next! Previously: Free Piglet and Now It's Piggy Banks Bryan Preston at Junk Yard Blog predicted a similar threat to Hogbusters (Energy Department Promotion) a week ago... Welcome Betsy's Page readers! Please look around.

Cindy Sheehan on Fox's Dayside

Cindy Sheehan was on the phone with Fox's Dayside today: Juliet Huddy: The official death toll for United States Military folk in Iraq has reached one thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine. Mike Jerrick: War protester Cindy Sheehan says she will tie herself to the White House fence, right there in front when the number reaches 2000, and she joins us on the phone from the front of the White House. Cindy, were you able to listen to the speech today? Cindy Sheehan: No, actually I wasn't. Mike Jerrick: Well let me play just one quick bite from it then. It's about how the President says, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam Hussien, if we leave now we'll probably just turn Iraq over to terrorists, basically is what he said. Here's specifically what he said: {videoclip} President Bush: Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion refuted by a simple question. Would the United States and other free nations be more safe or less safe with Zarqawi and bin Ladin in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? {end videoclip} Mike Jerrick: So, what do you think? As you can tell there, the President says that we can not leave now, the terrorists will take over. Cindy, what's your response to that? Cindy Sheehan: Well, um, I believe that, you know of course I believe that that's false. I, there are studies that show that most of the violence in Iraq are home grown insurgencies that are fighting against the occupation. And I believe that if we don't need our military presence there, we never did need our military presence there, Saddam was not responsible for 9/11. Osama is still free. It seems like they've forgotten that he was the one that planned attack on American soil and he's still running free. They, they're, um, devastating a country that was no threat to the United States of America. And I believe that our military presence is not needed there like it was never needed there. Juliet Huddy: Cindy, and it's comments like those that have made you, like it or not, a lightning rod for Americans. Here, we've got somebody in the audience who wants to ask you a question. Go ahead sir. Audience member: My question to you is, I was drafted into the Army and I served, I didn't want to go, but I went and I ended up fighting in combat in Korea. Your son volunteered. All of us thank God he did. I think what you're doing is denigrating your son's service. {Applause} Juliet Huddy: Cindy, I know you've addressed this before, but you know, today you're once again going to be out there and you've said you're going to chain yourself to the White House fence. What do you think your son would have thought about this? I know members of your family have come out in opposition of what you're doing. Cindy Sheehan: Actually, um, my son did volunteer to join, uh, the United States Army. My son was an honorable man. He was a brave man. And he was misused and abused by his commander in chief by attacking a country that was no threat to the United States of America. And he, and all of us, would gladly defend our country, but Iraq was nothing about defending our country. Mike Jerrick: So Cindy, real quickly. Your plans, when you say the death toll, when it gets to 2000 in Iraq, which, you know, sadly will probably be within the next week. You're going to chain yourself... Cindy Sheehan: It will probably be sometime today, sadly, tragically, and unnecessarily. Mike Jerrick: And your plan is to tie yourself to the fence there in front of the White House? Cindy Sheehan: Actually we've changed our plans a little bit. We're going to be, um, every, every night at 6:00 as many Americans who are working for peace and oppose this war as possible we are gonna ask them to lie down in a symbolic death. And we get, we get warnings, we get three warnings before we're arrested. So, um, you know people can get up during the warnings and not be arrested. But, the day after the 2000th death, I'm gonna lie down and not get up. Mike Jerrick: OK, ah, Cindy, if you don't mind hanging on the phone there real quickly we're going to bring in Bill Kristol the editor of the Weekly Standard. Bill, thank you very much. Just respond to Cindy's comments and the President as well. Bill Kristol: Well, I happen to agree with the President that it's a free country and Mrs. Sheehan's obviously entitled to demonstrate. I don't think she's entitled to claim to be speaking on behalf of the 2000 young men and women who have, did volunteer, and have died in Irag though. {applause} Juliet Huddy: In this, in this speech today Bill, did we hear anything new? I was listening with some people in the green room and there were comments both for and against. Saying, "It's the same old rhetoric." There was some encouraging, there were some encouraging words from his supporters. What do you have to say? Anything new, did you hear? Any new territory covered? Bill Kristol: Nothing fundamentally new. I mean, I think with the constitution passed, that was announced in this morning in Iraq and that's important. And the political process is moving ahead. There's been some military progress in the last, uh, couple of months I think. But, look, it's the same war, there's nothing, there's no new insight, just a matter of staying the course and winning, I think. Mike Jerrick: We still have some questions. In the control room, is Cindy still with us? So questions for either Bill or Cindy. Go ahead. Juliet Huddy: Go ahead ma'am. Audience member: I guess I would just like to say that as far as tying yourself to the fence, and laying down and staying there she is perfectly welcome to do that. Juliet Huddy: That's the great thing about America. Go ahead. Audience member: She's getting a chance to do what she's doing because we have freedom in this country. Her son fought and died for that freedom. She wants to deny it to people in Iraq. And she wants to overlook the freedom that we enjoy every day here in America. {applause} Juliet Huddy: Cindy, do you want to react to that? She is gone, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. So, Cindy's changing her plan. She's going to lie down and not get up. Is that a promise? Where will you lie down? Do you have a good supply of Depends Undergarments? Or a good bedpan? Don't you know it's dangerous to eat or drink while lying down? I thought all three audience members' comments were good, especially the first and last ones. Too bad Cindy didn't hear the last two. Welcome Back Country Conservative, Conservative Thinking, The Jawa Report, and Memeorandum Readers!