The fine print

First a little weekend Separated at Birth for ya…



The old Man Show logo guy…and State Senator Bill Kintner!



The Gov and his peeps are trying to get their $54K back for the sodium thiopental that they paid for, but was never delivered.

What their plan is for that, is not abundantly clear.

Without seeing the “offer to sell agreement,” drafted by Chris Harris, one can take it on the faith that the OWH didn’t find any refund provisions in the terms and conditions — which they note consisted of 6 terms.


Take a look at just about any click-through agreement you use these days and see how many terms there are for…anything.

But to purchase a shipment of execution drugs from a seller in India, there were SIX? Was this on the back of a napkin with a ketchup stain on it?

“The agreements do not address the possibility of returning the funds in the event Harris is unable to supply the drugs.”

You don’t say.

And once again, it is not as if there hadn’t been previous problems with the shady dealer. A quick call to the previous Nebraska Attorney General could have determined that.

Oh well.



You know, I’m glad that atheists are around to keep the government honest about establishment of religion.

Then again, they don’t have to be assholes every time someone wants to celebrate Christmas.

So instead of a Nativity scene, at the Capitol in Lincoln the atheists will be putting up, “scale models of a church, a wall and federal government buildings to demonstrate the separation of church and state”. Oh and don’t forget the seasonal “reason tree“.

Everyone could have chosen to get along and share, but noooooooo. It had to turn into asshole time.

Next year howsabout you just put up the Festivus pole, and we’ll all get your point.


Say “what” again! I dare you!

In her weekly media call yesterday, Senator Deb Fischer noted that she will be supporting the GOP Presidential nominee, no matter which GOP Presidential candidate gets the nomination.

The LJS demanded clarification: Even if it’s Donald Trump?????!!!!!????!!!

Unfortunately Senator Fischer is polite to all of the press. So she didn’t ask if she stuttered, or whether her voice had cut out. Or whether the reporter misunderstands who and who is not a Republican Presidential candidate and what the word “nominee” means.

But it would have been funny.

And once again, you can see why many, many voters will choose Trump on their ballots, just to spite the Leftist media.


Fastest 20 minutes of your life!

Speaking of Senator Fischer, you can hear my 20 minute podcast with her by clicking here.

We talk Highway Bill, Education Bill and terrorism.
She hits a number of different points and sets out a strong position on all of them.

A great listen over lunch, on your drive home or during your workout (tubby).


…and now YOU know…

And during this Office Party weekend, be sure to tell your co-worker to read Leavenworth St. and listen to all the podcasts on Wheels Down Politics!

Feel free to note that everyone who is anyone in Nebraska politics reads Leavenworth St. And then snootily imply that if they want to know what the talk of Nebraska politics is, they should — nay, NEED — to go to

And thanks for reading, Liking, Following, Subscribing and telling a friend!


  1. TexasAnnie says:

    Geez, Sweeper. Assholes? The article explains that the Atheists were not even asked to share the space. And anyway, the Christians have occupied the space for so many, many years it doesn’t hurt them to relinquish it for once. Even non-Christians know about nativity scenes. But too many Christians don’t know about the separation clause…

    Is this supposed to be Open Comment Friday? You didn’t give the invitation above.

    • Annie, as I often say to my kids, just let me know when you consider it NOT an Open Comment day. Otherwise, I’ll just figure that’s your stance.

      And yes, the atheists are plainly trying to be assholes. They’re making a concerted effort.

      • This atheist also thinks the particular group in Lincoln are assholes.

        The majority of atheists in the country like Christmas. We don’t celebrate it as Christ’s birthday; we celebrate it as a festival of generosity and good-feeling. What’s not to like? As usual, a noisy minority drags down the reputation of everyone else.

        Merry Christmas, everybody.

  2. Maxwell says:

    Ben Carson today threatened to leave the GOP if it does an end run around Trump. For some odd reason, Ben feels secret GOP meetings that ignore what GOP voters want is somehow bad.

    Don’t piss him off. He has a hammer.

  3. TexasAnnie says:

    repentinglaywer: I have the Wm. & Mary Law Review, V. 47, Issue 4, Article 3, ‘St. George Tucker and the Second Amendment: Original Understandings and Modern Misunderstandings’ by Saul Cornell:

    “Tucker’s analysis of the right to bear arms was far more sophisticated than modern Second Amendment theorists have recognized. His writings fit neither the modern collective, nor individual rights models. In his more mature writings, Tucker thus approached the right to bear arms as both a right of the states and as a civic right. Tucker also dealt with the issue of individual self-defense, but he did not treat this right in the context of the discussion of the Second Amendment. Tucker located this right in common law, not constitutional law. One cannot hope to understand Tucker’s legal theory without appreciating the different legal foundations for the two rights.”

    So if the Second Amendment is intended to keep the federal government from disarming state militias, and if common law is intended to substantiate self-defense, then….drum roll….I guess the states’ power to regulate individual gun ownership is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment, and the federal government’s power to regulate individual gun ownership is: ________________________________
    Will you fill in the blank for me?

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Texas Annie, That is the view I attributed to Tucker when he lectured at William & Mary, views on gun rights of course are all over the map. What The SCOTUS majority did was to ignored the relation between the Amendment and original powers of Congress and see it as preserving common law tradition, that is not an irrational reading, but it comes so late in the day and is forced particularly as applied to the States. The literature is fascinating but it tends to suggest a direct historical explanation of meaning is hard to come by and often unhelpful when modern questions of application arise.
      Current Court seems to enjoy creating new subjects for it disposition. I like SCOTUS rather boring. I think they should have stayed out of the issue. They did not and the two decisions have left the Circuits reading tea leaves.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        I’m still thinking about your response after sleeping on it. Please tell more about “What the SCOTUS majority did” and “the two decisions” (which they should have stayed out of). I don’t know what cases you refer to and I am trying to learn, both from an historical perspective and modern interpretation. I especially want to understand the nature of the federal government’s role in individual gun regulation. Does it properly only flow through the states’ authority, or does it directly reach down to individual gun ownership?

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Texas Annie, Under the Tucker reading I suspect that militia is entitled to arms, though maybe only at the armory or when in service. Problem was most people did not want to belong to and drill with militia, and militia was abolished by the National Guard Act. Hard to find a personal right for other than militia members and then only subject to State possession rules unless Congress mandated armories. SCOTUS assumes total male populace was militia and needed guns at home to be ready to rally at the cry of “the Catholics are coming.”

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Yes I enjoyed learning about Tucker thanx to you! Now I understand the first clause of the 2nd Amendment and why it doesn’t seem to match up with what follows… (see below)

      • Bluejay says:


        If the rationale for the militia was to defend against a Catholic invasion, then the Jesuits have truly done a great service to the country and constitutional law. Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas all agree!

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Blue Jay, none of the Justices went to a Jesuit Law School that might make a difference. Reference is to Scalia’s reference fears of Catholics at time of Glorious Revolution when James II was deposed for consorting with Jesuits and diverse other evil person. Mrs Thomas did go to CU Law and the Justice teaches for a week every other year.
        ProfGH not all our rights are natural rights. I am dubious about keep and bar arms, but if it is it is derivative and subject to reasonable regulation, rather like property, or at least in the Scholastic natural law tradition. I am not sure if much of the Bill of Rights flows directly from natural law theory or natural rights theory, if that is different. Juries with 12 members, unanimous verdicts in criminal case, grand juries, civil juries do not seem to be natural in any sense and establishment can be ok in certain circumstances. In addition many of the notions of natural rights in 19th century are not defensible particularly as SCOTUS embodied them in economic due process which it did until the Switch in Time.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH, Given current rulings I suspect arms will be read as meaning fire arms, but of course there is no case law. 2nd Amendment is a kind of national ink blot test, what people say about it probably says more about the speaker than the Amendment. Number of fine books on history and meaning though no real consensus.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Texas Annie, The first case basically held that the 2nd Amendment created a personal right to posses fire arms which prevented the DC as part of fed gov. from adopting a total ban on weapons in DC based on the self defense theory and an armed people reading of Common Law history, the four dissenters basic read it as aimed at disarming the States, an alternate reading of English history, and long standing narrow reading. The Chicago case applied that holding to the States. Case did not deal with banning types of weapons, mode of carry, bans in particular places like churches, or limitations to a particular place, like home or business. so you could weapons of self defense at home for example but no right to take away from home, and it did not address standards for testing validity of restrictions. The cases are being read as saying to Congress and States, impose less than total bans and why and we will tell you if it is okay. As you may have noticedCourt refuse to take a case where a local ban on an assault time weapon was upheld. Scalia and Thomas took the view that any weapons widely owned were exempt from total ownership and possession ban and scrutiny should be strict. Law profs on both sides continue to churn out articles.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        …and so now I have D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. And it appears that our right to bear arms flows from our federal government (SCOTUS) and that our states cannot inhibit this federal right. In the Heller case Scalia made a point of saying that the right can be restricted. But in the McDonald case Alito says the 14th Amendment prohibits restriction.

        We have lots of BIG gun shows around our urban areas here and lots of talking about the federal govt. being a threat to our gun rights. If I’m reading these two cases you indicated, correctly, then it would seem the feds are now the ultimate protector of the individual right to bear arms, while the states are the ultimate protector of the collectivist right, and via regulation, a threat to the individual right. (But the state is not considered a threat here in Texas.) Help me understand better if you can.

      • Our right to keep and bear arms, like our other rights, is a natural right, and owes nothing to any government. We have long ago abandoned feudalism, where the sovereign graciously bestowed rights on his subjects. States do not create rights.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH Is tenure a natural right, or is there a natural right to make contracts, or to make promises, and if the lasts then why consideration or limitations? How does nature create easements and under what circumstances? Natural right of property is,an interesting example,as McDonald commented Blackstone tells us property is a natural right and then has 200 pages of exceptions many of which made sense in his time but would be intolerable today. I find it peculiar that nature wanted us to have guns but not knives or swords, why.

      • TexasAnnie says:

        ‘Natural Rights’ work well in poetry and Libertarian gatherings. But I’m trying to ascertain which level of government, state or federal, has legitimate constitutional power to regulate gun use and ownership. Within the essay on Tucker, I learned that the 2nd Amendment was originally intended to establish a militia for defending the state against the federal govt. or foreign enemies. And from the two SCOTUS cases I learned that individual gun ownership likely may not be regulated by the state.

        So the irony is (or maybe it’s just politics) the federal government (SCOTUS) is the protector of our gun rights! And folks around here believe the opposite…

      • TexasAnnie says:

        And from the National Constitution Center, today’s release (how timely!) we learn of James Madison’s original proposal for gun rights:

        “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Texas Annie, 2nd amendment limits States under 14th, States can give gun rights beyond @nd Amendment, more but not less.
        Natural Rights or human rights are a World Wide fashion with considerable impact world wide, particularly in EU under UCHR. Only last week a NI trial judge struct down part of the NI abortion law as too restrictive under the Convention. S.Ct. of Can. has been particularly active under the Charter.

  4. Mark Andrews says:

    Re/Pete Ricketts and $54K for undelivered drugs. Pete gets to pay that back out of his own, ample pocket. That’s the price he pays for his own stupidity.

  5. Milk of Kindness says:

    I was ordained years ago. Like my military oath, it remains in effect. I think it tacky that atheists try to make political statements on a holy day at our state capitol. However, it is public land. And celebrating religious rites on government land actually bothers me.

    I have seen Jews and agnostics die alongside Christians as buddies. I feel it wrong as a citizen in civil settings to speak as if I was in my own home or church. If nothing else, it is a matter of common courtesy. I don’t mean the secular Madison Avenue Santa or Bunny but the religious content itself.

    Frankly, I don’t want to see Muslims shuffling around a symbolic Kaaba or blue painted druids sacrificing goats under an oak tree in front of the Unicameral. Do one, you must do all.

    Our founders were careful to use terms like “Providence” to be inclusive The USA is a group of citizens who religiously believe or not as they wish only because they are members of that constitutional body politic. Unlike the Islamic State, we are not a one-faith nation. Some accommodation must be made for sake of civic unity. Not for sake of avoiding hurting feelings but for a critical unity in public policy matters which in turn protects our right to believe whatever we wish.

    I have made my oaths to both church and to state. If it was the same, there’d be one oath, right?

    When I was growing up, we didn’t think twice about having a public prayer at a social neighborhood event or ball game, but it was always non-denomination. Like a chaplain’s field prayer, one size fit all. And it didn’t end with a flourish of snake handling or praise Allah or even, “in Jesus’ name”. It was just thanks Lord, Amen. And we didn’t apologize to atheists for the same reason we don’t apologize to non-lactating people when we announced there is breast feeding station for mothers.

    • Sparkles says:


      As an atheist, I am grateful it is your sage words that echo the wisdom of the vast majority of faithful I know, respect and love.

      Thank you for your service, on all fronts.

  6. bynd says:


    Interesting perspective. But, let’s talk to O’Reilly and have him send Waters to any liberal college you like. But I would suggest an Ivy league as they are the brightest of the brightest and ask the question about separation of church and state. Then go to any mainstream church that is not nationally known nor it’s leader and ask them. I’m trying to get the most common folks here. I’ll bet that measly $10.00 bucks the church guys do better. Or, find the atheist not involved with the activists and ask them.

    I believe it is time for the end of the world. Ricky was mostly right about Ricketts. I’m going to go and wash my fingers in battery acid.

    Great, great post milk. As many Christians seem to forget, “and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,”

    Except you can post to so Sweeper doesn’t get discouraged in his numbers:) I believe that is called loving your neighbor.

    • TexasAnnie says:

      I don’t get the gist of the bet you propose but I trust it was made with respect. I’m pretty sure, bynd, that we are not living in “end times” as my old grandpap believed. (But for him, it was!)

      • bynd says:

        I do not believe you have heard from “most” Christians on the separation clause. Therefore, the bet is meant to challenge that assumption and by your inference, that more atheist do.

        Whether you believe or not, science has just “proven” that the universe is dying and only puts out 1/2 the energy it did 2 billion years ago. The end times are coming. Nobody knows how or when. It is conceivable it could even happen tomorrow as I don’t believe that even science knows all it needs to know to accurately predict such things.

  7. anon a-hole says:

    I kind of admire the atheists willingness to buck the system. They’re showing great restraint with their modest display. If they’d truly wanted to offend some of you they could have put on a display celebrating the winter solstice. They could have pointed out that the Catholic Church coopted a pagan celebration and December 25th has nothing to do with Christ’s birth. I’m looking forward to their Easter display. I hope they can get something organized to educate the public on the pagan fertility rites it was meant to displace.

    SOLSTICE – The Reason For The Season!

      • TexasAnnie says:

        Get a grip, bynd! It’s humoros. But I do have a story about the Solstice. Since childhood, I had wanted to see Stonehenge and I finally got the opportunity during the Summer Solstice, 2012. We had purchased tickets to visit while the Druids were observing their religious traditions. The officials take the ropes down and let you walk among the stones, littering and tracking up the pristine lawn as you go…

        Our tour bus arrived about 3:00am and it had been raining. We had to wiggle through the crowd and the Druids to take a place were we could observe the sunrise in a few hours. It wasn’t hard to secure a good viewing station because so many of the attendees were drunk or stoned. When they fell down we just stepped over them and kept moving forward. But alas, a storm cloud moved in, blocking out the sunrise and destroying our hoped for experience.

        But we did witness a Druid wedding!

      • Damn, this software sucks. Here’s what I wanted to say. That Christmas and Easter were originally pagan festivals is pretty irrelevant; that was 1500 years ago, and most of the celebrants were speaking Koine Greek. They have been Christian festivals for around 15 centuries. And trying to muck up someone else’s Christmas celebration is being an asshole, not ‘bucking the system’.

        Atheists have every right to put a display in the Capitol; but the graceful path, assuming we all agree atheists have the right, is not to use that right. We also have the right to lie to our spouses; I for one, prefer not to exercise that right either.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        ProfGH Was not Easter supposed be at Passover, though the Eastern and Western Church disagreed on computation and the Irish, who read more Greek than the rest of theWest briefly sided with the East with complexities add by change in calendar vel non. Since everyone wants to be militant any more perhaps the best we can do is to follow Captain Kangaroo and share toys in peace, though it did not work that well with my kids.

  8. Wrench Prickbus says:

    You do know, don’t you, that Trump’s idea of temporarily halting Muslim immigration is already law which Jimmy Carter used it to keep Muslim Iranians out of the US during the Hostage Crisis.

    Wrench Prickbus and Puling Ryan, the GOP architects of losing ala McCain and Romney, say Trump cannot beat the soon to be indicted Hillary. Yet Trump is trouncing everything these losers have thrown at him. And they don’t seem to know our law from a lump of Christmas coal.

    Trump lays out traps and he managed to snag the whole GOP hierarchy.

    We GOP Conservatives are the pricks, right? We are the grownups who make you eat your spinach while touchy-feely Liberals avoid reality in la-la land. That’s how the voters see us. But if the GOP hierarchy now avoids reality out of the same sort of stupidity that caused Jeb to say he doesn’t care where his own in-laws live and led Fiorina to defend leftist Rosy, then the GOP’s image of mature rationality is dead. What seemed like smart sourpusses becomes stupid pricks.

    Voters don’t mind pricks but they know stupid is damn dangerous. This is going to bring Trump more GOP votes but it is really sending a message to Independents who hate parties. Big bump there.

  9. bynd says:


    Your attitude is beyond refreshing. If only a few of the vocal, public Christians would follow. I cringe every time a christian in public cries about poor me or faults some one for their not getting some thing they think they deserve. Which is, nothing. If the biggest problem we have is not having a nativity in the capitol building, then we should rejoice in all other blessings.

    For the others. As to the holidays. Evangelical Christians believe that a personal relationship with God is personally transforming, making a spiritually new person. Transforming pagan rituals/dates into Christian celebrations would also demonstrate the power of the faith. IMO

    Wouldn’t it be nice if we spent as much time educating others about our own beliefs as we do attacking another’s. Because attacking another’s beliefs, believing it some how elevates/justifies your own, shows a real lack of confidence in your own beliefs.

    Happy Holidays:)

    • Bynd:

      I blush.

      A story; my parents moved to Manchester, England, a couple of years before I was born. Previously they’d lived in Belfast, in a Catholic community that was pretty closed off from the outside (not by its own volition). Anyway, after the neighbors had gotten over Irish people moving into the neighborhood (there was a petition against us, I was told) they made friends, of course. One day my mother and the next door neighbor, Mrs. Robinson, decided to compare prayer books, and discovered there really wasn’t much difference between what Methodists say to God and what Catholics do. My mother was astonished.

      Re the petition: the two near neighbors who refused to sign were the Fabians across the street, and Mr Karyedanski, a concentration camp survivor, who lived on the other side from the Robinsons. Both Jewish.

  10. Yargle Blargle says:

    Atheists are such an unstoppable force in this part of the world. Pity the poor persecuted Christians in Nebraska. Will they ever catch a break?

  11. Macdaddy says:

    I think it is great that the atheists have dragged a church into the capitol building. I bet the Catholics never thought of doing that.

  12. Its the Pits says:

    Religion in the rotunda. Politics in the pulpit. Dyed armpit hair. Ah, Nebraska.

    OWH “’Free Your Pits’ encourages women with unshorn armpit hair to strike up discussions about feminism, identity and body positivity.” This idea comes from a woman who grew up in Omaha.

    Omaha produced the dead guy in Weekend at Bernie’s, the dead guy in We Were Soldiers, and the dead girl in Pearl Harbor. Now a former Omahan brings death to yet another venue, the bedroom.

    Never intercourse of human conflicting desires have so many unshaven pits done so much to kill so many libidos.

    A woman who grows out her armpit hair and dyes it blue is voting for Bernie Sanders. If she burns it off with a blow torch, she’s for Fiorina. If she pulls out each hair with a claw hammer, she’s a Carson supporter. If she goes an entire campaign without washing her pits, she is for Hillary. The way things are going, we can expect some grow out their pit hair, dye it blond, and comb it over like Trump.

    Political pissing contests and religious pissing contests are all pissing contests. You don’t invite opinion making into public properties. Might as well display armpits in the rotunda.

    • Macdaddy says:

      Pits, it’s really hard to find interesting things in Omaha to talk about. I’d hate to be a reporter for the Living section in this town.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.