This really ticks me off:

North Carolina State basketball player Gavin Grant may be deported as an illegal immigrant.

Eyewitness News has learned that Grant was detained last week by campus police and immigrations officials, amid allegations that he was smuggled into the country, from Jamaica, as a child.

NC State officials are saying they believe Grant will be able to play with them this winter, but that's far from the point.

Alright, so he have a kid that's playing college basketball, presumably on scholarship, trying to get his degree and make something of himself.  Meanwhile, North Carolina has over 300,000 illegal immigrants, with the majority of them being Mexican.  Yet, the feds want to ship this kid back to JAMACIA, of all places.

It would be one thing if the feds actually enforced immigration law evenly, but as Michelle Malkin and others can attest to, they don't.  Hence, you have a kid who is a relatively high-profile basketball player at State (he was supposed to start this season) being cherrypicked by the INS, when they could probably go on the other side of the city and detain as many illegal immigrants as they wish.

And note:  this is only a few months after the North Carolina General Assembly proposed a measure that would have given illegal immigrants in-state tuition if they lived here over a year and graduated from an NC high school.  It took the wrath of a couple of local talk radio hosts in Raleigh to draw enough outrage to shelf the proposal.  However, former Gov. Jim Hunt and other supporters are still lobbying for it to be passed.  Hence, how many of those recipients were going to get detained and deported?

The answer:  little to none.  And it isn't as if they don't know where to look.

Let's hop to it.

First, I'm having a hard time deciding who the top teams in the league are.  In the AFC, your guess is as good as mine.  Right now my guess is Pittsburgh, with the Steelers and the Chargers having a possible AFC Title matchup this week. 

New England has fell off the map, getting hammered by LaDamian Tomlinson last week like no team has done since they won their first Super Bowl.  It doesn't help things that they have to go to the Georgia Dome this week and face off against a run-dominated Falcons.  They could go under-500 for the first time in years.

But what about the NFC?  Donovan McNabb has put up better numbers than anyone in the league so far.  His QB rating is over 100, he's thrown for over 1300 yards, and he's got 11 passing touchdowns.  And note:  most of this came after that Monday night stinker he had in Week 1 AND with injuries that could eventually get the best of him and put him on the shelf.  Then there's Atlanta, which could solidify their argument by beating the Patriots, after handing the Eagles their only loss in Week 1.

Notice who's missing?  That's right...the undefeated teams.  Sorry, but none of those teams have beaten anyone significant in the first four weeks of the season to say without a doubt they are the best in the league.  Everyone else is battle tested.

The Colts defense have turned in some great performances, but those were against teams that have little to no offense to begin with.  The best offense out of any of those teams is Jacksonville, and Brian Leftwich hasn't been playing up to snuff lately.  But the Colts have a pretty easy schedule during the first half of the season.  They should steamroll over there next three opponents (Niners, Rams, Texans) before they meet up with the Patriots on a cold Monday night.  Then again, the way things have been looking for the Patriots, there might not be a team for them to play.

This week, we'll find out whether the Bengals and the Redskins are man or mouse.  The Bengals have Jacksonville, who still has that great defense from last year, but have struggled on offense.  The Redskins have the Broncos, who have been red hot since dropping their opener to the Dolphins.  The Bengals' offense has been impressing everyone, particularly Carson Palmer.  The Redskins...well, let's just say they've had Lady Luck on their side more than a few times this year.  But hey; I can't think of a better coach to get that luck other than Joe Gibbs.

Tampa Bay is on the fence right now.  Yeah they're undefeated, but a lot of people say instant replay and poor officiating robbed the Lions of a win.  I dunno; I didn't see the play.  But the Bucs are playing close games with teams that they should be blowing out.  It doesn't help things that Cadillac has a flat tire too.  They "should" whup a depleted Jets team this week; but what happens when they have that Florida showdown with Miami next week?  Uh oh.

No; I didn't mention my Panthers today.  I want to stay in a good mood.

Anyway, here are my picks:

Baltimore over Detroit (tossup)

Miami over Buffalo

Green Bay over New Orleans

Tampa Bay over the Jets

Cleveland over Chicago

Atlanta over New England

Rams over Seattle

Tennessee over Houston

Colts over Niners

Dallas over Philly (UPSET SPECIAL!)

Panthers over Cards

Denver over Redskins

Bengals over Jacksonville

And Monday night....Chargers over Steelers

This will probably be my shakiest week yet.  I'm not sure about half of these games.  Baltimore/Detroit could go either way; New England could find a way to beat Atlanta (after all, they DID lose to Seattle); Houston needs a win badly, and Lady Luck could be on the side of the Skins again.  I expect to grimace every time I read the ticker this week.

I wasn't going to say much about Miers here, mainly because I'm not in a particular mood to talk about politics.  If you've had your head stuck in the sand, Miers has been chosen as a Supreme Court nominee.

Who is she?  Your guess is as good as mine.  She's never been a judge at any level, and her greatest claims to fame have been the fact that she's Bush's lawyer and she was the former president of the Dallas bar association.  But there is nothing on record that gives anyone a clue on how she will perform on the court, other than the mention that she's a born-again Christian, and turned Republican shortly afterwards.

That's all nice, if you're simply looking at her personality-wise.  But do these things make her qualified to sit on the highest court in the nation, especially during these times?  When a nominee is chosen, especially by a Republican president, conservatives should not have to guess as to what approach the nominee takes.  It should be made clear as day, and they should be willing to defend that premise against any scrutiny.

Conservative principles are really simple, actually.  The president only needs to ask three questions when considering a nominee:

1.  Will the nominee uphold the principles and the spirit of the Constitution, not only in words but in theory?

2.  Will the nominee promote freedom and individual liberty over government control?

3.  Will the nominee uphold the limits of the federal government - and the federal courts - in accordance of constitutional law and history?

Not only is it the obligation of the president to make sure each and every nominee can answer those questions in the affirmative, but it's the obligation of the president to have enough information that proves this to be true.  After all, America has been burned too many times by justices we thought were going to rule in this manner (Souter, Kennedy). 

Thus, it's not enough for simply trust Bush.  Placing Miers aside for a second, Bush really hasn't given us much to trust him on.  Whether it's the massive amounts of federal spending, signing campaign finance reform (And no; fighting it after the fact doesn't amount to a hill of beans, especially since he failed.  He shouldn't have signed the damned thing to begin with.), prescription drug bill, failure to reform the tax code, failure to privatize Social Security, playing soft against the terrorists in Iraq....I could go on and on and on.  No; we can't trust you.

With the death of a chief justice and the retirement of an associate justice, Bush has been handed yet another opportunity that very few presidents have ever had; the chance to nominate two (and possibly three, as some are saying Souter may retire next) Supreme Court justices.  This could decide whether the Supreme Court continues to be the statist monarchy that eliminates the freedoms of the American people one court case at a time, or it moves toward being an entity that limits its rulings within the scope of the Constitution.  The Surpreme Court's future can and will decide the future of America, and it's too important to allow a nominee who has little qualifications and no track record.

Bush defenders are saying the qualifications question threatens future presidential nominations, as he should have the right to choose whoever he wishes.  Good.  Just because the president could nominate whoever he wishes doesn't mean he should.  For example, let's say I'm an NBA coach, and I'm facing the Miami Heat.  I could place my 5'11 backup point guard to man up on Shaq.  Should I do it?  Only if I have something against the kat, and am trying to get him killed.  If I'm trying to win the game, however, I'm going to put the biggest and most capable guy on my squad to play defense on him.

And that's what conservatives want.  Guessing games should be left to the kids; we want the biggest dog we can possibly get on the Court.  We want a Janice Brown, or a Priscilla Owen, and if we can't get that, then we want to have someone with the ideals and philosophy of those two.  Let the chips fall where they may.  When another Kelo case comes up we don't need to wonder what side a stealth nominee will be on.  Not only should we expect them to vote it down, but to provide a legal opinion so convincing that not even the most legally sound leftist could penetrate their arguments.

Thus, every conservative senator should vote Miers down.  This is nothing against her personally, but the conservative bloc doesn't have the time - nor should they have the patience - to play guessing games with stealth nominees.  Conservatives deserve better, and their senators should demand more.  It's time Bush started taking conservative issues seriously instead of throwing bones to us as if we're dogs.

After I finished my piece last week highlighting some of the issues going on in college football, I received a response from a fellow blogger about one of his favorite players.  Casey Lartigue, a guy who's work I've read (and cited) stemming from his days at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, decided to challenge some of my beliefs on Ron Mexico...ur, I mean Michael Vick.  Lartigue believes I made these comments because I subscribe to a supposed "manual", which is a belief of what all quarterbacks (or football players, for that matter) should look and play like. 

However, Lartigue misses the point by a mile.  While he cites this post as proof of me subscribing to the "manual", in the very next breath I note two known scramblers (although they are having to cut down on their scrambling these days) in Donovan McNabb and Daunte Culpepper.   And since he read this post just last week, I'm sure he noticed my compliments of Ben Rothlisberger, who is far from being a typical pocket-passing quarterback.

You see, it's not about a manual; it's about balance.  Football is a game of being able to draw up a better play and executing it better than the other team.  You use all of your qualities in order to win.  I'm sure if you asked players in the league, they'll tell you that you need to have more than one redeeming quality in order to become a top player in your position.  If you're a one-dimensional quarterback in the NFL, you're soon going to meet up with a team that will neutralize your strengths and knock your block off. 

One of the amazing feats of Michael Vick that Lartigue reminds us of comes during the Divisional playoffs, where the Falcons mangled the St. Louis Rams 47-17 in order to move on to the NFC Title game.  Lartigue notes that Vick "only ran" for 81 yards in that game (he actually ran for 119), yet the Rams were so worried about Vick's running ability that it opened up opportunities for Warrick Dunn (who is a good back), who carried the ball for 142 yards.

Now that might sound like a great feat, considering it came within the playoffs.  But remember what I said:  Football is about balance.  After all, there's 11 other guys on that field that are trying to stop you on defense.  And a quick look at the Rams defense shows that during the 2004 regular season, they gave up 136 yards per game on the ground and ranked 29th in rushing defense.  In other words, the St. Louis Rams couldn't stop a parked car.

As Lartigue correctly noted, I stated that Vick will use his feet to get him out of trouble.  But in the next sentence I stated:

The good thing for Atlnata (sp) is that the Rams don't have a front line or linebacker set that can even catch him on two-hand tag.

And yes, I didn't think it would be a blowout.  However, how it happened wasn't surprising.  Anyone who has paid attention to the Rams in the past two seasons know this isn't a team that was going to stop the Falcons from running the ball.  And thus, they got their blocks knocked off.

So instead of the Rams, let's turn our attention to a team that's much more appropriate and would have been a better challenger....say, Tampa Bay.  The Bucs are undefeated this year, but last year they finished 5-11, and were only 19th in rushing defense.  However, they always have Vick's number, because they have a decent linebacker corp that can run with Vick on the sidelines and can keep him contained in the backfield.

In their second game last year, Vick threw 27 passes - well above his regular average.  Why?  Because he could only get off eight rushing attempts and the Bucs' defensive line was able to keep Duckett and Dunn contained.  This also led to two fumbles, two picks, and five sacks on the day for the Bucs onto a 27-0 victory.  Now, Vick still ran pretty decent for a quarterback for a QB that day - 81 yards - but his passing game is lacking, and once Tampa Bay took away Vick's one strength, he was exposed.

And that's nothing new for that team.  Tampa Bay's Super Bowl year saw them smack Vick around twice.  In a 20-6 Bucs victory in October 2002, Vick's line was 4-12 for 37 yards and he ran for only one yard.  The next week, against the Giants, Vick didn't play.  Why?  Because the Bucs put him on the shelf.  Later that year in December 2002, the Bucs won again, 34-10.  Vick only carried five times for 15 yards in that one.  And note; the Falcons made a playoff run that year, breaking Green Bay's home playoff streak...in the snow.  So they weren't lightweights.

In 2003, Vick was on the shelf for 3/4ths of that year due to an injury during preseason, so he didn't play the first game against Tampa Bay.  The second one saw the Falcons win 30-28, but that was from the Falcons secondary picking off four Bucs passes in that ballgame.  Vick did run the ball 12 times....but only came up with 39 yards to show for it.  Atlanta had led that game 27-7 at halftime before the Bucs made their comeback.

Last year, Vick finally got the numbers he wanted on the Bucs, with the 24-14 victory last November.  But that's the only time he's been able to maintain speed with the Bucs, and three weeks later he was shut down.

Indeed; one of the reasons why the Eagles were able to have their way with the Falcons in the NFC Championship Game was due to middle linebacker Jerimiah Trotter sitting back about 4-5 yards off the line of scrimmage and being an effective spy on Vick.  That gave the rest of the defense time to close in on him.  Once the Eagles led by double digits, it was over, because then the running game had to be abandoned.  The Falcons didn't have a chance.

Now if every team was like the 2004 Rams, then there wouldn't be much to talk about, as far as opposition goes.  But Atlanta faces the red-hot Bucs twice, they face Carolina (although our front four looked like we need to start hitting the track more often after last night) twice, they face the Patriots this week, and they've already faced the Eagles in a game that was lacklusture for both teams offense-wise (14-10).  What's going to happen when the run isn't an option?  And guaranteed; it will not always be an option.

Compounding that question is the fact that Vick has had two leg injuries this year that took him off the field.  Vick was hurt in the Seattle game and last Sunday against the Vikings; two teams who aren't known for their defense.  It's one thing to have a sore muscle, but those are debilitating injuries that will affect your performance on the field.  Vick uses his legs more than any other part of his body.  It's one thing for your left arm or shoulder to be hurting (I think Vick throws with his right; I don't see him throwing enough to ever notice).  It's another for a leg to be the problem, especially if you are a rusher.

It's funny, because yesterday Daunte Culpepper came out and said he has back problems.  Donovan McNabb has a hernia.  Both of them have cut back on their scrambling over their career and have focused on their passing games more.  Culpepper has not been good this year, but last year he put up numbers that would have made him MVP if it wasn't for Peyton Manning's unbelievable year.  In the first four weeks, McNabb has put up the better numbers than anyone in the league.  Why's that?  Because both have realized that in order for them to be able to compete in this league, they had to adjust with age.  Their passing stats have gotten better and they became effective leaders.  Lartigue mentions Randall Cunningham in passing, but just like McNabb and Culpepper have done, Cunningham had developed a balanced game:  5 seasons with over 3000 yards, including the 1990 season in which he threw for over 3400 and rushed for almost 1,000. 

Will Vick adapt too?  Only time will tell.  Maybe he will get that Moss or Owens like Culpepper and McNabb were able to attain, and will help him create a decent passing game.  Until then, he's a sitting duck.  And there's no telling when that trigger will be pulled.

CORRECTION:  I said Lartigue stated Vick ran for 81 yards in last year's Rams/Falcons game.  He actually said he passed for 81 yards, which is correct.

This week, there aren't really any key games.  Just key situations.

    - First, will McNabb (not Michael Vick...I'll address this later) be able to play hurt all season long?  He hasn't been the same since Atlanta knocked the stuffing out of him earlier this season.  Yeah; you can say he threw for five touches against San Francisco...but that's San Francisco.  C'mon now.

Kansas City isn't known for their defense, but McNabb isn't known for crunch time plays (well, except for the infamous 4th and 26 play...but to hear Freddie Mitchell tell it, he did all the work).  He might survive this week, but I don't see him being able to play all season long with that thing.

    - Will Herman Edwards be able to do anything with the Jets now that Pennington is on the shelf for the rest of the season and Martin is hurt as well?  My guess is, no.  The Pats and the Dolphins look like they will fight for contention this year, and Edwards can just get ready for the hot seat next year.  Unless they get something out of that backup, I don't see the Jets contending for the playoffs this year.  They sure won't get it out of Vinny Testeverde, who helped Dallas crash and burn last year.

    - Will the Chargers bounce back and show the league that they are a legit Super Bowl threat?  There's no better way to do this than running over the defending Super Bowl Champions.  LT better get those motors running, because he's gonna have to pull them over the hump if they're going to win.

    - Can Cincinnati and Tampa Bay continue their winning ways?  Considering their opposition, they should.  Football Outsiders had Tampa Bay winning the NFC South this year, and right now that looks like a safe bet.  Carolina is struggling and well, Tampa Bay always has Vick's number every year. 

Cincinnati plays Houston.  Nuff said.  Dom Capers is on his way out of another expansion franchise.

Here's today's picks:

Buffalo over New Orleans

Tampa Bay over Detroit

Indy over Tennessee

New England over San Diego (sorry SMF)

Jacksonville over Denver

Cincinnati over Houston

Washington over Seattle (Seattle will find a way to lose this one)

Giants over Rams

Baltimore over Jets

KC over Philly (upset special)

Oakland over Dallas

Atlanta over Minnesota

San Francisco over Arizona

and Monday Night....

My Panthers over Bret Favre.

The games to look out for is Philly/KC, NE/SD, Washington/Seattle (um, folks...Washington is undefeated.  Yeah.  It surprised me too), and that Oakland/Dallas game to see whether Randy Moss either burns the hell outta Roy Williams...or Roy Williams lights up Moss like a Christmas tree.  I say it'll be a bit of both.

Enjoy the games.

Sorry about last week, as my DSL was down all weekend and I couldn't put in my picks.  If it makes things any better, I picked every winning team last week.  Ha!

 - First things first; my Panthers are underachieving.  Ugh.  The secondary "upgrades" have been nothing but disappointing to me, we haven't established a decent running game yet, and it takes the second half before we start doing anything, which allows our opponents to break out to an early lead.  Playing from behind is not good.

Two years ago, if we kept the game close, we won.  Period.  Now our two losses have been by a margin of less than a field goal because of blunders.  In the New Orleans game, Fox played for the tie, not the win, and the secondary got burned on the last drive of the game to set up the game-winning field goal and subsequent media masturbation of the Saints.  In last Sunday's Miami game, Delhomme threw a pick - a pass very unlike him throw in such a situation - and that set up another game-winning field goal.  At least Miami is a good team, however.

The Panthers, regardless, isn't a bad team.  They can win 10 or so this season.  The problem is that we're in the most competitive division in the NFL.  Both Tampa Bay and Atlanta are at the top of the league, and while New Orleans isn't good, they'll still compete with most.  It's times like this that you pray for miracles, and hope Tagliabue sends Carolina to the NFC North or the NFC West in the middle of the season.  Carolina would win those two divisions in a walk.  However, we're seeing the NFC East get stronger.  I don't see three teams coming out of the NFC South for the playoffs, as I believe Dallas will get a wild card.  But all three teams will probably deserve to go.

- Did anyone see that great Pittsburgh/New England game on Sunday afternoon?  Now that's how football is supposed to be played.  Well, except for that stupid lateral by Antwan Randle-El.  What the hell was HE thinking?  Take the hit next time and stop trying to be greedy.  This isn't high school.

Regardless, I still think we saw the best two teams in football in that game last week.  The more I see Ben Rothlisberger, the more I like him.  Big, physical, fearless quarterback with a great arm and isn't afraid to take a hit (although he takes more shots from the Patriots, and they'll have to send his ass to the hospital).  And Brady is, Brady.  Although I'm not a wild eyed fan like Don Banks (who should have his MVP vote taken away from him for this column, as Brady hasn't done anything to deserve MVP talk this year.) he is a great player.

- Will someone tell the Saints to stop whining?  Be content with the fact that you're actually playing football, or, something like football but we haven't figured out exactly what that is just yet.

I'm sure it's taken Losman and Horn a while to figure this out, but New Orleans is a mess.  The Superdome is trashed.  There's a few more things that's more important than you guys playing a home game.  Be content with playing in the same town as the Spurs, because that's the closest to a world title you guys will ever get to.

Tom DeLay finally received his indictment by Travis County DA and long-time nemesis Ronnie Earle, for conspiring with members of his PAC to help corporations give money to state legislators 60 days within a general election.

Here's how it went down:  a number of corporations give to a PAC that's headed by Tom DeLay.  The guys that are actually running it takes the money, sends it to the RNC, and the RNC gives it to their state election campaign division, who gives it to state legislators.  Now according to Earle, the problem with this is that 1.  corporations can't give donations within 60 days of the election, and 2.  state legislators can't receive corporate donations, period.  And Tom DeLay was behind all of this.

First, here are the corporations that gave to DeLay's PAC:

1.  Diversified Collection Services - $50,000

2.  Sears, Roebuck, and Co - $25,000

3.  Williams' Companies - $25,000

4.  Cornell Companies - $10,000

5.  Bacardi USA - $20,000

6.  Questerra Corporation - $25,000

Next, the candidates for the Texas legislature that Earle says the money was to go to:

 - Todd Baxter

 - Dwayne Bohac

 - Glenda Dawson

 - Dan Flynn

 - Rick Green

 - Jack Stick (?)

 - Larry Taylor

I've read the indictment, and I think Ronnie Earle has a hell of a lot to prove.  First, he has to prove that the corporations gave the money to the PACs for the expressed purpose of funnelling the money to these state legislature campaigns, and that the PAC's handlers at the knowledge of Tom DeLay had followed their orders.  The RNC, through the Republican National State Elections Committee, then had to give the requested corporate donations to the candidates.  Earle will have to show an elaborate scheme of deception...only to funnel $190,000.

But the 64,000 question is, why weren't any of the corporations indicted as well?  Especially considering the whole idea was to funnel their money to the candidates?  Nor was anyone from the RNC, who was supposed to be involved in this alleged ruse.  Will Earle be able to show that the monies that the corporations gave was DIRECTLY given to these candidates, or will it just show that the PAC decided to give the money to these candidates after the fact? 

Earle falsely calls the RNC a political party.  Incorrect.  The RNC is a national PAC as well, and there are no time limits as to when PACs stop contributing to a party.  And another hole I see in this is that the money specified in the indictment only comes up to $155,000.  Where did the other $35,000 come from?  What was its purpose?

Now hey; maybe Earle is holding out on some evidence he has for all of this.  I dunno.  But considering Earle's obvious partisan holdings, and knowing how the Democratic Party will stoop to any low to take out their opponents, I'm not holding my breath.  DeLay will be exonerated, but the point is to keep this in the news long enough so that the Democrats can make it a rallying cry for the next Congressional campaigns.  More than likely, the trial will take a year to start, so they will get their wish.

You want to know why your medical bills and insurance premiums continues to skyrocket?  It's because of state lawmakers that pander to women's special interest groups, and the media who caters to them at every turn.  That's why I found an Associated Press article written by Susan Haigh that moans about a Connecticut law that forces insurers to cover infertility treatments. 

She wasn't fussing about the law actually being on the books, however.  The alarm bells were ringing because Connecticut had the nerve to place an age limit for the forced coverage!  Connecticut forces insurers to cover fertility treatments only through age 40, rather than the more "sensible" ages of 44 for New York and 46 for New Jersey.  Haigh reported on a couple who couldn't have children on their own.  After previously adopting a child that was eventually returned to the birth mother, the 42 year-old wife tried get their insurer to cover her fertility treatments, but alas, the insurer wouldn't.

Gee; I wonder why?  Could it be that Connecticut and other states throw all of these regulations and forced coverage on them to the point where they're simply not going to cover something they aren't forced to?

I sympathize with the couple, as I know it must be hard not to be able to conceive a child on their own.  However, the government should not act as a fairy godmother; making every wish come true at the expense of someone else.  If the government is going to force anyone to do anything, they first need to come up with a compelling interest as to why this measure should be enforced.  That compelling interest should be based on whether the bill will give their residents more liberty, or the action that is being taken now is depriving residents of their liberty.

In this case, Connecticut is not only hurting the medical industry by burdening insurers with more forced claims, but it is hurting other residents by helping to artificially raise their premiums.  Also, the personal factor comes into play; if the couple wants the child bad enough, they'd pay for the fertility treatments themselves.  After all; the child is not the state's responsibility, or the insurer's responsibility.  It's theirs.  That also means that the decision is theirs as well, and they don't have the right to force a business, individual, or government to pay for them to have a child.

The NY Post looked a little deeper into what has turned into a criminal investigation.  To recap, two staffers of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have admitted to "obtaining" Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele's credit report. 

The DSCC made it sound as if they immediately slapped cuffs on the two staffers, but it doesn't look like it from my viewpoint:

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Schumer-headed Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said two staffers were instantly suspended — with pay — in July after admitting they obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate.

Sources familiar with the situation said the committee's head of research, Katie Barge, and a deputy, Lauren Weiner, got the credit report by using Steele's Social Security number, which they say they obtained from public documents.

Records obtained by The Post show the two continued to be paid by the Democratic committee at least through Aug. 31.

Hence, all their "suspension" amounted to was a vacation of sorts, with pay, despite ADMITTING they did it.  And they paid them for two months.

As Captain's Quarters notes, Ms. Barge has been around the block in leftist circles.  Before working for the DSCC she also worked as a researcher for Media Matters (which probably explains the lack of scruples) and she also worked for the Edwards campaign.  Thus, it's not surprising at the least that this stunt was pulled, considering the illegal and unethical stunts they've pulled in the past.

Another note by Morrissey:  Charles Schumer, who heads the DSCC, introduced the Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill , which would have created a new government office to fight and prevent identity theft.  It calls for a $1000 fine per violation.  It's no wonder he's being called a hypocrite in this instance, considering he actually PAID these women after they ADMITTED they obtained the report through fraud.  They should have been fired immediately, instead of given the chance to simply resign.

From the Washington Times:

Two members of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have resigned after admitting they obtained Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's credit report.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said the two staffers told committee officials in July what they had done. He said the committee began an internal investigation and determined it was an isolated incident.

"The DSCC immediately ensured that Mr. Steele's credit report was not used or disseminated to anyone," Mr. Singer said, "It also reported this incident to the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C."

He said the employees, who were not identified, were cooperating with authorities.
A source familiar with the investigation said the employees were "senior staff" members in the research department of the DSCC.