Quilibet imitabilis juris professio

Attorney Lynne Stewart is spending her last summer free of cavity checks and girl-girlfriends. She published (contrary to court orders) a press release in which her client, that blind Santa Claus Arab Harem Overlord, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, withdrew his support for a cease-fire in Egypt. He was (and is) incarcerated with special circumstances, and ergo incommunicado. She claims she has done nothing wrong. That just supports the proposition - Quilibet imitabilis juris professio (Anyone can imitate a lawyer). Let’s look into the depth of her depravity.

al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (GAI) is an Egypt-based terrorist group, active since 1977. They seem to be no more than girls from the hood – 74% of their victims have been tourists. How pathetic. Killing tourists is a badge of honor only for phallic-challenged terrorists. Our blind Santa Clause was their spiritual leader. (Remember his crime? He blew up a parking lot.)

GAI settled down for a while from 1997 until 2000, when Santa Claus – through our hero Atty. Lynne Stewart – withdrew his support. Stewart didn’t just leak a statement to the GAI. She issued a press release. GAI immediately began to kill Christians. Was this a momentary lapse of reason?

Let’s look into her indictment for clues.

Directly quoted:

The May 2000 Prison Visit

j. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman (Ed. – nee Santa Claus) by STEWART and YOUSRY (Ed. – STEWART is Lynne Stewart; YOUSRY is soon-to-be-codefendant Mohammed Yousry was supposedly an interpreter, but was actually a terrorist), YOUSRY told Abdel Rahman and STEWART about the kidnappings by the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group in the Philippines and Abu Sayyaf’s demand to free Abdel Rahman, to which STEWART replied, “Good for them.” STEWART then told Abdel Rahman that she believed he could be released from prison if the government in Egypt were changed. (Ed. – what part of changing foreign governments is germane to preparing a defense?) STEWART also told Abdel Rahman that events like the Abu Sayyaf kidnappings in the Philippines are important, although they “may be futile,” because it is “very, very crucial” that Abdel Rahman not be forgotten as a hero of the “Muiahadeen” (Jihad warriors).

k. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY read Abdel Rahman an inflammatory statement by Taha that had recently been published in an Egyptian newspaper.

l. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, YOUSRY, at STEWART's urging, read Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR. Among other things, SATTAR’s letter informed Abdel Rahman that SATTAR’s communications with specified Islamic Group leaders had become “semi-constant” over the past year, arid asked Abdel Rahman, “If there is anything, please notify.” In addition, SATTAR's letter asked Abdel Rahman to endorse “the formation of a team that calls for cancellation of the peace initiative or makes threats escalates things.”

m. On or about May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read Taha's statement and SATTAR's letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART actively concealed that fact from the prison guards. At one point, STEWART and YOUSRY explicitly discussed the fact that the guards were patrolling close to the prison conference room and might notice that STEWART was not involved in the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman. To conceal the fact that STEWART was not participating in the meeting, among other things, STEWART instructed YOUSRY to make it look as if STEWART were communicating with Abdel Rahman and YOUSRY were merely translating, by having YOUSRY look periodically at STEWART and Abdel Rahman in turn, even though YOUSRY was in fact reading. STEWART also pretended to be participating in the conversation with Abdel Rahman by making extraneous comments such as “chocolate” and “heart attack.” STEWART contemporaneously observed to YOUSRY that she could “get an award for” her acts of concealment, and YOUSRY agreed that STEWART should “get an award in acting.” Following the comments about STEWART's acting ability, STEWART, YOUSRY, and Abdel Rahman all laughed.

n. On or about. May 19, 2000, during a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, while YOUSRY read SATTAR’s letter to Abdel Rahman, STEWART and YOUSRY laughed while acknowledging that if the prison guards discovered that they, were reading Abdel Rahman a letter from SATTAR they would get “in trouble.”

o. On or about May 20, 2000, during the second day of a prison visit to Abdel Rahman by STEWART and YOUSRY, Abdel Rahman dictated letters to YOUSRY indicating that he did not support the cease-fire and calling for the Islamic Group, to reevaluate the cease-fire, while STEWART again actively concealed the conversation between YOUSRY and Abdel Rahman from the prison guards. Among other things, STEWART periodically interrupted the dictation with extraneous comments, and stated explicitly that she would do so from time to time in order to keep the guards from realizing that she was not participating in the conversation.

p. In or about late May 2000, after STEWART and YOUSRY's visit to Abdel, SATTAR had telephone conversations with Islamic Group leaders in which he stated that Abdel Rahman: (1) did not object to a return to “work” (terrorist operations); (2) agreed that the Islamic Group should escalate the issues in the media; (3) advised the Islamic Group to avoid division in the Islamic Group's leadership; and (4) instructed the Islamic Group to hint at a military operation even if the Islamic Group was not ready for military action.

Stewart’s May 26. 2000 Submission of Her Agreement to Abide by the Terms of the Special Administrative Measures

q. On or about May 26, 2000, STEWART submitted to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York the affirmation that she signed on May 16, 2000, in which she agreed to abide by the terms of the SAMs then in effect on Abdel Rahman.

The June 2000 Press Release Regarding Abdel Rahman’s Withdrawal of Support for the Initiative

r. On or about June 14, 2000, STEWART released a statement to the press that quoted Abdel Rahman as stating that he “is withdrawing his support for the cease-fire that currently exists.”

s. On or about June 15, 2000, during a telephone conversation with another person, STEWART stated her concern that she would not be able to “hide” from the United States Attorney’s office the fact that she had issued the press release.

(End direct quotes.)

Verdict – guilty. And it wasn’t just the Egypt ceasefire that was at issue. Read The Smoking Gun’s writing and note the USS Cole discussion at the end of it.

Stewart was aiding and abetting a convicted terrorist. And now she has amassed her liberal friends and wants our sympathy. In fact, she’s on a speaking tour while she waits for a September 23, 2005, sentencing.

Sympathy? She won’t get mine.

Is there a priest in the house? Medic!!!!!

The LA Times found what they were looking for – a disaffected Catholic who has written a book. First hint of trouble: check the byline. Is it normal to put a guy’s credentials up front? Don’t they usually reserve them for the end? Are they trying to convince us of his moral superiority before we read his diatribe? I editorialize liberally throughout the article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people think God’s rules change over time. I thought some people, at least including priests, would understand this concept. Guess not.


A Catholic Call for Dissent.

By Charles E. Curran, Charles E. Curran is a professor of human values at Southern Methodist University and the author, most recently, of "The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II" (Georgetown University Press, 2005).

I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church. (Ed. – OK, Charles, I’ll bite. Compare and contrast “peripheral” and “core”)

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. (Ed. – sorry for interrupting, but I can feel some residual issues.) Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches." (Ed. – before we get too much further, I want to thank you, Charles, for using direct quotes. So let me get this straight, popes don’t like you, right?)

I was fired. (Ed. – it would have had much more impact if you ended the above paragraph with those three words. See your editor.) It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced). (Ed. – Indissolubility. What a great word! Root – Soluble. From the Latin “solvere” meaning to loosen; indissolubility – the state of being incapable of being loosened.

Sorry, Charles, what did you want to loosen and the popes didn’t? Oh darn! It seems the loosen bit probably only pertained to marriage. OK. Divorce: Charles, yes; popes, no. I guess everything else you wanted to change in a way more than just to loosen. Let’s see the issues. Abortion: Charles, yes; popes, no. I guess the same for euthanasia, masturbation (really?), artificial contraception, premarital intercourse, and homosexual acts. Charles, you devil!!!!)

Let’s see if I got this straight (no pun intended). You want people to be able to get divorced; have sex with other (now-single) people regardless of gender, and if none are available – no problem, just touch winkie yourself; you want to be able to have safe sex (I would hope so with all of those risk factors!); if by chance wrapping the wrascal doesn’t stop little spermies from swimming to momma, you want to be able to abort; and then at the end of it all, when all that is between you and eternity is a feeding tube or just the last miserable days on earth, you want to be able to end it all. With church approval. What part do you think those nasty, backward popes had an issue with?)

You know, Chuck (can I call you Chuck? Thanks), it sounds like you are in the wrong church. Try the Episcopal Church - they let in all sorts of folks.

Unfortunately, (Ed. – boy, there’s an understatement!!) the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it. (Ed. – HMMPH!!!!!) Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ. (Ed. – Hear! Hear! Fine examples, my young Catholic friend!! But an issue or two, if you’ll indulge me.)

Hans Küng wrote Infallible?, published in 1971. He lost his right to teach eight years later, in 1979. Claiming to be infallible sounds absurd, like such an easy thing to attack. Surely, the Catholic Church isn’t suggesting that everything the Pope does is correct? Well, no, it is much more limited. Let the Church speak for herself: "the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals ..."

The Church speaks through the pope. So as God’s messenger, I guess it presumes a willing and obedient vessel. And Hans found some popes not quite so obedient. Fine.

But what else is Hans up to? Oh my, Hans said the next pope should also avoid giving moral verdicts on such issues as contraception, abortion and homosexuality.

What is it with these guys? They all want to wrap the wrascal, kill any mistakes, and have sex without regard to gender.

Next, the Rat-man "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff. First, Tippy (can I call you Tippy?) you failed to mention that Boff is silenced no more, and that silence itself is typically for a period of repose only. Maybe you knew that – but remember your audience, Tippy. Regardless. Small point.

So what is Boff all about? “As Emiho Nunez observes, "liberation theology is a new method of doing theology," combining biblical paradigms with a Marxist sociological analysis. Consonant with most liberationists, Boff declares that all theology is built upon two foundations, the one of faith and the other of social reality. By engaging the linguistic, philological and sociological tools of modern criticism, theology exegetes in the most rigorous manner possible the biblical text, and then interprets such data hermeneutically and philosophically. For Boff, theology becomes the intellectual savior of faith, producing the light of synthesis between primitive faith and modern conditions.” Ut-oh. I feel another claim to gay rights coming!!!

Oh no, I spoke much too quickly. This guy is infinitely more off-track: Boff goes on to state that the Bible is not Divine Revelation: “The language of liberation, as diverse as the ramifications might be, articulates a new optic through which human history both in the present and in the past is interpreted. To think and to act in terms of liberation in politics, in economics, in pedagogy, in religion, in sociology, in medicine, in psychology, in critical ideology, etc. implies a hermeneutical turnaround and the enthronement of a new state of consciousness … Now we live under the dominion of this new age that permits a different reading of the texts and historical contexts of both past and present within the horizon of liberation or oppression and regression.” Interpretation: we may not have been smarter than God before, but we are now; that book, the Bible, let me tell you what it really means …

Hey, Tippy!! If you see this guy, make sure his tin foil hat is securely fastened, ok?

Finally, the Rat-man, your nemesis (it must really grate on you that he’s pope, eh?) said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

What’s the story here? Haight asserted that "because of modern pluralistic consciousness," one cannot continue to affirm … that Christ is the centerpiece of God's plan for salvation. Modern. Pluralistic. Consciousness.

Medic!!!!!

That’s the best you can do, Pinky??? Back to your story … sorry for taking so much time.)

Since 1986, no Catholic institution has offered to hire me. (Ed. - I am apoplectic at such a turn of events!) Although I remain a baptized (Ed. – is that full immersion or just the top-of-the-head-non-Biblical-kind?) Catholic and a Catholic priest — the pope and the cardinal (Ed. – that would be former pope and then-bishop-and-now-present pope, to you) did not move to have me defrocked — my case sent an unmistakable and unequivocal message to Catholics around the world that deviation would no longer be tolerated.

(Ed. – Deviation? Killing humans in the womb (see Jeremiah 1:5)? Killing people before God’s time (Babylon’s days were numbered (see Daniel 5:26); Satan’s days are numbered (see Revelation 12:12); but not ours (see Psalm 90:12)? Homosexuality (see 1 Corinthians 6:9, Genesis 19, and every verse dealing with intimate relations – seems to be all mixed gender relationships, bub)? These are mere deviations?)

Official Catholic teaching has always given the impression that the pope and bishops will not and cannot change moral teachings because these teachings are based on God's law. Certainly Pope Benedict XVI will insist upon the same approach. (Ed. – One can only hope.)

But it doesn't have to be that way. History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong). A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. (Ed. – you are equating slavery with homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia? Wow. That takes some cajones.) And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law. (Ed. – Exodus 22:25 (NIV): “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” What’s the problem?)

History is not the only argument for change in Catholic moral teachings. Catholics generally recognize that many (if not all) of Catholic moral teachings on specific issues belong to the category of "non-infallible" teachings. Despite the "creeping infallibilism" (Ed. – great word) that seeks to put more and more teachings beyond question, the fact is that many moral issues are open for reinterpretation and rethinking.

(Ed. – “many (if not all) of Catholic moral teachings on specific issues belong to the category of "non-infallible" teachings.” You must be joking. Please. Tell me you are. Infallibility pertains to, in large part (see above) and by definition, moral teachings; you suggest that moral teachings are to be labeled “not infallible." That would leave infallibility to statements on faith. A faith without morals. That’s an interesting concept. I think you’re an American. You know what I mean by “dufess”?)

Dramatic changes have occurred in some aspects of papal social teachings in the last two centuries. Pope Gregory XVI in an 1832 encyclical condemned freedom of conscience in society as an "absurd and erroneous teaching or rather madness." Pope Leo XIII in the 19th century condemned "the modern liberties" and opposed the equality and participation of citizens in civic and political life. The people, he wrote, are "the untutored multitude" that must "be controlled by the authority of law." Vatican II, however, accepted religious liberty for all human beings. (Ed. – Yes, yes, yes!!!! So now, by logical extension, we should be able to have premarital sex with any gender, kill the mistakes … well, you get the point. We are simply more enlightened on these “social” issues now.)

In dealing with civic, political and economic life, contemporary papal social teachings gives great importance to history and to the notion that social ideas can change with the times. In these areas, church teachings now emphasize the freedom, equality and participation of the person, as well as a "relationality" model that sees people in multiple relationships with God, neighbors near and far, the Earth, and self. (Ed. – Which one doesn’t fit? “Social. Gay Rights. Abortion. Morality.”)

But in papal sexual ethics, an older methodology still prevails. Unchanging human nature and the eternal law of God, not historical development or the person understood in light of relationships, constitute the primary considerations. The many people both inside and outside the Catholic Church who experience some dissonance between papal sexual and social teachings are right. There is a different methodology at work in these two areas. (Ed. – Dissonance. Cute. Poor logic, but nice try. Of course the people that see a difference are right. Because there is a difference. Social teachings are not moral teachings – but sexual teachings are. Different rules – infallibility, eh?)

Some changes would logically occur in sexual teachings if these teachings employed the same methodology as used in papal social teachings. Likewise, papal sexual teachings, like social teachings, would not be able to claim absolute certitude on complex and specific issues. (Ed. – Yes, some changes would occur. And if I change from putting gasoline in my lawnmower to putting water into it, a change would also occur. What’s your point?)

History reminds us that change in Catholic moral teachings always comes from the grass roots. Interviews with ordinary Catholics mourning the death of Pope John Paul II indicated that even those who admired and loved him strongly disagreed with some of his specific moral teachings. Even the staunch defenders of the papal condemnation of artificial contraception for spouses recognize that the vast majority of Catholics do not follow the pope. (Ed. – So not everyone wants to be under God’s rules? Isn’t that because we are sinners? Are you suggesting that because sinners exist, that the Church should change its position? I’m disappointed. Where do you reference the Bible in any of this?)

I'll pray for you, my friend, for you are seriously misguided. 2 Peter 2:1. Read it. Study it. Pray for your enlightenment.

New pope guy

I don't follow Catholic politics or issues too closely. I'm one of those Bible-thumping folks that can't quite get find the verse on confession booths and calling someone father other than God. Just doesn't seem quite right to me. But that's ok. The Catholics have a new pope and the liberal media is going nuts.

I was in a faculty area and the television was on CNN. Ordinarily, I would ask to change it. But this was just after the announcement of Benedict XVI. (I was rather hoping he would opt for the name Leo, like another German pope. Seems like such a nice name.)

So there's Judy Woodruff (isn't that a variant of a grouse?) asking people on the street (her or one of her minions) whether they were upset that he is so strict, that he won't bring the Church into modern times, that he isn't Hispanic. "No," came the universal response. "No problem at all. We have a new pope. Isn't it wonderful?" You could see Judy's hair falling out, actually being pushed out by the tension in her neck.

I'll be honest - one of the things I fear most about going to Hell for eternity is being with people formerly employed by CNN. Could you imagine that? "See, we told you there wasn't a God. Where is He now?" Endless interviews with Hillary Rodham Clinton Kerry Kennedy (she became something of a black widow after Bill stroked out having one last fling with a 20-something girl). One humorous thing would be watching George Stephanopoulos - you could count on him, no matter where you saw him, no matter what time or circumstance, to be curled up in a ball rocking back and forth crying his eyes out.

Hell with newscasters. Oddly brings a chill. I better go read my Bible.

Hillary's Toaster just went Pop!!

Jay Cost reminds us to not over-estimate Hillary. An outstanding piece. As I read it, I was reminded why I quit blogging during the '04 election: it just didn't matter what the MSM reported, the election was over in September. Kerry was simply in the wrong league.

Jay points out in wonderful detail the structural problems Hillary has with herself. She can never survive a presidential run, no matter how much the MSM may want her to.

I recall the day after the '04 election. The faculty office area was glum (except me!). One woman professor, trying to put on a brave face, said, "well, I just can't wait to 2008 and Hillary!" Then she did this little dance. I was very proud of myself - I didn't burst out laughing. That type of person will give the MSM all the reason it needs to push Hillary as a genius politician, as Bill without the phallic issues. How pathetic, eh?

Greenpeace: Brush your teeth, get cancer and die.

That's the story proffered in the Brit's Evening Standard. The theory is that triclosan reacts with water to produce chloroform gas. Chloroform gas is, apparently, a known carcinogen.

Here's the first indication of a problem with the reporting: "If inhaled in large enough quantities, chloroform can cause depression, liver problems and, in some cases, cancer." Yeah, so can oxygen - in large enough quantities. Ever see rust? That's caused by oxygen. Oh my. Imagine what it's doing to your lungs!!!

Here's the only other indication of a problem we need: "[The manufacturer of the products] Marks & Spencer confirmed today it was removing products containing triclosan from all its stores and has been working with Greenpeace to develop alternative products." Ahhh, that leading cancer research institute and toothpaste expert organization Greenpeace. I feel so much safer knowing they are on the job. And I was just about to commit Harry Carey (sing baseball songs while brushing) over the prospect of losing my teeth whilst I fretted about inhaling chloroform gas. Whew, that was a close one!! I always get the order mixed up and say "get me some Crack Jack and peanuts" then I just stop singing. Could you imagine doing that with a mouthful of toothpaste and desparately trying to constantly exhale? I would probably choke and die. Greenpeace, thank you!!!

I wish that were all of the bad news, but it get's worse. Artfully hidden among pictures of skin cancer, Heart Spring shares this tidbit: "The U.S. EPA recently stated that 'Due to chlorine and showering, virtually every home in America has a detectable level of chloroform gas in the air.' When chlorine vaporizes in steam, and combines with other organic compounds in the air, it converts to chloroform. Chloroform is a strong respiratory irritant and causes fatigue." So, if I shower and inhale chloroform gas I may get tired and want to go back to bed.

Just to be safe, until these issues are resolved, I am not going to brush my teeth or shower. But wait - that's silly. Although if I stopped writing now, my son would print this out and put it on my bedroom door with the note, "Please read. I agree. Kindly reinstate allowance until further studies are completed, peer reviewed, and published."

Let's learn more about chloroform:

"Chloroform is a clear colorless volatile liquid with an ethereal scent that is nonflammable and does not form explosive mixtures at atmospheric temperatures and pressures. It is miscible with most organic solvents, and is slightly soluble in water. Chloroform evaporates quickly and in its concentrated gaseous form, it will tend to settle to the ground before dispersing." So it won't explode in my mouth and I can reduce my risk if I brush my teeth standing up. That's a good tip.

"Pyrolysis of chloroform vapor occurs at temperatures above 450 oC, producing tetrachloroethylene, hydrogen chloride, and minor amounts of other chlorocarbons." So if you put a lit match to it, it produces something like ethylene. Don't they use that to power cars in California? This may be a whole new industry. Brush your teeth, spit into the gas tank, and drive to work. Think of all those healthy gums as people run out of gas and begin to brush their teeth. It may increase roadside deaths, but it would be a boon to forensic dentistry. Maybe the drool cup industry would be revitalize, too (although I understand that the fad of tongue piercings has had a positive effect).

OK. Enough silly stuff. Here's the meat: "Cancer: No information is available regarding cancer in humans or animals after inhalation exposure to chloroform. Chloroform has been shown to be carcinogenic in animals after oral exposures resulting in kidney and liver tumors. The U.S. EPA has classified chloroform in Group B2: Probable human carcinogen, with a potency value of 2.3 x 10-5 (microgram per cubic meter)-1. The U.S. EPA estimates that if an individual were to breathe air containing chloroform at 0.04 µg/m3, over a lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a 1 in 1 million increased chance of developing cancer (U.S. EPA, 1994a). The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified chloroform in Group 2B: Possible carcinogen based on inadequate evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animals (IARC, 1987a)."

Inadequate evidence. One in one million - in theory.

I have a higher probability of dying in a car wreck (1.62 per million) - and that is actual deaths based upon data.

In fact, when you consider that the overall death rate is 49.16 per million, and the cancer survival rate is ever-increasing (over 50% almost ten years ago!), I think that a one in a million risk sounds pretty good.

I'm gonna go brush my teeth and shower - a long hot shower. Maybe I'll floss, too.

Harper & McGuinty: Carpe Diem

We've rode speculation before that McGuinty was on his way out, but now he seems to think he can become the second war theatre for Martin. Bummer.

Add to that Harper's change of tone - he wants a June election - and it all adds up to a very bad day for Martin.

McGuinty can say anything he wants, I suggest he is purely in a responsive mode. If the Tories waited, he would have stayed quiet. But since the Tories are getting ready to launch, he must, too. Better to fight and die, than to not fight at all - for surely die we must.

So what is prompting Harper to push for an early election? Simple risk management. There are three major events: The continued Gomery testimony (now through fall); the Brault trial in June; and the Gomery report in November. Harper controls none of it.

The testimony is on-going and Harper just needs to stand back and let the train wreck happen. Any testimony that seems to exonerate Martin will be weighed down like a body with concrete shoes in the bay by the upcoming trial. The criminal trial is a wild card - inculpatory or exculpatory for the Libs? No way to know. Better to let it be defined prospectively than retrospectively. The Gomery report? Again, no way forecast. So take today's momentum, axe the unknowns of tomorrow, and seize the day.

Carpe diem. How fitting that a common French phrase best captures Paul Martin's unscheduled retirement.

But that's not all; it gets potentially worse. One Lib PM has resigned form the party. The Ontario ministers met last night. The full Liberal caucus meets today. Instead of carpe diem, the catch phrase may be et tu (your name here).

UPDATE: I'm laughing ... yes, as a friendly reader points out - carpe diem is Latin, not French. But it resonated so well. See how easy it is to get blinded with the power of journalism?

UPDATE 2: Saisir le jour!!!!

Michael Hernandez de Luna Whines.

From the AP comes a pathetic story (hat tip to Power Line Blog).

It seems these "artists" want to show images depicting the assassination of a sitting head of state. This is supposed to be peachy keen.

The Secret Service felt it appropriate to investigate.

AP: The exhibit's curator, Michael Hernandez de Luna, said the inquiry "frightens" him. ... "It starts questioning all rights, not only my rights or the artists' rights in this room, but questioning the rights of any artist who creates — any writer, any visual artist, any performance artist. It seems like we're being watched," he said.

Hey, Mikey!! Get a grip. Frankly, bub, I view this work through the following lens: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Hat tip, United States Supreme Court.

I am an average person, and in my community the work appeals solely to prurient interests (anything morbid, abnormal, or disgusting). Further, assassinating the president is, of course, patently offensive. See See USC Title 18, Part I, Chaper 84, Section 1751. Finally, Dick, I fail to see the artistic value - a first grader could photoshop that piece of trash.

If it were NEA funds, I would weigh whether the "artistic excellence and artistic merit taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public." I suspect, Dick, I your photoshoped stamps would come up short. Again, hat tip, United States Supreme Court.

So, is this a somewhat tortured analysis? Sure. But enough for the Secret Service to look into it? Yes. And the Secret Service did. So you take this to be frightening? Sorry, Dick - you are pathetic. Quit whining.

Martin CTD Watch.

When I was in law school, my contracts and health-care law professor was also a ride-along on ambulance calls. Not as a practicing attorney with card in hand, but some sort of active participant and advisor (He, Aidan Gough, served as a consultant and adviser to many health care organizations, was the first recipient of the Santa Clara County Medical Society's Award for Outstanding Service to Medicine and was awarded the National Emergency Distinguished Service Award in 1987). And a very funny man. Anyway, he told us that when a patient is all but dead, the nurses write "CTD" on the chart.

CTD - Circling the drain. Just make him comfortable. No more hope.

With that in mind, and knowing the blood in the Canadian waters is being well handled by our blogger friends in the North Country, I have drifted back to keeping up to date on the matter but not fixated - not writing in my dreams and sitting bolt upright at 2:00 AM.

My first source this morning was all I needed: The Toronto Star reports that it is all over but the dirt-filled shovel. Martin is CTD.

The Liberal MP's are linking issues - AdScam and Same-sex marriage - and talking of leaving the party. Martin vows to continue to dig his own grave deeper and deeper until he finds the rockbed: "When I put the Gomery Commission into place, I understood that there would be political consequences. I was under no illusion about that. But calling that inquiry into place was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now," Martin added.

Of course he says these things. How could he not? To bail is to admit defeat. To continue is to live to fight another day.

But the only issue needed to be understood is this: It does not matter how you viewed your job as Finance Minister. It does not matter how oppressive Chretien was or could be at times. It does not matter who tried to keep you out of the loop. You were given signature authority on the checkbook. You were told to watch over Canada's finances. You cannot nuance those basic facts away. Chretien will be tarnished, perhaps several key players will emerge, and you will go down as well.

You're circling the drain, Paul, and everyone knows it. Soon your voice will be an echo, then {poof!}.

Ahhhhh, unless!!! Yes, do the unexpected!!! For once, accept responsibility personally. Tell Canada that you had no idea but that is irrelevant. It was on your watch. Enlist them instead of pushing them away. If it doesn't work, you lose your job; if it does, you may keep it. What's to lose? Your job is already toast.

Kerry Outs CIA Guy?

This story is why Kerry isn't president. Instead, he should be given a box of crayons and a big roll of paper. From yesterday's confirmation hearing for John Bolton to be the next US Ambassador to the UN:

"We referred to this other analyst at the CIA, whom I'll try and call Mr. Smith here, I hope I can keep that straight," Bolton said at one point.

"Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes," Kerry said, characterizing one interview. "Did John Bolton share that view?" Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.

"As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that," Bolton replied evenly. "I thought that was the honest thing to do."

Caption Contest.

My friend, Jo Anne, shared this pic. It begs for a caption or two ...

"No, mum, she doesn't have royal breeding, but she is quite delicate and refined. Also, she has somewhat of that in-bred look."

There's a story in Story, IN

Some places should be avoided. It's as if a brain cloud forms from the local atmosphere, obscuring rational thought and encouraging dysfunctional behavior.

Story, Indiana is so small it is doesn't rank an entry in the US Census. I have looked - not a township, not incorporated. In fact, Mapquest shows just a cross roads. No, actually a "T":

Yet they have managed to not only name a Village Idiot, but to have several in the running.

The winner: Mark Carmichael, the Stroy Inn's maintenance man, cut through a live wire while using a circular saw to replace the inn's galvanized steel roof. But he also damaged his just-purchased 1998 Dodge truck - the day after he got it - by getting it stuck atop a whiskey barrel planter outside the inn. Apparently to warm up to the task he cut the carcasses of two hogs in half with a chain saw, cooked them on bed springs, then used a pitchfork to turn the meat as it cooked. He served up the portions with a hatchet.

The runners-up: Two Story Inn regulars were nominated for knocking themselves unconscious while opening their car doors. Another was nominated for burning down his front porch after not fully extinguishing a cigarette in a full ashtray. Bartender Evan McMahon was nominated for opening an $80 bottle of Chalk Hill Chardonnay to make a $6.50 wine spritzer for a bar patron. Not to be outdone, Story Inn housekeeper Kathy Newhall earned her nomination for using French truffle oil from the kitchen, which costs $50 for a 3-ounce bottle, to quiet a squeaky toilet seat.

Idiots unite, you have a place to tell your story in Story, IN.

Canadian Liberals and the Drain.

A part of me knows it should not be satisfying to watch the careers of civic-minded people slowly circle the drain. But I recall writing several days ago that this situation of Adscam was like knowing a car wreck was going to happen and getting a good seat in advance. It has happened. The response from the Liberals has been frenetic (to be kind) and the feeding frenzy is just beginning. The sad part is knowing honest and good people will be painted guilty through association; the good part is knowing those who profess "I knew nothing" will be flushed (read, "Chretien, Martin").

When (not if) the elections happen this summer, you will know the depth of voter disdain by the number of seats the Conservative party picks up in Quebec. You can't project the percentage growth because it is mathematically impossible to divide anything by zero. But the NDP has always seemed a little fringe and the BQ's are too single issue (in the voters' minds) - so that leaves the Conservatives. Ironic, isn't it? The Libs lose their plurality government through seats lost in Quebec when the Adscam Scandal was focused on spending money there to keep the country together. Perhaps they won the battle but lost the war.

The Ottawa Sun is seeking to widen the net of corruption to include the gun registry program. Good call. From many folks that have spoken with me, that program differed from Adscam only in that Adscam involved less money.

This story isn't very newsworthy, but you know you are in trouble when Communist China writes factually about your problems. They are going to show disrespect anyway - but it is usually done with arguments so twisted and convoluted that only an unmedicated schizophrenic convinced of conspiracy theories involving six gunmen shooting at JKF and falsified Moon landings would nod knowingly. So when they give a straight-forward news article, you know you're in trouble.

How far does the fallout go? Charest may be gone (Quebec's Premier) and McGuinty is being offered as a sacrifice (Ontario's Premier). Will these gentlemen be offed? Doesn't matter, really - the real point is to look at the breadth of the damage so far. It seems appropriate for the G&M to speculate that far (I know, the G&M loves to speculate, but still).

The Winnipeg Sun handicaps this week's testimony expected from Jacques Corriveau, a "golfing buddy" of Chretien.

Finally, the Vancouver Sun gives an utterly boring but ultimately informative discussion.

No more publication ban

Our job is done here. Back to you, our Canadian friends.

PUBLICATION BAN LIFTED - PARTIALLY.

Justice Gomery lifted the publication ban this afternoon, freeing the way for a public consumption of Brault's testimony. Some aspects wof the testimonyy will remain under wraps, but the details are not yet known.

Brault, Groupaction's founder, had his trial moved from early next month to June. Along with former sponsorship program head Chuck Guite, he needs to answer for allegedly defrauding taxpayers of almost CN$2MM (a buck two-eighty American). It was the proximity in time of his Gomery testimony and trial that prompted the ban.

Public consumption may include the digestion of the Liberal government, who hold a plurality in the House of Commons, outnumbered by the combined Conservatives and BQ'rs. The Conservatives are down to the Libs 135-99, while the BQ'rs hold 54, and the NDP 19. Shifting only a handful of seats from the Libs would mean a new government.

"I hate this job. A barn's a barn, dammit," Gomery said after announcing the ruling, apparently thinking the microphone was turned off. "I could give a rat's *ss if the horse left last week."

Paul Martin, soon-to-be-former Prime Minister, has not commented publicly yet, but is rumored to have called the Maintenance Department (le Département D'Entretien) to deliver some moving boxes. During the call, "his voice seemed to quiver," says a person privy to the conversation but wishing to remain anonymous. "I asked him if he was working under a deadline, and he let out a guttural sound. Then I think I heard retching in the background, like when my kids used to go yammy in their jammies. I got the boxes up there right away."

Conservative leaders were seen high-fiving each other in the hallways as they passed one another. “Ah, the smell of napalm in the morning,” one was heard to say.

House of Commons Questions, April 6, Sponsorship Program.

This is rich. Below is the transcript of the House of Commons Questions concerning the Sponsorship Program from yesterday. Watch as our hero, The Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) bobs and weaves his way through the molasses surrounding him. (Ed. – occasional commentary added.)

The session shows a constant drumbeat by the Conservatives for answers now. The Liberals push to wait until December. I think the text refutes the press assertion that the Conservatives want to wait to compel a no-confidence vote. Amusingly, the Libs consistently try to reframe the issue as national unity, as the BQ's were bad (too?), the Conservatives want to detroy Canada.

Here is the full transcript of the Questions Period.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 2004, the Prime Minister referred to political direction behind the sponsorship scandal. On Monday, he added to this by stating that “a few individuals” controlled everything—a parallel group. He has always refused to say who was behind the political direction.

Could he tell the public today who those Liberals are who were pulling the strings of the sponsorship scandal? Who are these individuals? Who makes up that parallel group? Ed. – true. Martin has mentioned that a few times. See my piece on Paul Martin and Logic of Torture Denial.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that. Moreover, one of the Bloc members has already submitted all kinds of names. Ed. – Read, “No.”

I would, however, like to ask the leader of the Bloc a question. Since he is seriously interested in becoming the leader of the Parti Québécois, I would like to know whether he intends to call for an inquiry into the $100,000 the Parti Québécois received from Groupaction. Ed. – Read, “Let’s change the subject.” Again Torture Denial – other people have done things just as bad.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is so anxious to ask questions, he will soon have an opportunity to do so, when he is in the opposition. Ed. – SLAP!!!

The Liberals—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps we should begin again, but without that sentence.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress in question period today. There are going to be a lot of disappointed members at the end of this. Ed. – What? No milk and cookies?

[Translation]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie now has the floor. We must have a bit of order. If people want to have other discussions, there are plenty of places they can do so.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are panicking. They ought to calm down and listen to what Justice Gomery said on Monday “To date, no one has alleged or in any way suggested that money from the sponsorship program went to the Bloc Québécois in any way.” Ed. – Oh, my. BQ is OK. Let’s move on.

Let us move on to something more serious, and hear no more from Ali Baba's noisy band. Ed. – must be a Canadian thing.

The Liberals have some nerve to talk about a “parallel group”. Does the Prime Minister, with all his connections—

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[English]

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I cannot think of a better example--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Speaker: Order, please. The time for the question is up. There are lots of other opportunities for discussions of this type. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

[English]

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians had a chance to see that picture. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the separatist threat and then there they were, all standing hand in hand, the separatists and the Conservatives. That is where they are coming from. That is what it is all about. Ed. – Wow. Paul has some cajones. Talk about deflect, deflect, deflect.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have some nerve to talk about a parallel group.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: That's enough from Ali Baba's band. Ed. – that Canadian thing again. Wasn’t that a Disney cartoon?

Can the Prime Minister, with his insider knowledge of the Liberal Party, tell us whether Chrétien, Pelletier, Carle, Gagliano, Bard, Corbeil, Morseli, Corriveau, Pichette, Ouellet and Lefrançois were part of this “parallel group”, magically integrated into the Liberal structure, some members of which are panicking and yelling to prevent others from speaking? They are like Ali Baba's band. Ed. – Images of a future Perp Walk?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since the potential leader of the Parti Québécois likes to answer questions, perhaps I could ask him a second one. Can he confirm to the House that all the Groupaction gifts to PQ members were in accordance with the electoral laws of Quebec? Ed. – Hey, Paul, let’s deal with your job as Finance Minister, your party as that forming the government. Remove the plank from your eye before you comment on the speck of dust in another’s, eh?

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Parti Québécois has answered that question.

An hon. member: Contrary to what went on in Ottawa, the answer is yes.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The Bloc, in fact, refused money from Groupaction. We were not interested in getting our hands on dirty money, like they did. Ed. – SLAP, SLAP, SLAP.

An hon. member: We did not award contracts either. We never awarded any contracts to our friends. Ed. – YES!!!! He shoots, he scores!!!

Mr. Gilles Duceppe: The Liberals are the ones who awarded contracts, here in Ottawa. They are the ones yelling so nobody can be heard and who are anxious to ask questions because they are going to end up in the opposition. It is time they told us who was behind all this. Which friends of Ali Baba are part of this “parallel group”? Ed. – Give us the witch! The stake is ready! Give us the witch!

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the leader of the Bloc, potential leader of the Parti Québécois, able to tell us whether the money the Parti Québécois transferred to the Bloc was not money— Ed. – it seems that Ali Baba’s band plays only one note.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, a Liberal minister said that good federalists should ignore corruption. It seems to me that, a few moments ago, the Prime Minister made a very similar statement.

Is this “we are the state” attitude at the root of this corruption scandal? I think so.

This is unbelievable, and all the more so when we hear allegations implicating the Parti Québécois.

So, does the Prime Minister think that opposing corruption jeopardizes federalism? Ed. – If this, then that? Methinks the logic dispersed at some point here.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the question of the NDP leader. However, I can say that my party and I set up the Gomery commission to investigate the issue. We did so because Canadians deserve to get answers and because we want Canada's politics to be as honest as possible. That is why we took this initiative and it is us who will shed light on the whole situation. We want the Gomery commission to have time to provide answers. Ed. – and time for us to come up with some questions to deflect attention.

[English]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am going to repeat my question because it is about time the Liberals realized that people care more about Canada than they do about Liberals. Ed. – um, let me try this again. I’m new at asking important questions. I am in NDP afterall.

Yesterday a Liberal minister said that federalists should not attack Liberal corruption, as if this is some kind of a Canadian scandal instead of a Liberal scandal. This is incredible, and even more incredible when we hear the latest allegations regarding the Parti Québécois.

I ask again, does the Prime Minister agree with the position of one of his ministers that to oppose Liberal corruption is to undermine federalism, yes or no? Ed. – OK, got it. Whew!!

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member said is that we should wait for the Gomery report.

The Gomery commission was put in place to determine what the facts are. Mr. Justice Gomery will bring down his decision and at that point we will have them and at that point the government can act. Ed. – Interesting phrase “will bring down his decision.” And your government?

To act on the basis of allegations, on the basis of statements made in the middle of the commission makes absolutely no sense. I would simply say to the opposition, I would say to the NDP and I would say to the Bloc, for heaven's sake let Mr. Justice Gomery get on with the job and let him complete his report. Ed. – Invoking God? Better put on the tin foil hat, Paul. “In the middle of the commission makes no sense?” If in the middle of the trial the defendant stands up and says, “I did it,” that would be good enough for me. Burn the witch!!!

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is interesting advice, except if my ears heard correctly, I heard the Prime Minister bragging to the leader of the Bloc Québécois that they may have received sponsorship money. Is this the best defence the Liberal Party has to offer, that the separatists are just as big crooks as the Liberals? Ed. – That would be, “Future Prime Minister Harper” to you.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Anybody who used the unity crisis to achieve personal financial gain will be punished, because we are getting to the bottom of this issue. Ed. – Ewwww, subtle!! This is not the waste of money, the graft, the greed. Let’s see what motivated everyone here – good intentions. We had a “unity crisis,” people!! Don’t you remember? We had to do this!!

It is very interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party talk about national unity because in 1994 on the eve of the 1995 referendum in the province of Quebec, when federalists of various stripes and when federalists of the Liberal Party were working hard to keep the country together, he was giving speeches saying he did not care whether Canada ended up with one national capital or four national capitals. He did not care then and he does not care now. Ed. – when was Future Prime Minister Harper talking about unity? Now we flashback ten years? My, you are in trouble.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed the entire Liberal Party standing and applauding the fact that sponsorship money may have gone to the Parti Québécois.

I am going to ask the Prime Minister again, can the Prime Minister assure Canadians, all federalists, that his government did not give sponsorship money to the separatists?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois very much would like to have an election based on allegations. It is in their interest to do that because they do not want Justice Gomery to submit his report. They do not want Canadians to have the truth. They do not want the government or the Liberal Party to be able to respond in a substantive way to that substantive report.

I understand the Bloc members because they are separatists. They want to destroy the country, but I cannot understand for the life of me why the Conservatives support the Bloc in commenting on testimony and wanting to have an election based on testimony, not on the facts, not on Gomery's report.

We want to get to the bottom of this. That is why we support the work of Justice Gomery. Ed. – Hey, Scott!! You were asked a question (apparently the soon-to-be-former Prime Minister is on a potty break).

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what we want is a simple answer to a very straightforward question.

The Liberals still brag about the sponsorship program as though it was some master stroke of national unity, but Alain Renaud has admitted that Groupaction donated to the Liberal Party and to the separatists after having received money from the sponsorship program.

Taxpayers want to know why taxpayer dollars that were supposed to be for this program, that the Liberals say was for national unity, end up in the pockets of the separatists? Ed. – Here, here!!!

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, any guilty party, whatever their stripe, will face the full extent of the law. The reason is that this Prime Minister took action. He eliminated the sponsorship program. He established the Gomery commission. He supports the Gomery commission because we are not afraid of the truth.

The fact is that he is commenting on an allegation from one individual. It is not a fact; it is not a truth. We will have the facts. We will have the truth when Justice Gomery provides us with his report. Ed. – is that a denial of the present testimony? How does a report establish the truth if it is based on evidence yet the evidence itself is not the truth? The flag twists and turns slowly in the wind …

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not an allegation. It is an admission.

Groupaction got money from taxpayers, gave money to separatists, gave money to the Liberal Party, and this Liberal Party now will not answer a simple question. Why did taxpayer dollars go from a program that was supposed to be for national unity to people who are hellbent on destroying Canada? Ed. – THWAPP!!

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, if the hon. member really wants to act based on fact, he ought to wait for Justice Gomery's report. Ed. – December 2005!

If he finally realizes that the Bloc and the separatists are hellbent on destroying Canada, perhaps he should reconsider his party's support of the Bloc's daily commentary on allegations before Gomery. Ed. – Read, “the issues are so much more important than the graft and greed.”

In fact, perhaps if he really realizes that the Bloc is hellbent on destroying the country, he ought to support federalists in the province of Quebec and support this government as we get to the bottom of this issue, so that we can defend the reputations of all Quebec federalists. Ed. – Again, note the removal of “Liberal” from the sentence. Cute.

UPDATE 1: The Toronto Star has proffered similar conclusions this morning on the Libs attempt to tar the BQ's as a way to deflect attention.

American MSM Join Fray

It is just a factual rendering of the ban (for the most part), not the opinion-laden condemnations that should be forthcoming, but it's a start.

Gomery Publication Ban Lift Tomorrow?

Big (and late) teaching day for me today. But around tomorrow. Onward. One story is all we need today. Since the G&M requires registration, I have reproduced it in full below (with attribution, of course; although Canada has no prior restraint protections on press freedom, I am sure copyright is still there). Commentary in italics.

Biggest issue I suggest is the second to last paragraph – no standing for Tories or BQ. What a pathetic ruling. It excludes the only parties capable of being adverse to conduct an appropriate cross-examination!! And Chretien is arguing that Gomery is biased against him? Seems the circle is a tad wider.

Here’s the link if you can get through the registration.

By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Wednesday, April 6, 2005 Updated at 5:01 PM EST
Globe and Mail Update

The judge presiding over the sponsorship scandal decided Wednesday to delay a decision over whether a publication ban on explosive testimony provided by ad executive Jean Brault at the sponsorship inquiry will be lifted. (Ed. – so far, so good)

Mr. Justice John Gomery decided late in the day Wednesday that he needed more time to consider whether to allow the testimony of Mr. Brault to be reported in the media after Mr. Brault completed his time on the stand. (Ed. – yeah, yeah, yeah)

Judge Gomery is to make a decision Thursday morning. (Ed. – that would be tomorrow, yes. You see, journalists are not complete idiots)

If he lifts the ban, it may start the ball rolling for opposition parties to pose a non-confidence motion in the Liberals and potentially bring the government down. Opposition parties believe that Mr. Brault's testimony is extremely damaging to the Liberal Party. (Ed. – from a slow beginning, now 28 words into this paragraph we go from “tomorrow is Thursday” to “oh, btw, the government may collapse.” Elegant understatement.)

The Bloc Québécois has a chance to bring forward a non-confidence motion on their opposition day, next Thursday. (Ed. – and in between now and then, they have this cool set of playing cards with pictures of maple leaves on them that the Tories and Libs gave to keep them busy!)

None of the parties are tipping their hat as to whether they want an election, saying they want to wait until Mr. Brault's testimony comes out and gauge the reaction to it. (Ed. – how pathetic. We already know the text has been made available to the MPs. They need to know what the polls will read before they act? I certainly hope the Tories are being maligned here.)

But on Wednesday, prior to the decision, both Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Tory Leader Stephen Harper said they are not going to rush into a decision on a snap election. (Ed. – whatever)

Also Wednesday, a Montreal judge postponed the criminal fraud trials of Mr. Brault and former bureaucrat Chuck Guité until June 6, putting into question whether the ban should be lifted on Mr. Brault's testimony. (Ed. – how convenient. Just a little, but maybe not enough to warrant disclosure of the present testimony)

Quebec Superior Court Justice Lise Côté decided Wednesday to put the two men's criminal trials over until June 6. They were supposed to have begun on May 2, but Mr. Brault and Mr. Guité argued that they did not have enough time to prepare for that date. They had asked that their trials be delayed until September. (Ed. – filler. Journa must be working on a word count.)

Mr. Gomery had placed the ban on Mr. Brault's testimony to ensure that the jury at Mr. Brault's trial not be tainted by information out of the Gomery inquiry. (Ed. – what specious logic. Don’t you have “for cause” challenges to juries in Canada? You exclude the biased ones. Does Gomery think that every Canadian is so emotive as to be incapable of setting aside press coverage? To the extent it is relevant, will the testimony make it into the trial anyway … or was that another deal you cut, John? I seem to think so …)

It difficult to say what move Judge Gomery will make now that Mr. Brault's criminal trial has been delayed only one month. (Ed. - his hand is one Queen's Bishop. the tension is high. He's removing his hand. He is reaching for ... no ... yes, it is. He is reaching for a tissue is going to blow his nose. Oh my, the air is thick here. Back to you, Allison.

Mr. Brault has been testifying before Judge Gomery under a ban since last week. Nothing about his testimony was supposed to have been reported, but a U.S. website released some details over the weekend. (Ed. – wasn’t me!! Oh, no. I am the Captains of my own site. No Quarters to spend on such things. You can draw a dotted line through that company and not find me!!)

And opposition parties know the details because they have representatives at the inquiry. (Ed. – D’oh)

Now, it will be up to them to decide whether to gamble on holding an election if Mr. Brault's testimony comes out. (Ed. – Wow. Such excitement in the prose, such suspense.)

On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Stephen Harper urged caution, saying his party will wait to see what opinions are. (Ed. – isn’t this redundant? Didn’t she say it before? Before, up above? Word count confirmed)

"I think we are going to have to listen to some of the further testimony that will come out before we rush to judgment on how best to proceed. It is not my intention and it is not our party's intention to provoke an election simply on our own timetable or because of our own interests." (Ed. – Hunh?!? So, you will provoke an election based upon someone else’s timetable and interests? Oh my. And I thought our American Republican Senators were losers. Is it all conservatives? I am going to crawl into a corner and cry for a while)

Also, Wednesday, Judge Gomery ruled that Tories and the Bloc Québécois will not be granted standing at the inquiry. Although the Liberals received permission on Monday to cross-examine witnesses, the judge said he sees no need to grant the Tories or the Bloc standing, since their parties are not being directly affected by the inquiry. (Ed. – this is absurd. The testimony suggests that the Libs have a reason to end the disclosures as soon as possible. Limit the things coming out. In the interests of full disclosure, a truly adverse party should be allowed to cross. What a truly bad ruling.)

During Question Period Wednesday, the Liberals again urged the parties to wait for Judge Gomery's final report on the sponsorship scandal, due out in December. (Ed. – Libs. Wait, please. Let us steal another CN$100MM. Or destroy the papers (if any existed) on what we already stole.)

"The Bloc Québécois very much would like to have an election based on allegations. It's in their interest to do that because they don't want Justice Gomery to submit his report. They don't want Canadians to have the truth, and they don't want to have the government or the Liberal party to be able to respond in a substantive way to that report," said Publice Works Minister Scott Brison. Ed. - what a hack. Scotty, git!!! Git now!!!!

He said accused the Tories and the Bloc of wanting to work together to cause an election to be called. (Ed. – Oh. They should work apart? How completely lame. Scott, I love you like a brother - shut up.)

And the walls came down ...

The Toronto Sun is reporting that a soon-to-be testifying witness in the Gomery Commission will relate that Jean Brault was very clear that kickbacks were being paid to Liberal politicians in return for Sponsorship contracts. This witness also claims to have personally seen some of the checks.

Direct payments with checks? That is documentary evidence that should be discoverable directly with the checks and indirectly through bank records. At least in America we use lunch bags and cash. Could Brault have been that sloppy? Or was it by design so that he would not sink alone?

April 5 - Carnival of the Canadian-Scandal Bloggers, La Partie Deux

... A few opening links, then the Canadians Speak ...

Former PM Chretien claims that Justice Gomery is biased.

Warren Kinsella, Lawyer, speaks. Seems testy.

Andrew Coyne says the ban is silly

The Comment.Com provides some good stuff.

Alberni, a Canadian blogger, adds some analysis.

Autonomous Source - Canada's attorney general is probing.

Colbert’s Comments - A thoughtful Canadian blogging.

Little Tobacco Podcast, anyone?.

Raging Kraut - All Gomery, all the time.

Hey, we made CNN!! Um, I feel kinda dirty. Happy. But dirty …

Tennessee Rants provides some great legal guidance. Although he isn’t an attorney

Round-up of posts – the Canadians Speak:

BlogsCanada: E-Group - here, here, here, here, and here.

Ianism - here.

The London Fog - here, here, and here.

JimBobby Sez - here.

OKIE on the LAM - here.

Paul Wells - here.

Babbling Brooks - here, here, and here.

BumfOnline - here.

Quotulatiousness - here, here, and here.

Stephen Taylor - here, here, here, and here.

The Tiger in Winter - here, here, here, and here.

Canadian Sue - here.

John the Mad - here, and here.

The Meatriarchy - here, here, and here.

Dust My Broom - here, here, here, here, and here.

Peace, Order, and Good Government - here.

Calgary Grit - here.

The Heart of the Matter - here.

My Blahg - here, and here.

Bound by Gravity - here, and here.

Jay Currie - here.

All Things Canadian - here.

Autonomous Source - here, here, and here.

PolSpy - here, here, and here

The Gods of Copybook Headings - here.

Political Staples - here.

Hacks and Wonks - here, and here.

Cross-border blogger - here.

Angry in the Great White North - here, here, here, here, here, and here.

RightThinkingPeople - here, here, here, and here.

Brent Colbert - here, and here.

The Freeway to Serfdom - here.

Joel Fleming - here, and here.

Occam's Carbuncle - here, and here.

UPDATE ONE: Hans at The Daily Me just provided me with his latest writing with several links within it.

A VERY long list of links on Adscam

I received this list from a Canadian blogger who for some odd reason is uncomfortable publishing in his or her own country. Amazing, ain't it?

April 2:

Brock: On the Attack - Change of Plans: Now the Liberals Want a Snap Election (best commentary I've read by far)

Political Staples - There is something going down at Gomery, Gomery Explosion Part 2

Angry in the Great White North - Excitement at the Gomery Inquiry -- though we don't know what it is

RightThinkingPeople - The Dreary Cycle Resumes

The-Comment.com - This is a test of the emergency election system

Small Dead Animals - Canadian Election On Horizon?, Gomery: Jean Brault Breaks Down, Gomery Publication Endrun?

Instapundit - WILL THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT FALL?

Norman Spector - EXPLOSIVE GOMERY TESTIMONY

Warren Kinsella - April 2, 2005 (still without permalinks)

The Tiger in Winter - Election in the offing?

CanadianComment - Sponsorship Inquiry Buzz

Pogge - On the other hand...

Daimnation - Something big is going down

PolSpy - A Canadian Conundrum

What it Takes to Win - Something is up! New Gomery testimony spurs talk of election, The Globe and Mail: Gomery testimony prompts election talk, Warren Kinsella is just starting to get into this....

Hacks and Wonks - Okay, here's the update...

Occam's Carbuncle - Somebody light a match

Gay and Right - New Gomery Testimony Devastating?

The Cyber Menace - New Gomery testimony may force an election!

Monte Solberg - Ready or not, here we come?, Gomery goes nuclear

Brigitte Pellerin - Not going well (April 1 entry - no permalink)

---

PolSpy - Brault Brault Brault Your Boat

Stephen Taylor - Hypothetical questions

Langley Politics - The federal blogosphere is humming...

---

Oracle of Ottawa - And the dawn came up like thunder

Max's Mewsings - Privilege may not be enough to skirt
AdScam ban

The Tiger in Winter - This is getting way, way, way into wishful thinking land..., Am I breaking a publication ban...

Andrew Spicer - Surreal

Instapundit - MUCH MORE ON THE CANADIAN SCANDALS

Larry Borsato - More on Canada's sponsorship scandal.

Cross-border Blogger - Gomery Commission

Angry in the Great White North - Jean Brault's Gomery Inquiry testimony -- The Explosive Details

Brent Colbert - I have no idea why you might be intrested
in this...

---

Ianism - Wide Open Is An Understatement

Faltering Lips - Sponsorship Scandal Heats Up

The London Fog - Dinner Time

BumfOnline - Wow

The Tiger in Winter - So about that hearsay stuff on blogs outside Canadian jurisdiction...

My Blahg - RIGHT WHINGERS MAKE ME SICK

Daimnation - The damning testimony?

What it Takes to Win - TAKE MY ADVICE -- DO WHAT DAMIAN HAS DONE!!!

---

April 3:

The Sudden Sage - Adscam is blowing wide open

Joel Fleming - Is this it?

The Skrepnek Sidebar - "Full house, royal flush, what you holdin'?"

Norman Spector - GOMERY BLACKOUT TOTTERING

Ianism - The Kinsella Take - Choo Win Again

Before Dawn - Gomery Inquiry... An election to come?

Wyatt's Torch - What the Hell Goes on in Canada!

Brock: On the Attack - Publication Bans Don't Work in The
Internet Age

Political Staples - When the levee breaks

RightThinkingPeople - The Gomerama Makes the Big Time!!!

---

Civitatensis - Tears Are Not Enough

Striving Against Opposition - Gomery Inquiry and a Looming Election

HCS and Gen's Pad - Huge Scandal in Canada Brewing

Western Standard - Gone In An Electronic Mushroom Cloud

Small Dead Animals - Nealenews Links...

Shamrocks! - Gomery Smokes The Corrupt

The Tiger in Winter - Legality issues..., A sign...?

Gen X at 40 - Secret Testimony

The Meatriarchy - Scandal

Dust my Broom - Inquiry

Autonomous Source - Breaking the Gomery publication ban

RightThinkingPeople - Desperate Liberals - Coming Soon!

---

Inkless Wells - Gomery election Brault testimony

Quotulatiousness - Shhhhh! Gomery Publication Ban in Place!

Angry in the Great White North - The Jean Brault testimony publication ban might be lifted,I found them in my wife's purse...

Monte Solberg - Quick, hand me the Lysol

Cerdipity - Adscam - Gomery Inquiry

My Aisling - Maple Leaf Revolution, eh?

Spartac.us - Ottawa Freedom

Pogge - Reserving judgement for now

Section 15 - Gomery Inquiry heat is boiling the wingnuts

The Monger - I'm not going to break a publication ban...

Rempelia Prime - A Luddite on Brault

Tilting at Windmills - Sponsorship Scandal

My Blahg - THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO

GullChasedShip - The Lid's Blowing Off

the-comment.ca - Guilty is as Guilty does

---

The Politic - Canadian bloggers on Gomery

Ghost of a Flea - Sponsorship scandal

My Aisling - Who is Paul Martin?, Maple Leaf Revolution II, Who is Joseph-Charles Guité?, Maple Leaf Revolution, III

The Newest Industry - Wondering about the blacked-out testimony from the Gomery Inquiry?

Autonomous Source - Why is this news?

Political Staples - Sweating Bullets

Joel Fleming - Publication Ban

Banana Oil! - Hypocrisy, thy name is 'Nuck

Crawling in The T.O. - What's happening at Gomery this week?

The Musings of Brandon Jaynes - Canadian Corruption Scandal Update

Fighting on the Beaches - Sunday, April 03, 2005

Cave News and Views - Liberal government in Canada crumbling?

Pro Libertate Veritateque - Damning Details of Testimony at Gomery Inquiry?

Grandinite - OOOOHHHH Snap! (election)

---

The London Fog - Sending photocopiers to Leningrad

The American Thinker - Big Canadian scandal going public

Small Dead Animals - Tracking Brault Testimony Reaction

BlogsCanada eGroup (Don) - Election or defections

Ianism - WHERE Does He Keep His "Pair?"

Stephen Taylor - Snap elections, government turnover and the bankruptcy of the Liberal brand

Looney Canuck - The Old Order Is Crashing Down!

My Blahg - CRACK ADDICT BLOGGERS

Brock: On the Attack - Legal Advice, Let's Be Pragmatic

The Gods of Copybook Headings - Da Proof is Da Proof is Da Proof, Hear No Gomery, See No Gomery, Speak No Gomery

Political Staples - The MSM catches up, Good Luck!

RightThinkingPeople - The Energy of Information

---

MSM, first report on Captain Ed's piece: CTV.ca, click the "CTV Newsnet: Rosemary Thompson with the details 1:33" link

---

April 4th:

Dissonance And Disrespect - Rotten to the Core

Taking Notes - Canada is far too corrupt to let the Liberals steal truth too.

Mark Peters - Gomery silence broken

Bene Diction Blogs On - Publication Ban

Back Off Government - Brault Fallout

News Junkie Canada - April 3, 2005

The Black Kettle - New Gomery testimony spurs talk of election

Yowling from the Fencepost - I didn't know wingnuts were so interested in ethics scandals.

strangerAttractor - Publication Ban? What Publication Ban?

The Politicker - Canadian Scams And Blog Bans, Canadians Tune Out Scandal, Welcoming All CQ Readers (And Look Up Too), More On AdScam, Canada Slips Further Into Oligarchy

Winds of Change.NET - Canada's Scandal: The Government vs. The Blogosphere

Ianism - A Looming Election?

Blogette - Stone Cold Crazy

Quotulatiousness - Gomery Information Clearinghouse

Stephen Taylor - Jane Taber just called

Turning 30 and a Half - Skeletons In The Closet

Rempelia Prime - What is a publication ban?

Before Dawn - Post Avalanche

What it Takes to Win - The MSM catches up...

Hacks and Wonks - Well, this is getting people interested in the scandal again..., zzzzzzz...wha?...*thinks to himself*..That's a good idea!

Angry in the Great White North - Did I need to do this?

Joel Fleming - Buzz, CTV reporting on CQ's Gomery Information, Media Bias

Mindless in Ottawa - Random Links to "American" websites...

The Globe and Mail - Testimony at Gomery published on blogs

---

The Newest Industry - Want Gomery? Can't Wait for Tomorrow?, Gomery-ized!, Gomery Testimony Leak: First-Hand Verification

The Politicker - The Blogosphere Can't Be Contained

Warren Kinsella - April 4th

Blogette - Winds of Change

PM the er ...um ...PM - Gomery Publication Ban

Quotulatiousness - Word Substitution Game

The Meatriarchy - Scandal II

Angry in the Great White North - The testimony is accurate -- Globe and Mail correspondent

Andrew Spicer - Surreal 2

Daimnation - Blogs 'n bans

gullchasedship - Winnipeg Sun: NEWS - AdScam ban breached

The Sun Chain - AdScam ban breached

The Toronto Star - Bloggers point way to banned Brault evidence

---

Angry in the Great White North - A warning from the Gomery Inquiry, Why are Canadian journalists giggling?!, Decisions being made..., Traffic overload -- what does that imply?

The London Fog - The microfilm is hidden in the wooden leg

Strange Women Lying in Ponds - Ed Riles the Canuck Govt

The Files of the Phantom Observer - Can Justice Gomery Take on the
Blogosphere?

On the Fence - Internet Im-Brault-Glio

Brock: On the Attack - Gomery Considering Charging Bloggers

Victoria Times Colonist - Stench of scandal hangs over
Parliament

CTV - Banned sponsorship testimony on U.S.
weblogs

CBC - Secret Gomery testimony appears on U.S. weblogs

CNews - Grits granted full standing at Adscam inquiry

National Post - Opposition slams Liberals over inquiry