Kazran:   Are you really a babysitter?
11th Doctor: (shows psychic paper) I think you’ll find I’m universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Kazran: It’s just a lot of wavy lines.
11th Doctor (looking at the paper)  Yeah, it’s shorted out. Finally, a lie too big.

Doctor Who A Christmas Carol 2010

My first thought when I saw this 5-3 ruling from the Supreme Court to Temporarily Block and order forcing transgender bathrooms on public school kids and reading that for the first time in my memory a liberal voted with conservatives put the stay on, was “Finally a lie too big for a liberal justice to go along with”.

But when I read these details:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that he concurred in the decision in part because granting the stay would “preserve the status quo” until the court has a chance to consider a petition for cert. “I vote to grant the application as a courtesy,”

and got a days sleep (working overnights you know) it hit me.

This isn’t about keeping the status quo before cert, this is about keeping the status quo concerning the perceived momentum in this election.

Right now the perception is (Regardless of the reality) that Trump is reeling yet in politics it doesn’t take much to change the conversation which is why the MSM didn’t bother to report much on the bus bombing in Paris or touch Mr. Kahn’s deleting, in classic Clinton style, his law firms’ web site.
However the transgender bathroom issue in public schools is an issue that can change that paradigm.

While the left has managed to push the culture to the brink of insanity & even some would say past it, we have not yet reached the point where anything near a majority of Americans believe that a person with a penis is a woman.

If Justice Breyer had voted with the left this would become a debate issue and then Hillary might find herself having to answer the one question that nobody in the MSM wants raised before the election:

At what age should a young girl be compelled, against her will by law to share a bathroom with a person who has fully developed male genitalia?

This question reveals the Transgender nonsense for what it is which is why it is not asked. The left can not let this question be asked and Hillary must not be made to answer.

Even worse the idea that Hillary would appoint justices who would answer that question with the age of five or under must NOT under any circumstance get into the heads of any voters in swing states, particularly not voters of color who might find this a bridge too far.

Justice Breyer wasn’t doing a courtesy to the state of Virginia, it was a courtesy to the Hillary Clinton campaign to keep things quiet till she is safely elected and this can be done to the American people by fiat in the classic liberal way.

Closing thought, if you are #nevertrump and this doesn’t convince you of the stakes we’re playing for here nothing will.

Don’t forget this is the 2nd week of our 6 week tryouts for Da Magnificent Prospect, You can check out their work Monday evening, Tuesday at Noon, All Day Thursday and Saturday at noon. If you like what you see from them consider hitting DaTipjar in support of them (and please mention their name when you do) as both internet hits and tipjar hits will be part of scoring who stays & who goes.

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

The Mask has dropped from Justice Ruth Ginsberg:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she doesn’t want to conjure up the possibility of Donald Trump in the White House.

“I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told The New York Times in an interview published Sunday. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Ginsburg, on the high court since 1993, told the Times the prospect of a Trump presidency reminded her of the type of wry comment her late husband might have made.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,'” Justice Ginsburg said.

Not only did the mask of impartiality drop she refused to put it back on and doubled down:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

As you might have heard this got some critique from Donald Trump but it also got a lot of critique from liberals as well:

The New York Times:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling. …

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

The Washington Post

I first wrote about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s controversial comments about Donald Trump on Monday. Since then, the situation has erupted into an all-out feud, and now the editorial boards of both the New York Times and The Washington Post have weighed in against Ginsburg’s decision to insert herself into the 2016 campaign…I’ll say at the top what I’ve said before: It’s hard if not impossible to find a direct analog to what Ginsburg has said in recent days. Supreme Court experts I’ve spoken to were unaware of any justices getting so directly and vocally involved — or involved at all, really — in a presidential campaign.


There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error. That leads to a fascinating question: Why would the justice risk her reputation and good standing—and even her power to hear cases involving Trump—for a few quick jabs at the candidate? The answer, I suspect, is that Ginsburg has decided to sacrifice some of her prestige in order to send as clear a warning signal about Trump as she possibly can. The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment, is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country—a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.

To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous. As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period. That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes. The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government. That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin was not happy as reported by Newsbusters:

No, I don’t think there’s any chance she will resign, but I think it’s appropriate to criticize her about this. This is not how Supreme Court justices have talked traditionally. They do not get involved in day-to-day political controversies. They do not endorse or un-endorse candidates.

Describing himself as a “great admirer” of Justice Ginsburg, he then got to the subject of recusal as he added:

And I think there are lots of good reasons for that, not least of which, something involving the election may come before the Supreme Court in a Bush V. Gore type case. And I think she’d have to recuse herself at this point. 

I just think, as someone who is a great admirer of Justice Ginsburg, she is completely wrong in this situation, and she should not be making these kinds of political statements.

And cartoonists as well:

A lot of people are upset about this ethical violation.

I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a complete abrogation of her duty as a judge on the highest court in the land and an action unworthy of her and her position. Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent for the future.

However there is one other consideration.

If there is one thing that anyone who watches the court knows it that any 5-4 decision will involve a “conservative’ justice voting with liberals. You will not and have not seen any of the liberals, Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg being the deciding vote for a case going in the direction of conservatives.

Justice Ginsberg’s public statements make it plan for all to see that our liberal friends on the Supreme Court are simple ideologues and that their vote on any key issue dividing left and right would be no different if every brief in support of the liberal position consisted of the sentence: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” repeated ad infinitum.

Ann Althouse gets it

In the case of Justice Ginsburg, Trump isn’t inferring bias and politics from whatgroup she belongs to. It’s a reaction to her particular statements. It’s individual. She openly displayed her political leanings and her desire for political allies on the Court and her intent, going forward, to use those allies to get to a majority that would overrule cases that recognize important constitutional rights — includingHeller, the case that says there is an individual right to bear arms.

And here’s where it becomes clear that the NYT editorial proceeds upon the second reason I posited above, that Justice Ginsburg’s particular political statements are dangerous and damaging to the political cause she and the NYT support. “In this election cycle in particular,” it’s important to keep voters believing that judges will be impartial and above politics, and here’s Ginsburg “call[ing] her own commitment to impartiality into question.” The Times tries to pass this off as Ginsburg “choos[ing] to descend toward [Trump’s] level,” but she’s not joining Trump, she’s proving him right: Judges are political, and that’s a bad thing. Perhaps Curiel didn’t deserve the criticism, but Ginsburg does, and it’s very irritating to the NYT, it would seem, because the Curiel incident was so effectively used against Trump, and then along comes Ginsburg displaying herself as pleased to be political.

Justice Ginsburg unethical behavior has provided a valuable service to the entire nature by allowing them to see that lie that the NY Times and other want to keep hidden.  The question becomes will the American people react the way the NYT and the left fears they will?

One can only hope but no matter how they do, rest assured the American people will get the president and the justice system we deserve.

Sorta Update: Justice Ginsburg has finally figured out she was not helping her cause.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets remarks she made earlier this week to CNN and other news outlets criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The best part of this non-apology is it allowed Donald Trump the high ground in response:

“It wasn’t really an apology, but we have to move on anyway. It’s just something that should not have taken place,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said.

“It’s just a very disappointing moment for me because the Supreme Court is above that kind of rhetoric, those words. … But she acknowledged she made a mistake, and I’ll accept that.”

The greatest ally Trump has in this election are the people who oppose him.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

As I’ve been writing a lot about the Kim Davis situation I was very interested in how it would come up in the Presidential debate on Wednesday, however the subject didn’t so much point out the differences in the GOP position as it pointed out the seemingly contrary positions of both media and the selective enforcement of federal law and selective interpretation of the constitution depending on who it involves.

First lets look at the Kim Davis exchange:

Jake Tapper: I want to turn back to Governor Huckabee. Governor Huckabee, last week, you held a rally for a county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as I don’t need to tell you. You’ve called what happened to Kim Davis, that clerk, “an example of the criminalization of Christianity.” There are several people on the stage who disagree with you. Governor Bush, for example, says that that clerk is sworn to uphold the law. Is Governor Bush on the wrong side of the criminalization of Christianity?

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, I don’t think he’s on the wrong side of such an issue. Jeb is a friend. I’m not up here to fight with Jeb or to fight with anybody else. But I am here to fight for somebody who is a county clerk elected under the Kentucky constitution that 75 percent of the people of that state had voted for that said that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court in a very, very divided decision decided out of thin air that they were just going to redefine marriage. It’s a decision that the other justices in dissent said they didn’t have and there wasn’t a constitutional shred of capacity for them to do it. I thought that everybody here passed ninth-grade civics. The courts cannot legislate. That’s what Roberts said. But heck, it’s what we learned in civics. The courts can’t make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can’t implement it. They can’t force it. But here’s what happened: Because the courts just decided that something was going to be and people relinquished it and the other two branches of government sat by silently — I thought we had three branches of government, they were all equal to each other, we have separation of powers, and we have checks and balances. If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny. The reason that this is a real issue that we need to think about

Jake Tapper:Thank you, Governor.

Gov Mike Huckabee: No, no. Let me finish this one thought, Jake. I haven’t gotten that much time, so I’m going to take just what little I can here. We made accommodation to the Fort Hood shooter to let him grow a beard. We made accommodations to the detainees at Gitmo — I’ve been to Gitmo, and I’ve seen the accommodations that we made to the Muslim detainees who killed Americans. You’re telling me that you cannot make an accommodation for an elected Democrat county clerk from Rowan County, Kentucky? What else is it other than the criminalization of her faith and the exaltation of the faith of everyone else who might be a Fort Hood shooter or a detainee at Gitmo?

Jake Tapper:  Well, I’m not telling you that, Governor. But Governor Bush is, because he — because he disagrees. He thinks that Kim Davis swore to uphold the law. You disagree? You’re not — you don’t…

Gov Jeb Bush: I don’t think — you’re not stating my views right.

Jake Tapper: OK. Please do.

Gov Jeb Bush: I think there needs to be accommodation for someone acting on faith. Religious conscience is — is — is a first freedom. It’s — it’s a powerful part of our — of our Bill of Rights. And, in a big, tolerant country, we should respect the rule of law, allow people in — in — in this country — I’m a — I was opposed to the decision, but we — you can’t just say, “well, they — gays can’t get married now.” But this woman, there should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for people that are florists that don’t want to participate in weddings, or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve the problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level…

Jake Tapper: You did…

Gov Jeb Bush: And so we do agree, Mike.

Gov Chris Christie: I was —

Jake Tapper: Governor, you said, quote, “she is sworn to uphold the law.”

Gov Chris Christie: She is, and so if she, based on conscience, can’t sign that — that marriage license, then there should be someone in her office to be able to do it, and if the law needs to be changed in the state of Kentucky, which is what she’s advocating, it should be changed.

Ok so we have a question of “she’s sworn to uphold the law” and “there needs to be an accommodation based on faith” presumably based on the 1st amendment but oddly enough when Mr. Tapper asked this question on federal drug laws

Jake Tapper: Senator Paul, Governor Christie recently said, quote, “if you’re getting high in Colorado today,” where marijuana has been legalized, “enjoy it until January 2017, because I will enforce the federal laws against marijuana.” Will you?

The arguments on enforcement suddenly changed.  While Senator Paul invoked the 10th amendment suggesting the feds had crossed into a state issue. During his answer he mentioned a person on stage who used pot at one time. It turned out to be Jeb who had this to say. (all emphasis mine)

Gov Jeb Bush: So, 40 years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it. I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did. That’s true. And here’s the deal. Here’s the deal. We have — we have a serious epidemic of drugs that goes way beyond marijuana. What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision. But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem. Rand, you know this because you’re campaigning in New Hampshire like all of us, and you see the epidemic of heroin, the overdoses of heroin that’s taking place. People’s families are — are being torn apart. It is appropriate for the government to play a consistent role to be able to provide more treatment, more prevention — we’re the state that has the most drug courts across every circuit in — in — in Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance. That’s the best way to do this.

Hold on a second. The laws concerning drugs are Federal laws, laws actually passed by the congress and signed by the president as opposed to the reinterpretation of a constitutional amendment.  How is it that Kim Davis a county clerk is “sworn to uphold the law” but public servants in the state of Colorado who are not claiming this has anything to do with religion, are not?

As the exchange continued. It got worse, after Jeb bush was pressed by Sen Paul on medical marijuana: again emphasis mine

Sen Rand Paul: Well, you vote — you oppose medical marijuana…

Gov Jeb Bush: Here’s the deal. No, I did not oppose when the legislature passed the bill to deal with that very issue. That’s the way to solve this problem. Medical marijuana on the ballot was opened up, there was a huge loophole, it was the first step to getting to a (inaudible) place. And as a citizen of Florida, I voted no.

So Jeb Bush believes Kim Davis “Is sworn to uphold the law” but didn’t oppose the state legislature in Florida passing a bill directly contradicting established federal law and apparently he’s not alone here.  (again emphasis mine)

Gov Chris Christie: And Senator Paul knows that that’s simply not the truth. In New Jersey, we have medical marijuana laws, which I supported and implemented. This is not medical marijuana. There’s goes as much — a further step beyond. This is recreational use of marijuana. This is much different. And so, while he would like to use a sympathetic story to back up his point, it doesn’t work. I’m not against medical marijuana. We do it in New Jersey. But I’m against the recreational use against marijuana. If he wants to change the federal law, get Congress to pass the law to change it, and get a president to sign it.

So Christie, like Bush is willing to support and implement laws that contradict existing federal law, laws that he is sworn to uphold, and is willing to do this without claiming a religious or constitutional reason.  It sounds to me like “being sworn to uphold the law” apparently doesn’t apply if the law is supported by yuppies on the left or the MSM who are both widely in favor of legalizing medical marijuana.


Now let’s take a look at another subject. The Question of the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship came up, Mr. Trump (backed up by Senator Rand Paul) said scholars said no but when asked by Jake Tapper, Carly Fiorina (after making a great point concerning the Democrat’ desire to have this as an issue & not solve the problem said this: again emphasis mine

Carly Fiorina: …the truth is, you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is gonna go away.” It will take an extremely arduous vote in Congress, followed by two-thirds of the states, and if that doesn’t work to amend the constitution, then it is a long, arduous process in court. And meanwhile, what will continue to go on is what has gone on for 25 years. With all due respect, Mr. Trump, we’ve been talking about illegal immigration for 25 years. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989. There are 300 of them. And meanwhile, what has happened? Nothing. The border remains insecure. The legal immigration system remains broken. Look, we know what it takes to secure a border. We’ve heard a lot of great ideas here. Money, manpower, technology…

So Mrs. Fiorina says that “you can’t just wave your hands and say “the 14th Amendment is going to go away, and an awful lot of media pundits and people like Jeb Bush are with her on this. But lets take a look at the text of it The 14th Amendment specifically section 1 which states:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nowhere in that entire section do you see the words “Gay Marriage” ( in fact you will not find the words “marriage” anywhere in the US Constitution)

Yet five members of the Supreme Court found a right to gay marriage that every other justice who ever served on the Supreme Court did not, one that overrode every single state constitution that said otherwise.

So my question is this? If justices can magically reinterpret the 14th Amendment to find a right to Gay Marriage in a document that doesn’t mention marriage, and the media claims it is legit how is it that one can’t interpret that same 14th amendment to say it doesn’t grant citizenship to people born here if their parents came illegally not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Bottom line, apparently some in the GOP believe, with the media that when it comes to Kim Davis, the 14th Amendment is flexible and the enforcement of federal law is not, but some of those same people believe with the media, that when it comes to birthright citizenship and federal drug laws. The 14th Amendment is rigid and the enforcement of federal law is flexible.

Funny isn’t it?


The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.

It is highly unlikely that Justice Scalia dissent in Obergefell et al vs Hodges is going to get the attention that his dissent in King vs Burwell did, but there is a paragraph in this dissent that should be recited and memorized by every conservative in America:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.  They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

This is the fundamental belief of the Baby Boomer generation, that they are in fact the greatest generation and all those who came before were dopes at best and bigots at worst.  The people dancing in front of the Supreme Court today share this belief and that ignorance & hubris is why ISIS, China, radical Islam and Putin are also celebrating today.

They know that the path we have chosen leads to their victory and they are convinced we are too lazy & stupid to get off of it.


If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.


Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Chicago's skyline
Chicago’s skyline

By John Ruberry

On Monday Rahm Emanuel will be sworn in for his second term as mayor of Chicago. He faces enormous challenges including a high murder rate–with it comes the new nickname for the city, “Chiraq,” a crumbling infrastructure that includes pothole-strewn streets, and multiple financial crises. Just last week Moody’s Investors Services double-downgraded the credit rating not only for the city of Chicago, but also for the Chicago Park District and Chicago Public Schools–any bonds they issue will have junk status according to Moody’s. While not placing Chicago in junk status, two other financial firms downgraded the city’s credit last week too.

How the mighty have fallen. Forty years ago, when the New York Daily News’ used the now legendary headline, “Ford to City–Drop Dead” during New York’s financial crisis, Boss Richard J. Daley’s Chicago enjoyed the top credit rating from Wall Street firms.

Now what? Illinois is even worse off than Chicago, the governor of New York bailed NYC out in the 1970s, the Land of Lincoln’s new governor, Republican Bruce Rauner, believes Chicago Public Schools should declare bankruptcy. Chicago’s credit downgrades were generated by a unanimous Illinois Supreme Court decision tossing out the state’s 2013 baby-steps pension reform.

But CPS can’t declare bankruptcy–nor can any Illinois governmental body–state law prohibits it, although a Republican state legislator, Ron Sandack, wants to change that. But the status quo is the way the public-sector unions want it, because during a bankruptcy, all contracts are thrown out the window. The Democratic enablers of the government unions like the status quo too. Michigan is different–and when Detroit’s bankruptcy was concluded, retirees received modest cuts in their pensions.

A massive tax increase for Chicagoans to pay for pensions doesn’t seem to be likely, not even the politicians have the stomach for that.

There is no easy way out.

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Ironically, the junk credit announcement came on the same day Chicagoans Barack and Michelle Obama, chose their hometown for the Obama presidential library. Arne Duncan, Obama’s secretary of education, was the CEO of Chicago Public Schools prior to moving to Washington. Rahm Emanuel was the president’s first chief-of-staff. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s senior advisor, was once deputy chief-of-staff under Mayor Richard M. Daley.

America–and Chicago–face a daunting future.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Q: When do you know that everyone’s favorite Convicted Speedway bomber has finally crossed a line even the left can’t abide?

Stacy tells the story of the ACLU and former Kimberlin Lawyer Paul Alan Ley defending Ace is here and here A peek:

I doubt Kimberlin v. Ace of Spades will ever become a landmark Supreme Court ruling, something your grandchildren will read about in history books, but crazier things have happened, so you never know.

But here is the story from the horses’ mouth key bits:

Kimberlin was in prison for some horrifying crimes – the planting of several bombs in Speedway, Indiana – and we had no idea whether Kimberlin was telling the truth about Quayle.  But the Justice Department was not punishing him on the theory that his speech was deliberately false and defamatory (in which case it would have been unprotected by the First Amendment; but how would the Justice Department have known whether Quayle was or was not a drug customer anyway?), and even thugs have the right to criticize public officials.  So we pursued documents about his confinement under the Freedom of Information Act, hoping to set up a Bivens action against the responsible federal officials.  (The action under Bivens and other authorities was brought by pro bono attorneys from Arnold & Porter and was ultimately settled after several denials of summary judgment and trips to the DC Circuit and even the Supreme Court).

Right away Mr. Levy points to Kimberlin as a person who was jailed for horrible crimes.  That being the case it would seem to me that referring to said crimes and or distrusting said person based on those crimes would be not only normal but prudent.

As I usually do in these situations, I began by trying to persuade Kimberlin to drop his discovery request because the blog post in question is not defamatory.  Kimberlin responded by detailing a number of different statements that Ace of Spades had made which, Kimberlin threatened, would be made the subject of an amended complaint.  And when Kimberlin learned that I had not been dissuaded, he sent Ace of Spades an email threatening that, unless Ace immediately accepted Kimberlin’s unspecified terms, Kimberlin would unmask her and she might suffer the same fate as other bloggers whom Kimberlin had managed to identify (Kimberlin mentioned one blogger who had lost his job and suffered two years of unemployment).

I’m a big believer in trying to head off trouble politely  Mr. Levy is to be commended as a person who both has contact with Mr. Kimberlin and his trust due to his earlier association in attempting to dissuade him from these actions.  That Kimberlin rejected this wise advice and instead began threatening Ace in my opinion says that Stacy McCain , William Hoge, Aaron Walker & Patterico have him pegged exactly right from day one.

As for Mr. Levy he then talks about what he has argued that Ace of Spades….

…has real reason to fear retaliation if she is identified.  This could involve either the economic consequences that Kimberlin threatened explicitly, or even physical consequences in light of the SWATting phenomenon visited by unknown persons on several bloggers involved in controversies with Kimberlin, not to speak of Kimberlin’s own violent past.

and if that last paragraph didn’t clinch that Kimberlin et/al are dangerous this one from the complaint should do it:

First, there is a serious danger of retaliation against Ace of Spades. Ace is concerned by Kimberlin’s past reputation for violent acts — resulting not only from Kimberlin’s convictions for the terroristic bombing campaign in Speedway, but also past reports about Kimberlin’s effort to procure the murder of the prosecutor of the bombing cases, and the police investigation into whether Kimberlin was involved in the gang-style slaying of Julia Scyphers and then planted the bombs to cover up that crime, reported in the Indianapolis Star.  Gelarden, supra. Moreover, even assuming that Kimberlin was not himself involved in the SWATting of his critics (and as long ago as 2012, Ace of Spades specifically urged her readers not to assume that Kimberlin was the SWATter, because she does not believe that he was), the factremains that several of Kimberlin’s critics have been SWATted.   Complaint ¶¶ 58-62. Given Kimberlin’s public identification of other critics as soon as his subpoenas revealed their identities, Ace of Spades has every reason to fear violence at the hands of Kimberlin’s admirers if Kimberlin obtains his identifying information.

To those who think this is all overplayed or not a big deal re-read that last sentence.

I have a lot of respect for all those who have taken on Kimberlin & co head-on, they are doing it not just for themselves but for those who follow who would be intimidated and silenced.

That a debt that can’t be easily repaid.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Wednesday and the quest for the #350 to pay the pay Da Magnificent Seven and the less than magnificent mortgage continues.

You might ask why you should support some overweight guy in a fedora & a scarf writing a parody piece about the media ignoring Jihadists. I submit and suggest it’s BECAUSE I’m writing these pieces that the MSM does not that you should kick in.

10 $25 tip jar hits will do it for this week.

If you would to help Just click on DaTipJar below

Now there is another reason to kick in on a more permanent way

DaGuy low rez copy-psd

Please consider being a subscriber. Only 57 subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis AND if you so at the $25 level
you can receive one of several Exclusive Original Chris Muir high Res Graphics of original members of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven Gang. like the one on the right

Low res tha lotPlease specify which of the eight hi res (including myself you wish to receive) Subscribe at $50 a month and receive all eight. Subscribe at $100 a month and get all 8 wanted posters high res graphics plus the high res version of all of us exclusively created for subscribers of DaTechGuy blog by Chris Muir himself!

11th Doctor: So why does the Gunslinger want you [Jex]?
Isaac: It don’t matter.
11th Doctor: I’m just saying, if we knew that
Isaac: America’s the land of second chances. We called this town Mercy for a reason

Doctor Who A Town Called Mercy 2012

10th Doctor:  You’re not actually suggesting we change our own personal history?

11th Doctor:  We change history all the time I’m suggesting something far worse

War (8 1/2th) Doctor:  What exactly?

11th Doctor:  Gentlemen I have had 400 years to think about this,  I’ve changed my mind.

Doctor Who  Day of The Doctor 2013

A little over a year ago the Supreme court upheld Obamacare deciding, contrary to everything the administration said when passing the law,  that it was a TAX and constitutional on that basis.  On July 2nd I linked to Jay Nordlinger who wrote the following:

“Roberts failed to do his duty — his constitutional duty. He’s not supposed to be looking at the political situation. He’s not supposed to think about his ‘legacy.’ He’s supposed to uphold the Constitution, plain and simple. The majority decision will come to be embarrassing. The dissent will stand as something true and admirable.”

I said, “So, do you think Bush 43 may have inadvertently saddled us with another Warren Burger?” “No!” said the judge. “Burger would never have written something so stupid” as the Roberts ruling. “He was not incompetent.”

This was a day after I concluded that the Chief justice changed his vote/opinion based on pressure and earned a new name:

A person has the right to change their mind based on facts, but a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court changing his mind based on pleasing the NYT or MSNBC et/al is the most dishonorable thing I’ve heard of in public service.  It’s a stain on the court, a Yellow Stain.

Bottom line the question has been answered:   Blue Eyed Hottie out, John Roberts old Yellowstain it is!

May you be happy in the choice you have made.

And his reward for this attempt to appease has not only been scorn but a politicized nominating process

Last week, with the Senate eliminating most filibusters on presidential nominees, was a sad one for the federal judiciary. It would be wholly inappropriate for a judge to apportion blame at the prospect that the voices of present and future Senate minorities have been effectively silenced in judicial confirmations. Now, even those with the most rigid and absolute beliefs can spend a lifetime on the federal bench without a scintilla of bipartisan support.

Well America is a land of second chances and the Chief Justice is going to get another one:

President Barack Obama’s health care law is headed for a new Supreme Court showdown over companies’ religious objections to the law’s birth-control mandate.

CNN elaborates:

The justices agreed on Tuesday to review provisions in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers of a certain size to offer insurance coverage for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.

At issue is whether private companies can refuse to do so on the claim it violates their religious beliefs.

I’ll have more to say about the word “Claims” tomorrow but The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the matter of contraception  and is even more explicit on Abortion where cooperation in one brings automatic excommunication.

You don’t get much clearer when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

However I’m not a judge so my opinion doesn’t matter but the opinions of the members of the court do.

Presuming Justice Roberts old Yellow Stain is embarrassed by his previous ruling and wishes to redeem himself this gives him a chance to correct himself based on totally different grounds.  Religious freedom is a founding principle of our country and the 1st Amendment the bedrock of our rights so it will be hard to critique an argument based on that.

But even if he is NOT embarrassed by his previous actions and still subject to pressure the game is different this time.

#1  The president’s numbers are horrible:

Only four out of 10 Americans believe President Barack Obama can manage the federal government effectively, according to a new national poll. And a CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning also indicates that 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy, the first time that a clear majority in CNN polling has felt that way.

According to the survey, conducted last Monday through Wednesday, 40% say the President can manage the government effectively. That 40% figure is down 12 percentage points from June and is the worst score Obama received among the nine personal characteristics tested in the new poll.

“A lot of attention has focused on the President’s numbers on honesty in new polling the past three weeks, but it looks like the recent controversy over Obamacare has had a bigger impact on his status as an effective manager of the government, and that may be what is really driving the drop in Obama’s approval rating this fall,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

It’s one thing to be pressured by a popular & powerful President in the middle of an election campaign, it’s another to be pressured by a lame duck president whose numbers are down and his honesty in question, particularly if you are going to be in government long after he is gone.

#2  Obamacare is hurting democrat re-elect numbers:

the Democratic lead has disappeared. A new CNN/ORC poll indicates the GOP now holds a 49%-47% edge.

The new survey was conducted last week and released Tuesday.

The 10-point swing follows a political uproar over Obamacare, which included the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov and controversy over insurance policy cancelations due primarily to the new health law.

A few months ago Democrats were talking about an outside chance of taking the house now,  the generic ballot is now reversed and we are seeing stuff like this in Senate Races:

The most significant part is that these words…

We asked Kagan about that today and she ducked the question more than once, blaming insurance companies instead.

…came from an ABC reporter. Not a Fox Reporter, Not a Conservative Blogger but a reporter for local ABC affiliate.

The source of this danger is the continued existence of Obamacare yet to vote on repeal or delay risks angering the base.  A Supreme Court decision striking it down solves that problem.  The Democrat party is about power, not principle, it’s one thing to put pressure on the court to uphold a law when it helps the party,  it’s another thing to put pressure on someone to do so when that law might cost you your house seat, your senate seat or your senate majority.

3.  The Obamacare effects:

In the last few weeks we have seen the cancellation of insurance policies en mass,

An extra legal attempt by the President to change is law

Insurance rates skyrocket

Security Breaches in the exchances

And video of  corruption among “Navigators”

And I didn’t even include the web site blowing up on that list.

Obamacare was unpopular before these things happened, it’s much more unpopular now.  The last time a Chief Justice upheld a law that unpopular with the people was in the Dred Scott decision.  Do you really think a justice worried about his reputation like old Yellow Stain will want to be the next Roger Taney?

In the end it will be up to all nine justices on the court.  Frankly we already know how 7 will vote.  The deciding votes will be Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Old Yellowstain.  Nobody every knows which way Justice Kennedy will vote, but as for the Chief, whether is motive is principle, or pressure now is the perfect time to remove that stain from him.

For the sake of the country let’s hope he’s wise enough, brave enough, or pragmatic enough, to do so.


Olimometer 2.52

Wednesday is here and there has been movement on November’s goals. We are $232 away from full paychecks and full mortgage payments all around.

9 tip jar hitters at $25 or twelve at $20 means I’ll have one more reason to give thanks.

Can my readers give me a happy Thanksgiving? That’s up to you.

We are offering sponsorships of both the Magnificent Seven & the Magnificent Panel now is an excellent time to jump on board, contact me here for more details

What do you when threats, even threats in the company of convicted bombers fail to silence your political opponents? You sue!

Convicted felon Brett Kimberlin has filed a Maryland lawsuit naming bloggers Aaron Walker, W. J. J. Hoge, Robert Stacy McCain, National Bloggers Club President Ali A. Akbar and the anonymous blogger “Kimberlin Unmasked” as defendants.

The defendants believe that the suit is without merit and is part of Kimberlin’s continued effort to use lawfare to silence journalists and bloggers who have written about Kimberlin’s criminal past. The defendants will not be made available for comment until they have finished initial consultations their respective legal counsel.

Two thoughts. What should we make of the fact that Stranahan & Patterico are not included in this suit?

I don’t know what the SLAPP laws are in Maryland but I’m sure that discovery by the defendants should be a whole lot of fun.

I hit Stacy’s tip jar, you should too.

Update: It should be made clear my wondering concerning Stranahan & Patterico doesn’t imply anything. It just seemed odd that if Kimberlin is trying to slow people who have stood up to him they would not automatically be on the list. Not that it matters, as I suspect this suit has less legitimacy that Ed Markey’s “Present” vote on war in Syria, and believe me that’s a hard standard to get below.

Update 2: Patterico has done some research:

Until a complaint is made public, only limited comment can be made. A search of court records reveals the complaint is for “DEFAMATION, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, HARASSMENT, STALKING, CONSPIRACY, INVASION OF PRIVACY AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.” It sounds like “accuse the accusers” on steroids, doesn’t it?

I submit and suggest that Stacy McCain being a journalist of long experience is much too canny to have crossed any lines and would be wise enough to advice Ali of the same. Unless I’m mistaken both Mr. Hoge & Walker have experience in law. Could this be all about outing Kimberlin Unmasked in order to allow his minions to attack?

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to the live stream of Rush on WABC and was surprised to hear ABC News at the top of the hour talk about the Chris Lane Murder.

It seemed atypical. After all usually when a group of black men kill a white person that is considered a local story. Such news might have traction in the city or state where it takes place in but certainly not beyond as the MSM considers it racist to talk about such things.

Of course even that might be more coverage than the story would get if Chris Lane was Black. Such a murder wouldn’t have received local TV coverage let alone national. Lane would have been just another statistic in the plague of black on black violence that the media & the Al Sharptons therein ignore.

So why has this story broken out beyond the local press?

Well because the Mr. Lane was Australian and the Australian press for all its faults is not about to ignore the murder of an Australian Ball player on American soil, particularly when the media reports he died to relieve his killers boredom.

Times have changed.  If this was 20 years ago the Australian press not withstanding the MSM might still have been able to ignore this story, but in ago of Drudge it can’t be done.

So ABC radio did their piece on the murder however there was no mention of race in their piece

or in this AP story (emphasis mine):

Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys “thugs” as he described how Christopher Lane, 22, of Melbourne, was shot once in the back and died along a tree-lined road on Duncan’s well-to-do north side. He said the three teens, from the grittier part of town, chose Lane at random and that one of the boys “thinks it’s all a joke.”

Despite the frenzy of the George Zimmerman / Travon Martin case of just 30 days ago nowhere in the AP/CBS story will you see the words “White” or “Black” and  while twitchy is asking the obvious question


along with bloggers

and while PJ Media is asking relevant questions on culture, gangs:

Google “blue bandana gang” and you’ll get thousands of hits. Light blue bandanas are typically associated with the Crips gang and its offshoots. The Crips are active in Oklahoma — four Crips were indicted on drug trafficking charges in Tulsa in June of this year.

Many are already blaming the gun that the teens allegedly used to kill Chris Lane, including members of the Australian government. Guns are inanimate objects.

The “gun culture” didn’t kill Chris Lane, but the rap and gang culture may have played a prominent role.

and money:

edwards-money pj media

Here is one of several photos of wads of cash on Edwards’ Facebook page. Where does a “bored” 15 year old get this kind of money?

none of these are going to be discussed, the MSM has decided on its meme


and where the MSM leads their acolytes will follow.

@DaTechGuyblog Bored teens do graffiti. Excuses like yours about #guns just ignore the issue of handguns as core problem. #FucktheNRA — Betsy (@BetsyinCalico) August 20, 2013

If  the MSM media has to cover the Chris Hunt murder it’s going to be the story of guns in America…

The indiscriminate shooting of Christopher Lane, a 23-year-old Australian who was living his dream of studying in the U.S. on a baseball scholarship, has repulsed many in his home country and led to calls for Australian tourists to boycott the United States.

“It is another example of murder mayhem on Main Street,” former Australian deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

“People thinking of going to the USA for business or tourists trips should think carefully about it given the statistical fact you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than in Australia per capita per million people.”

…not race, not gangs and not anything else.  If American racism can’t be blamed America itself will be.

And that’s a story the MSM will be happy to run with.


Olimometer 2.52

As the photo above shows, gang membership pays a lot better than conservative media.

Three of those bills from that stack would fill my weekly paycheck currently standing at $39 of the $305 needed to keep the mortgage moving.

Can this change? Well that’s up to you, Please consider hitting DaTipJar below and prove that while conservative blogging will never pay what gang activity does it can generate a paycheck to keep the mortgage paid.


Life is full of surprises, this is not one of them

State Attorney of the 19th Judicial Circuit Bruce Colton today took away the plea agreement after they uncovered that Hunt allegedly gave the underage girl an iPod touch for the two to secretly communicate and meet up for dates and sex over the last 6 months.

This revocation of the plea deal means if the case goes to trial, Hunt now faces the maximum penalty, plus possible additional charges added with the new evidence.

I’m sure there are some who are shocked SHOCKED that after a mere 20,000 violations of the no contact order and the sending of a porn video to her alleged victim that the court might decide to revoke the “no jail no sex offender list” deal.

And if you’re one of the few people who are in fact shocked by that you might also be shocked by this news…

Sheriff’s spokesperson Thom Raulen added, “Tonight at approximately 9pm, Kate Hunt was brought into the county jail by a representative from the bail/bond company which had posted her bond. This was not a result of judicial action but rather done at the discretion of the bail/bond agent. (emphasis mine)

…you should not be. While the 300,000 who signed the free Kate petition or the folks who marched her in the NYC Gay Pride parade or who kicked in a ten spot to her legal defense fund might be upset by these developments, they have no skin in the game other than what they have already given.

The bail bondsman has actual cash on the line, and in the land of real life as opposed to the land of paranoid leftist activism, Kate Hunt is a bad risk.

Good luck finding someone else to go your bail after you violate terms of pretrial release this flagrantly.

says Robert Stacy McCain as he said in another piece before this development:

Once you knew the facts, you recognized that the “Free Kate” argument was constructed entirely of rationalizations and evasions — minimizing, justifying, blame-shifting

Which is likely why the cause célèbre has been light on the célèbre side since May and why Katie Hunt is now sitting in a Florida jail.  And the news that she will be staying there for a while….:

Bond was revoked after Judge Robert Pegg described evidence of Kaitlyn Hunt’s violation of her pretrial release as “overwhelming.” An arraignment date was set for the new charges of transmitting “material harmful to minors,” and Hunt was escorted out of the courtroom and back to the Indian River County Jail.

…is no surprise at all to those paying attention.  I’ll tell you one thing, I won’t be surprised to find out she there alone for long

Court documents show prosecutors have evidence that not only did Kate Hunt violate a court order to avoid her underage girlfriend, but her mom also pressured the alleged victim to tamper with evidence.

“Delete EVERYTHING … PLEASE delete everything..make sure NO ONE finds out you have spoken to Kate at all,” prosecutors say mom Kelley Hunt wrote to the victim.

I wonder if she will be as fast to denounce her plea deal as she was with her daughter’s that is if she is offered one?

Somehow I think not.

After my post on death by political correctness Mike Rogers of Granite Grok sent me an e-mail that I thought was good enough for a post/follow-up so I asked permission to use it.

He gave it but I was kinda slow on the follow-up so he beat me to it here:

You know, Pete, it’s much more basic than that.

The Negro population was making its fastest advances in society (and prosperity) back in the 1950s and 1960s, before the Great Society turned a lot of their youngsters into fatherless wards of the state.

Go and read the whole thing and Steve’s stand your ground post too.

Harvey: You HIT me!

Capt: Disko: “Now you just sit there and think about it.”

Captains Courageous 1937

Lt Dave Spradling: Kaffee, I have people to answer to just like you do. I’m going to charge him.

Lt Daniel Kaffee: With possession of a condiment?

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee…

Lt Daniel Kaffee: Dave, I tried to help you out of this but if you ask for jail time I’m going to file a motion to dismiss..

Lt Dave Spradling: You won’t get it!

Lt Daniel Kaffee: I will get it. And if the MTD is denied I’ll file a motion in limine seeking to obtain an evidentiary ruling in advance and after that I’m going to file against pretrial confinement and you’re going to spend the next three months going blind on paperwork because a Signalman Second Class bought and smoked a dime bag of oregano.

A Few Good Men 1992

At my first job in the Raytheon Scientific Computer Center I met a brilliant programmer in his late fifties. When people needed things yesterday they’d often turn to him for fixes.   Rather than waiting weeks months or years for a fix or application Bob would invariably program a solution in hours or days and without the normal costs of procurement procedures.

This was great for Raytheon and National Defense but unfortunate for the RSCC since our billing was based on people utilizing our libraries using the normal procurement procedures. Thus there was a lot of push to get him “under control”.

Now if your purpose is to improve your department’s stats, the whole”getting Bob under control” meme makes sense.  If you’re goal is however to make sure the people programming our missiles during the height of the cold war had what they needed as soon as possible, not so much.

I submit if you are a defense contractor and your focus is the former and not the latter, you’re doing it wrong.

Which brings us to some facts that have gotten very little attention concerning the Trayvon Martin case and the reason he was suspended from school and found himself meeting George Zimmerman.  It seems some stolen Jewelry was found in his possession along with a burglary tool at school during the search that resulted in his suspension.  One might think that when such a thing happens, particularly on school property, the police would have taken notice wouldn’t they?

SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.

A separate report of “criminal Mischief” (T-08809) was filed for the additional issue of writing “WTF” on a school locker. [It was the search for the marker used to write the graffiti that led to the backpack search].

The school discipline, “suspension”, was attached to the graffiti and not the stolen jewelry.

Huh? Why on earth would B & E and or possession of stolen goods not be treated as a crime to be looked at? What possible advantage is there to instead write-up a report of “criminal Mischief” instead of calling things what they are? Well if your goal is to improve your statistics you can create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system.  In fact you might even be able to get a commendation from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and be able to issue a very happy press release:

(MIAMI)-Miami-Dade Schools Police (M-DSPD) was recently commended by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for dramatically decreasing school-related delinquency in Miami-Dade County public schools.

M-DSPD has the distinction of decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011, which was the largest decline in any school district in the state. The police force is being heralded for adopting effective alternatives to arrest such as civil citations. The M-DSPD has also seen a 35 percent decrease in the amount of referrals to the DJJ.

To most people who assume the job of police as policing and protecting, that might not make sense, but to a department who sees its job as improving statistics, it makes perfect sense.

Imagine for a second if the department decided to go the whole policing and protecting route with a goal to reduce crime and teach…..adventurous teens to avoid wrong choices?

Imagine if the department in question was run by someone like Sheriff Earl Lee the scourge of Stacy McCain’s crowd during his self confessed dopehead days? Imagine if the police were less worried about appearances then in teaching the young that bad decisions have bad consequences?

Then Imagine if in this case was treated as a crime and Trayvon Martin had been charged for burglary or at least possession of stolen goods?

Well for the city it would have meant the expense of going through all the court procedures that such an event entails.  You might have had a counselor or court officer assigned to the case and/or family.  It would have been yet another young black man in trouble and could have been used as an example as how the school district was “failing students of color”.  Since Trayvon was getting close to 18 and the courts are notoriously slow likely all of this would have simply led to some kind of plea or probation deal till age 18.

And for Trayvon Martin & his parents it would have been a pain in the neck.  Public embarrassment for his parents far above a mere suspension.  Time involved, appearances to make.  It would have meant they would need to give their son scrutiny at a stage in his life when it would not be easy.  And if he put a foot wrong on probation it would be juvenile hall and problems and annoyances that come with it

I’m sure the city figured it was just easier to just let things go and I’m sure assuming his parents knew about it, they would have agreed.  A lot less trouble all around.

What could possibly go wrong?

If they did this, and Trayvon Martin still found himself on that fateful night watched by George Zimmerman I’m wondering how different might things have been.  If he had,  say, some kind of probation over his head might Trayvon Martin have   thought: “I don’t like that ass following me but I don’t want to risk any trouble right now.” and instead of turning back to confront George Zimmerman used the more than ample time he had to just go home?

We don’t know any of this but we do know this. If you have a school and police department gaming the system to improve the stats they are selling out the community who they work for, the schools and the kids, both those who got into trouble and those who don’t all for the sake of bragging rights.

How many more kids seeing the system being gained in this way by the authorities for their own gain will look at that, and decide they can do the same? How many will end up someday in trouble, in jail or dead because of it?

All for the sake of a letter and a press release but it gets worse:

Meanwhile — more facts nobody is supposed to mention — President Obama last August signed an executive order that would, in effect, “mandate racial discipline quotas,” so that the methods employed by Chief Hurley are now likely to become nationwide policy.

What could possibly go wrong?

Wrong?  There is nothing wrong here.  It’s all about your goals.  For the political left, you got a boost in the black vote in 2012 and you now have the grievance industry running full tilt with another political season looming and all the Obama scandals off the radar.

After all what’s the life of a single black man, the safety or individuals, the policing of schools  or doing your job compared to the greater good of appearing politically correct, getting the right stats, financing the grievance industry or electing Democrats?

Despicable, dishonorable and disgusting.

Update: Stacy McCain ends it again:

The Politics of Indignation practiced by Democrats requires quite a great deal of narrative management, and relies on the cowardly unwillingness of Americans to speak the blunt truth. We are offered an iconic martyr — St. Trayvon of the Blessed Hoodie — by the High Priests of the Temple Cult and if we fail to mimic their superstitious ritual, if we do not reverently genuflect before this sacred symbol of innocence . . .

“How dare you?”

How dare they, because for Marxists the ends always justifies the means.


Olimometer 2.52

Well Monday I made the mistake of leading with a post on the Pope in Vanity Fair (that accounted for only 3% of my traffic) rather than in a post on the Trayvon Martin case (which accounted for over 57% of my traffic)

That meant that only 3% of my visitors saw my tip jar pitch and since as a rule far less than 1% of visits result in a hit of datipjar few people saw yesterday’s pitch.

But today I’m leading with Trayvon/Zimmerman so I’m hopfing for better luck and as Sunday was a good day for DaJipJar it will take only 10 Tip Jar hitters kicking in $21 each to furlough DaTipJar till Sunday Next.

If you enjoyed last week’s near total vacation from DaPitch consider hitting DaTipJar today, if 9 others join you at $21 each the entire readership can enjoy 4 full days of pitchless blogging.

and even if you do it alone it will bring me another step closer to a full paycheck this week.


As a person who opposes Gay Marriage and has publicly called it simply narcissism I am of course displeased with the Supreme Court’s rulings today but even worse that the result of the final Prop 8 case is the overturning of that referendum based on standing.

Let’s wind back the tape.  In California gay marriage was imposed by fiat.  Dissenting citizens,  opposed by the entrenched Democrat Machine at every turn, went through the complicated expensive and time-consuming process to mount a referendum to reverse them and against all odds, won.

Opponents immediately went to court where a sympathetic judge ruled against the referendum.  The State’s Democrat machine refused to defend a law passed over their wishes on appeal so the people took on the appeal themselves.

Now the Supreme Court has decided they don’t have the right to do so.

In a one party state the implications are staggering!

If a state government, overwhelmingly controlled by a single party wants to push unpopular laws for the benefit of any group the people’s ability to stop them by referendum is stymied.

Any sort of referendum is very hard.  It requires a vast amount of people willing to invest millions of dollars and months or maybe even years of time while being willing to stand up to opponents who will vilify you.  In a one party state it’s even harder since the people who oppose you control all levers of government, making it easy to punish your friends and reward your foes.

Why go through all that time and effort and expense when even if you win, all the party machine needs is a single sympathetic lower court judge to rule in their and violà  you’re foiled without standing to appeal.

Fans of Gay Marriage might be cheering today, but not as loud as fans of one party autocratic  government.

Update:  Legal Insurrection nails it

The death of the ballot initiative movement as Court gives de facto veto power to government officials who want to lose a case.


Update 2:  Justice Kennedy

There is much irony in the Court’s approach to justiciability in this case. A prime purpose of justiciability is to ensure vigorous advocacy, yet the Court insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference ist o lose the case….

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.


The Klingon Homeworld (Federation News Network):  Arrog  Son of Wuugh’zc spokesman for the Klingon Empire reacted negatively to the news that the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 Ruling held that states and their citizens could not be held responsible for or treated differently based on discrimination that took place generations ago.

“Such a ghuy’cha’ ruling could only come from a court populated by petaQ”

the court stated that the formulas and standards written 48 years ago were not germane to today when measuring voting rights and providing corrective action:

“Congress —if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

While the concept of not pushing the children for the sins of the father has a long tradition particularly in Christianity some Christian religious figures are very upset:

(Jessie) Jackson says the ruling will destroy gains in “inclusion and expansion.”

He says he’s calling on President Obama and the Department of Justice to “speak out today” and challenge the ruling.

Muggg son or Paa’ an expert on Klingon jurisprudence and tradition was even more blunt in his assessment of the ruling:

“The law of heredity is very clear: G’now juk Hol pajhard A son will share in the honors or crimes of his father. The idea this court is unwilling to inflict punishment beyond the 2nd and 3rd generation for the sins of the father is something that can have only one reaction: QI’yaH!

While that last explicative can’t be properly translated he did expand on his remarks:

Alone this single ruling might be considered insignificant but that’s how it starts, you no longer hold people responsible for the crimes of their ancestors and the next thing you know Klingon warriors start declaring things like: “This boy has done me no harm and I will not kill him for the crimes of his family.

James Taylor: I’ll make public opinion out there within five hours! I’ve done it all my life. I’ll blacken this punk so that he’ll – You leave public opinion to me.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

I was reading Glenn Reynolds short paper HAM SANDWICH NATION: DUE PROCESS WHEN EVERYTHING IS A CRIME (you can download it here) when something jumped out at me:

“The most dangerous power of the prosecutor:that he will pick people he thinks he should get,rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” Prosecutors could easily fall prey to the temptation of “picking the man, and then searching the law books…to pin some offense on him.”

While Glenn Reynolds make his point (particularly when he references a popular “game” in he US Attorney’s name a famous person and find a crime to jail them with) it hit me this is exactly the same problem one faces with  the MSM.

The greatest power of the MSM is the ability to decide what is “newsworthy” and what is not. To decide say, the death of a Trayvon Martin or a Matthew Shepard is a national outrage worthy of universal condemnation, marches and action while the murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising or the killing of 15-year-old Porshe Foster are local stories of no significance outside of their communities and certainly not worthy of any kind of outrage on a national level.

When the motive for a news organization is profit, the goal is to get the public to buy a magazine or paper, or to attract enough readers to a site or a program to attract high rates from advertisers.

If that was the case, all four of these stories would have been reported nationally and all four of those names would be known at least tangentially known to anyone who reads a paper or watches news regularly

That this is not case.

Instead the Mainstream media chooses its stories carefully, when there is an agenda to be advanced, theirs or their allies agenda an issue.  Take campaign finance reform, for years the media pushed it as a critical issue, the most important thing for any American to consider. The actual importance to the people they are selling this issue is not relevant.  In reality:

In a tape obtained by the New York Post, Mr. Treglia tells his USC audience they are going to hear a story he can reveal only now that campaign finance reform has become law. “The target audience for all this [foundation] activity was 535 people in [Congress],” Mr. Treglia says in his talk. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot. That everywhere [Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.”

Meanwhile as the big money of the “Democracy Institute” launches what is described as:

a coordinated effort by about 36 different interest groups with reported revenues of no less than $1.69 billion, pledging millions of dollars to work together to attack conservative supporters and organizations, to intervene directly in Democratic politics, to push for filibuster reform to better enable a push through their agenda without any input from the opposition, and expanding “voting rights” and fighting voter registration laws to further grease the skids for their legislative agenda.

That story, gets no press, no attention no pixels in the mainstream media.

That’s why Mitt Romney’s words about Cario can be an outrage but Barack Obama’s & Hillary Clinton’s actions/inaction on Sept 11th is can be ignored. It’s why saying “what difference does it make” to the death of Americans is an “unfair tactic” but unsubstanciated affair Rumors concerning John McCain was part of all the news that’s fit to print at the NYT.

Until there is a price for this type of mendacity the MSM will continue to do it, just like until there is a price for the same conduct by prosecutors things will not change.

Update: Great Example of this on Morning Joe today, all the hits on the GOP were on politics while the praise of Mrs. Clinton was on style (one “Journolist actually called Hillary Clinton “GENUINE” lucky for me I wasn’t drinking anything at the time) while the critiques of Mrs. Clinton (such that there was) were on substance.

That my dear readers is the whole thing in a nutshell.

Master-at Arms-John ClaggartHe left his station last night.

Captain Edwin Fairfax VereIn a good cause no doubt Master-at-Arms.  He showed imitative the Captaincy of the foretop is he reward.

Billy Budd 1962

The talk of the day is the story of a lifeguard who went to the aid of a drowning man and the blacklash against the company who fired him for abandoning his post:

As lifeguards are paid and trained to do, Tomas Lopez rushed down the beach to rescue a drowning man — and then got fired for it.

The problem: Lopez stepped out of the beach zone his company is paid to patrol, a supervisor said Tuesday.

At least two other lifeguards have quit in protest.

“What was he supposed to do? Watch a man drown?” asked one, Szilard Janko.

It is of course axiomatic that he MUST go to the aid of anyone who requests it. This however puts the company in a quandary.

When he left his post he placed ever other person he is paid to protect at risk and don’t think for one moment that he and the company would have been sued if anything had happened while he was gone.

Still the company has no business telling a lifeguard: “You can’t help a drowning man.” It’s not only wrong it’s STUPID! A smart company would have had another solution and it’s actually pretty obvious.

Don’t go after the lifeguard, Go after idiot who decided to swim in the “swim at your own risk” area because nobody was going to tell HIM where he can go.

If I was the company I’d bill the guy for the rescue and for the portion of the liability insurance for that day because it was his carelessness that put everyone at risk.

And if I’m the city and/or the company I’d replace the. “Swim at your own risk” with the following:

“Unprotected area: Any person swimming in this area requiring aid services will be charged a $300 plus costs and assumes any liability due to the absence of personal from the protected area. Swim at your financial risk!

People tend to discount physical risk as they somehow tend to think they are immortal but when it comes to financial risk they take it seriously.

This way the blame and the costs go to the person who deserves it and not to the lifeguards who are, guarding lives.


The DaTechGuy fundraiser is now in in progress. Your help is greatly appreciated. For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

To you Baldrick the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people wasn’t it?

Rowan Atkinson Blackadder 2 1986

Remain Calm, all is well!

Keven Bacon Animal House 1978

It’s the week of te 4th of July and Joe & Mika have the week off so the panel today is Donnie Deutsch, Mike Barnicle, Jonathan Capeheart Mark Halperin and Alex Wagner..

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I’m a regular watcher of Morning Joe and being a full-blown conservative I’m pretty hard on Joe Scarborough and Mika, particularly Joe as are a lot of my fellow conservatives.

I tend to think however that he is VERY important because he is the one conduit that brings conservative thought to MSNBC viewers.

That truth is never more apparent than on the days he is not there such as today when the above mentioned panel talked about the Robert’s ruling and the effects on the election.

To the Morning Joe panel the only story was Romney had no plan, they were convinced that the lack of a solid Romney plan is the only issue and nobody is going to care about it in a few week. All during this harangue Mark Halperin sat there and quietly interjected the idea that this is going to have political consequences for the left.

It was as if I was watching the show two years ago, when until the Stewart Rally failed the message was all “the GOP needed to move to the left to win“. The lack of reality was so pronounced you even had Tim Kaine suggesting the purging of some of the Blue Dog Democrats would be a positive.

When Luke Russert came on set during the 6:30 half hour and bluntly said if the Republicans keep the house and win the Senate & White House, they WILL, not might, WILL repeal Obmaacare using reconciliation the entire group suddenly looked as if they were hit on the head, but only for a moment as they pivoted away from his opinion and Russert faded into the background.

What is going on? Well I see two possibilities which aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. The Obama White house understand that their only prayer is to keep the base believing so any suggestion that the Obamacare ruling is going to hurt badly in November can’t be expressed and the table is acting accordingly.

2. The people around the table are so insulated, and are so removed from the reality of the election they can’t conceive that the average voter or small business owner sees Obamacare in general and Obama in particular as a disaster.

If it propaganda or is it delusion, or is it just servicing that niche market that writes their checks? We will find out closer to election day when it becomes harder and harder to ignore reality as it approaches.

The DaTechGuy Fundraiser is in progress, our goal is $3000 and any help is appreciated.

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.

Woke up as the bus shook its way toward the tolls near exit 18 as we work out way south toward Washington.

About 20 to 25 of us boarded the bus in Auburn MA.

I was very tired and crashed almost at once, so I wasn’t awake to see how many people boarded on the two stops in Connecticut to pick up additional passengers so I don’t have a count of the numbers currently on-board but a count in the dark makes it about 40.

This is one of several buses leaving from various states that will converge on DC. The base plan is a meeting with Scott Brown’s staff, followed by the main protest near the Supreme Court building.

As this is the middle of a workweek I’m not sure how many people can be mustered to drop everything for a 28 hour loop from home to protest and back, but if you can get working people to give up a day for such a trip or retired folk to do the same on what was at the time of departure a rather chilly evening that means something.

Paused to do a live update for the WCRN morning show as we cross into Maryland. The sun is still down but we’ve been informed of the basic plan. We are to meet with Scott Brown’s team in DC on the repeal of Obamacare (I presume the Connecticut folks are meeting with their own people). From there we join the DC protests near the Supreme Court.

My own plan is to get as many interviews with people at the scene as I can while interviewing folks on the bus on the way home. The Bus has wi-fi but uploads are slow and I’m still finding my way around this new laptop came which arrived at the house literally less than an hour before I left (my thanks to all of you who kicked into the bleg still $1305 from the goal if you’d like to help) Had to leave so fast didn’t get a chance to set up my e-mail so I might be hard to reach until Wednesday.

The Bus leaves for home promptly at 5 p.m. so there will be a scramble to get as much as I can recorded and uploaded. For the first time in a while I don’t have space worries so updates will all come down to net access although I have several post already scheduled for the day just in case.

Closing thought, if people are this energized now what are we going to see in November?

You know there is nothing wrong with compassion, but this seems…interesting:

A federal judge in Miami granted a request made by convicted Cuban spy Rene Gonzalez to temporarily return to Cuba to visit an ailing brother

Your letting someone on probation leave the country, and not just someone on probation, a foreign spy??? That’s ….interesting.

How strange is this, even the pro-Cuba Obama justice department argued against it

The Justice Department argued against the request, arguing in a court filing last week that Gonzalez could get new spying instructions if he met with Cuban intelligence officials.

Gee I don’t see why people would think a spy returning to his home country might meet with the intelligence services that he worked for.

Alberto de la Cruz says this:

The judge may as well have suspended the remaining time on Gonzalez’ probation and thrown a going away party for him because once he gets out of the U.S. and into Cuba, he ain’t never coming back.

I’m not so sure about that, consider. What would you rather be: a free person in Castro’s Cuba, or a person on probation in the US?

This morning I drove down to Boston to check out the protests at the opening of the Tarek Mehanna trial as I heard there were going to be competing protests concerning it.

I left the house at 7 a.m. but thanks to rush hour traffic in the pouring rain and a slow T, arrived at the courthouse in Boston at about 9:45.

Courthouse in the rain

The MSM was well represented in the streets for the trial:

With the wet and the cold and the rain there were only a few protesters outside.

I took a shot of a woman and asked if she could tell me why she supported Tarek. She was unwilling to answer the question and simply referred me to their web site.

A woman of few if any words

I asked others but none of them were willing to articulate a reason for their support all they continued to do was mention their web site. This is in stark contract to Tea Party members who are rarely shy about saying what they think to people who ask.

I spoke to the police and outside security, they were very friendly and cooperative. They told me there had been a counter protest here briefly but they didn’t stay long. The Free Tarek crowd had been here regularly and had generally not given any grief.

A thankless job on a cold wet day

I don’t think these guys get enough credit, after all if someone decided they wanted to go Boom it is these guys who would get it first saving everyone else.

Inside the courthouse I was informed by some of the press crews on the scene that a group of about 30 from the “occupy movement” were hanging at the US attorney’s area and joined the Free Tarek crowd inside the packed courtroom. Considering the rain and wet it sure makes a lot more sense to occupy a heated building than a tent on the common. At the time I left there were no reported incidents of arrests or disruptions.

Interesting enough before I left I heard MSNBC continue to lionize the occupy movement but somehow their public support for a person accused of aiding Al Qaeda still wasn’t newsworthy.

As I had missed the counter protests I gave a call to one of the people involved in them, it turned out I had only missed them by a few minutes and one of their leaders was still in the area. I told him if he could get him down here I’d be happy to talk to him. Within 10 minutes Charlie Jacobs from Americans for Peace and Tolerance came by and unlike the pro-Tarek people was much more inclined to talk.

Quick note, right in the middle of the interview my Batteries died so I had to start over, I’ll upload the truncated interview later so you can see it uncut.

At this point I considered going into the building proper but when I discovered I’d have to check both my camera and cell phone I figured I’d call it a day.

I can’t pretend that I know much about this case, I didn’t follow it, I don’t know the background or the evidence, but I saw the verdict today while I was having lunch on a long hot day and everywhere I went and everywhere on the radio people were outraged.

Again I don’t know the truth of the matter but I do have a question for all those outraged people:

The last time you were summoned to Jury did you go or did you look for an excuse to duck it?

Just about everyone I know tends to try to duck jury duty; they always seem to find one excuse or another to leave the task to someone else.

I’ve often said we get the government we deserve, it is my firm belief we also get the justice system we deserve. If you don’t like the way the justice system works perhaps the next time you are asked to participate remember how you thought about this case and act accordingly.

Update: Had a bad day yesterday (a bit my fault) and hit the sack kinda meh. And woke to an Instalanche and a bunch of comments to moderate. Welcome on over. If you have an interest in the 4th of July in Fitchburg, click here. If you want to hear a cute story about a the greatest garden in town, click here. And keep and eye of Ca-36, might be some surprises there.

Update: Linked by my No One of Any Important who had the base Instalanche (well deserved too) and a great debate in comments on Jury Duty. I’ve always gone but now that I’m self-employed and a one man band, could I really afford financially to go anymore until I’m much bigger?

I remember this line from an old justice League comic with a hero from the future called Booster Gold (pretty lame character actually) who while fighting a group of villains encounters a shapely enemy that strikes a pose asking: “You wouldn’t hit a girl would you?” he answers “Well…” you see a panel with the giant word BAM! and then the line about equality above.

I couldn’t help but think of it when looking at the Althouse, The Conservatory, Ed Morrissey it’s simply amazing to see what is going on.


There follows a tirade about what we teach our sons about violence against women, as if, in a face to face physical encounter, the man is always wrong. So, as a woman in the work place, can I get right up in any man’s face, get as angry as I want, shake my fist right by his big old glasses, and the moment he flinches, if his hand touches me, I get to shout “violence against women” and he’s the one who’s screwed? As a feminist, I would just love to have power like that. That’s sarcasm, I hope you’re not too far gone to realize.

Althouse asks the question: How is it that our friends on the left, champions of they type of feminism that felt insulted if you held a door with your fedora off, can believe in this?

At the Conservatory part of the answer comes from Joy McCann:

But of course, this isn’t all a gender-relations issue, because if Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin had charged someone with their fists raised, there would not be this notion that the blows must be blocked without making contact with the woman’s neck at all. (And the idea that one can defend oneself against strikes without touching the assailant’s neck is honestly bizarre anyway.)

Some of this, in short, has less to do with the male-female double standard than it has to do with the liberal-conservative double standard.

She gets another piece of the puzzle there, their belief is dependent on the target because as the Reclusive leftist has pointed out the left’s support of what they call “feminism” can be very selective.

So we’ve established the what (the left playing the defenseless woman game) the how (twisting it only for these particular women on the left) but it’s Ed Morrissey who finishes the trifecta by establishing the WHY

Bradley and Abrahamson didn’t think they could win in a criminal complaint or a demand for a restraining order (which would make Supreme Court sessions rather difficult), and so chose to leak the story to political allies in order to pay back Prosser

Why didn’t they think they could win? The answer is back on paragraph in the post.

Prosser would have his due-process rights, including taking depositions, evidentiary hearings, and the like.

When you accuse someone of a crime you have to back it up with something called evidence so Bradley and Abrahamson decided to play the old game, let the left and the blogs play attack dogs, but with a thin amount of actual facts to back them up they are playing the only game they think they can win, counting on the old protective instinct to support them.

I think they are going to be burned badly.

When I left the house to run an errand and have a bite with the wife the word had just come out that Prosser was up by 40 votes:

Incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser took a 40-vote lead over challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg, according to new totals released Thursday afternoon.

Kloppenburg had been leading by 204 votes, but newj unofficial totals reported in Winnebago County show that Prosser received 20,701 votes to Kloppenburg’s 18,887.

My first thought was that a certain law blogger was suddenly going to have a change of heart when it came to vote fraud. Ann Althouse agreed:

I wonder if the concept of fraud is suddenly much more appealing to certain people.

Now I come home after picking up the kid from his college course and WOW:

A conservative-leaning Wisconsin county on Thursday corrected its count and gave an unofficial 7,500-vote lead to the incumbent in the hotly contested state Supreme Court race seen as a referendum on Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s divisive union rights law.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus said the votes weren’t reported to The Associated Press on Tuesday due to “human error.”

“This is not a case of extra votes or extra ballots being found,” she said. “This is human error, which I apologize for.”

Ann Althouse quotes herself:

UPDATE, 11:43: Dane (Madison’s county) is nearly all in. I don’t see how Kloppenburg can net more than about 3,000 with what’s left of Dane. Waukesha is now shown as completely in, but the numbers didn’t change, so I think something may have been misreported. I took the trouble to do a calculation and was going to predict that Prosser would net 40,000 more votes in Waukesha. What happened?

Jim Hoff is crowing. I suspect the left must be both devastated and suspicious. If I was on the left I would have raised eyebrows too. As a rule when you are stealing an election you don’t do it by “thousands” after the fact (too dramatic) , but I can’t see how the left can’t be thinking something funny is going on..

This is what is so ironic, in my opinion thanks to that error, the people who wished to say tweak the election reported the numbers that they did when they did in order to bring their candidate just over the line.

If the correct numbers had been reported the first time then I suspect we’d still have counties out to allow for further necessary “corrections”.

Michael Moore says we shouldn’t because Klop had already declared victory, I kid you not:

Want a laugh? Check out Michael Moore’s Twitter feed. He’s upset that the counties are conducting a canvass — you know, to make sure that the votes actually get counted correctly — because, er, “Kloppenburg has already declared victory! Repubs in WI r behaving like sore losers.” No, this is not a parody account, either, although it’s hard to tell.

And apparently the best part is that the presser announcing this took place just as Chris Matthews was droning on about Klop’s victory. Mary Katherine Ham owns the best line:

Small, state-wide election with vital national implications soon to have no national implications whatsoever.

Looking at left leaning sites and the sudden respect for “now-discredited allegations” in comments has been fun, but the most fun I’ve had is looking at Rick Hansen’s site who just this morning said this:

While the fraud allegations remain stuck in the public’s mind, no proof of any systemic fraud has been unearthed. Instead, close examination of elections show, time and again, that our election systems are not perfect – but this is due to human error and not fraud.

His site links to this Media Matters piece with a fun title:

Predictable: Right-Wing Media Respond To WI Supreme Court Election With Baseless Voter Fraud Allegations

There has been no update, I wonder if they still consider fraud charges “baseless”?
As for Hansen he says this:

Here’s what I expect: With Prosser in the lead, the claims of fraud on the Republican side will stop. The Democrats will not raise claims of fraud even if they contest the election.

UPDATE: I already may need to take back the last part of this post: looks like Dems may soon start playing fraud card in WI Sup Ct race, focusing on the clerk who found the lost votes.

I give him credit for not changing his own opinion but I disagree. I still think those fraud charges need to be checked out properly and completely. I think a complete recount needs to be done even with a 7000 vote margin, after all that is still only 1/2 of 1% of the total vote certainly close enough to be worthy of scrutiny. Fraud isn’t wrong only if an election is stolen, fraud is wrong because it is FRAUD. We need to smoke it out now so that when things are close enough to make a difference those who would commit it will think twice. And who taught me that? Why Tip O’Neill:

People used to talk about Mike Ward and his Chinese hat trick. The story was that Mike would hire ten Chinese men, pay them each five dollars for the day (this was in the 30’s & 40;s when that was good money btw DTG) , and have them vote repeatedly under different names. Each time they came to the polls, however they would be wearing a different hat, the idea being that to Caucasians, all Chinese people looked alike.

With the help of Mike Ward, Walter Madigan pulled a few fast ones, such as using the names of people who hadn’t voted, and voting the dead…

O’Neill still won that race by about 400 votes but he was mad and decided to do something about it.

As soon as I returned to the state house I filled a bill that anyone caught repeating in an election would be given an automatic 1 year jail sentence. Getting that bill out of committee was a cinch, because who could dare oppose it? Privately, however, some of the members let me know how disappointed they were, a that they hadn’t expected I was the kind of guy who would rock the boat. But I didn’t like people stealing elections –and I especially didn’t like people stealing them from me! The bill passed easily, and that particular brand of corruption virtually disappeared from Massachusetts.

The time to smoke this stuff out is NOW while we have the win, investigate the lot, we will look magnanimous doing it with a lead because I suspect that the left can’t stand the heat and if we catch them on this now we won’t have to worry about it later.

And frankly if there is anything funny on our side, it SHOULD be exposed. I want to win, but I want an honest election first and foremost.

Update: Funny because it is true:

Reader Stu Wagner writes: “My suspicious, cynical side says that the Republicans delayed the full count to flush out any Democrat tricks. God bless ‘em, I hope they’re just that smart.” I’d be very surprised if they were that smart. . . .

So would I Glenn, so would I.

Update 2: Stacy and Ace are feeling good and Tom is just loving that Media Matters has confirmed there is no vote fraud:

And, of course, we are all relieved to know that Media Matters has already cleared up any idea that there was any voter fraud in this election. So there can be no doubt Conservative Judge Prosser won. And that he will also be the one to decide if the Republicans acted properly in passing the law limiting the Public Union’s collective bargaining privileges.

What a nice birthday present for Nice Deb.

Last night I posed two questions that I thought were mutually exclusive but the current results as the same they were at 3 a.m. with 34 presents left to report. Of those 34 2 where precincts where Prosser was lead and 32 where in precincts where Kloppenburg leads.

With 99% of the precincts reporting the current numbers are:

David Prosser (inc) 733,074 50%
Joanne Kloppenburg 732,489 50%

They are separated by 4 ONE HUNDREDTHS of one percent of the total votes cast.

UPDATE*** 6 more precincts have reported the current numbers are now

David Prosser (inc) 736,878 50%
Joanne Kloppenburg 732,043 50%
Prosser’s lead has leaped to a whole 5.6 ONE HUNDREDTHS of one percent of the votes cast

Of the remaining 24 precincts 2 are in areas that favored Prosser and 22 are in areas that favor Kloppenburg.

UPDATE AGAIN the 6 Ashland precincts that held out all night finally reported and the lead is down to 419

David Prosser (inc) 737,224 50%
Joanne Kloppenburg 736,805 50%

They are separated by under 3 ONE HUNDREDTHS of one percent of the total votes cast.

18 precincts left 2 that favor Prosser and 16 that favor Kloppenburg.

Two of them in Milwaukee and 8 in Salk. In my opinion (and likely the opinion of most of the right) at this moment people are counting how many votes Kloppenburg needs to win and deciding how to report their figures so the numbers will look credible.

It is a painful thing for Wisconsin that I am saying this, but it’s more painful that the state has reached the point where I suspect everyone is actually thinking this.

Update again That didn’t take long:

Joanne Kloppenburg 738,368 50%
David Prosser (inc) 738,228 50%

They are separated by under 1 ONE HUNDREDTH of one percent of the total votes cast.

10 7 precincts left they favor Klop 7 5-2 Expect those last two Milwaukee precincts not to report until the two outstanding Prosser ones do.

Down to 5 precincts, Milwaukee still holding out but now its 2 Prosser vs 3 Kloppenburg Precincits left and the count?

Joanne Kloppenburg 738,883 50%
David Prosser (inc) 738,514 50%

Final Update? With one precinct left in Jefferson county (Where Prosser won by 16 pts) not reported yet, here are the numbers:

Joanne Kloppenburg 739,711 50%
David Prosser (inc) 739,505 50%

206 votes. A difference of just over 1 ONE HUNDREDTH of one percent of the total votes cast.


Let’s forget for the moment the same day registration nonsense that likely meant an awful lot of people particularly in the cities voted who may have been illegible, lets ask a logical question:

Consider, Democrats ran from the state for weeks, labor paid for massive protests, doctors were willing to give out phony sick notes to facilitate the protests, Unions and the left poured millions upon millions to turn this election into a referendum on Walker and a potential supreme court justice apparently ran on the basis of pre-judging a case.

Given all of those actions and all of that investment, with a the vote this close, do you honestly believe that the left will not attempt to steal this election assuming through false registrations they haven’t tried to already? Is there a single person on the right side of the blogosphere who believes this will not happen?

And as for the ballots currently under guard by police Ace of spades puts it succinctly:

Police guarded the ballots overnight, but that doesn’t really reassure. Would this be the same police that stood by and did nothing while union thugs tore up recall ballots aimed at Democrats?

Take a bow police in Wisconsin, your actions in the lead-up to this election turned that statement from an outrageous insult to an interesting conjecture.

Let’s remember Ann Althouse back from March 12th:

Anyone can look at the pictures and video and see crimes being committed. The low number of arrests is evidence that the police chose not to enforce the law. Meade, outnumbered in the center of an angry mob, was physically assaulted by a very large man, and all the while a police officer looked on and did nothing. Should Meade have said “Arrest this man!” — under those circumstances? Think about it! The police seemed to be on the other side, and he was surrounded by people who’d decided he was a “Walker plant.” How, exactly, was he supposed to extricate himself from the situation if the police didn’t respond to his accusation? What do you do when you can’t count on the police? You’re on your own.

The CSM article is also about whether the federal government can come to the rescue under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution. Article IV, § 4. You mean, when the state can no longer fend off domestic unrest, the feds have a duty to help us? Pardon me if I laugh. The Obama administration might send in forces to do what the local police here won’t do?

Sorry. I’m a constitutional law professor, and I’m especially interested in all the federalism stuff, but I live in the real world, here in Madison, Wisconsin. I want real police, enforcing the law, equally and with a high sense of duty — not self-interested union enthusiasm.

Given this is there any chance whatsoever that Conservatives will believe that any result where Kloppenburg wins is legitimate?

And on the other side, the left spent the last 2 months insisting that the Walker administration which won by a wide margin is not legitimate. Given that there is no chance that they will consider any result where Prosser wins legit. Expect (at best) loud protests but I would expect much worse.

Unfortunately there is no actual solution to this. It is going to be litigated, and since judge Prosser of course can’t rule on his own election you have a 3-3 court. I suspect Libya will be resolved before this is.

Wisconsin is going to be in a quagmire for years over this. Wisconsinites when you see these divisions, when at best the expense and the gridlock that comes of this or at worst the violence that will come of it. (And I predict that we will see the worst) remember this has been brought to you by Wisconsin’s public unions and by the media’s unwillingness to call out the senators who ran away.

Update: Big point made on the right side of the sphere, by Robert Stacy McCain:

The unions lost. Their claim that their rage-filed protests represented an overwhelming majority of Wisconsin voters? Repudiated.

and the Right Sphere:

Regardless of how the race turns out, the fact of the matter is the “revolution” was a flop despite the efforts of a lot – thousands and thousands – of Leftists to create the impression that Wisconsin didn’t vote Scott Walker and Republicans in to office to tackle the real problem of public sector unions raiding the treasury. The Leftist’s hopes of using the situation in Wisconsin to create a national pro-union movement have been squashed.

and HotAir:

But the unions have a bigger problem. Many gave Prosser little chance of holding his seat in this off-year, otherwise sleepy election, as unions organized fiercely to unseat him before the state Supreme Court could hear the challenge to Scott Walker’s law. Given the usual lack of turnout for April elections in off years, the organizing power of the unions should have been overwhelming, and Prosser should have been toast even in less-progressive areas of the state. Instead, Wisconsin voters thundered to the polls to support Prosser, and Kloppenburg turned out to do poorly outside of Dane and Milwaukee counties — and even in Milwaukee, Kloppenburg led by just a 57/43 margin.

What should have been a slam-dunk if Walker’s proposal was really as extreme and disaffecting as unions claim turned out to be an even split. Given their power and the investment of time and money by the unions, this is an eye-opening stumble.

I guarantee this will be spun differently by the MSM

Update 2: Ann Athouse (an Obama voter btw) speaks some realities aloud:

There’s one more precinct in Madison’s Dane County. You can try to calculate what that precinct should be, using the 73-27% difference between the candidates in the 248 precincts that have reported, but I’d like to know what part of town the nonreporting precinct is in. More important, I’d like to know why that one precinct hasn’t reported, because, without more, I’m suspicious that politicos with a “by any means necessary” attitude are waiting to see how many votes are needed.

And her point about the court once a final result is given is even worse:

This race has been so politicized that, whether Prosser or Kloppenburg wins, the public will lack faith in the work of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Every 4-3 decision — assuming the winner of this election is one of the 4 — will raise suspicion. The power of the court, in the end, rests on the faith of the people. It cannot balance the power of the other branches of government without the faith that this election has eroded.

I’ll say it again, Wisconsin, by not nipping this in the bud you have done this to yourselves. When you are frustrated by this for years, thank the Unions.

As I write this with 37% of the vote reporting it is 50%-50% with Prosser leading by a mere 1884 votes so we have no idea how this is going to turn out.

So I don’t know which of my two questions apply but here they are:

If Prosser wins: Considering the level of death threats and intimidation that has been used by the left in Wisconsin will a Prosser election result in overt violence by the left? My guess is yes.

If Kloppenburg wins: Will the right make an attempt to have her disallowed from ruling on the Walker case on the grounds that is has been pre-judged? (Yes it will fail) and the will that be the basis of an appeal all the way to the supreme court (maybe, but I don’t know if it would be taken as it is a purely state matter).

I think it is all going to come down to this election, either way the people Wisconsin will get the government and the court they deserve.

NOTE: In the time it has taken me to type this update has come in 38% reporting David Prosser (inc) 319,941 52% Kloppenburg 301,187 48% a lead of over 18k.

Update: As Prosser maintains his (slim 52% reporting David Prosser (inc) 412,848 50% Joanne Kloppenburg 409,965 50%) lead one more question. The left has been claiming that the Republicans have been acting against the will of the people of Wisconsin. Since this election has been painted as a referendum on Walker if Prosser wins does that claim now ring hollow?

Update 2: It’s after 1 a.m. EST and the election keeps going back and forth Prosser is up about 1500 with under 100 precincts left but 60 of them are pro Kloppenburg ones. What a race!

On the Charlie Sykes (620 WTMJ Milwaukee) show in Wisconsin they are commenting on the “protection” racket that the unions are using. Let’s remind you of what the unions are saying:

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

So in other words as far as the unions are concerned you MUST take a position and it must be theirs or they will get you. One Republican legislator called in and suggested business so contacted check out chapter 943.30 of Wisconsin law and start making complaints

So let’s take a look at what Wisconsin law states, specifically Wisconsin Statutes > Criminal Code > Chapter 943 > Subchapter III > § 943.30 – Threats to injure or accuse of crime:

943.30 Threats to injure or accuse of crime.
943.30(1) 1) Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse or accuses another of any crime or offense, or threatens or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person’s will or omit to do any lawful act emphasis mine, is guilty of a Class H felony.

Note that since according to the letter sent out to businesses a “neutral” stance is not allowed, the union is COMPELLING the person to act against their will or suffer the consequences. That makes this section active and makes the union letter written proof of a class H felony.

A class H felony in Wisconsin carries a max of 6 years a fine of $10k or both.

And the second section is even more interesting:

(2) Whoever violates sub. (1) by obstructing, delaying or affecting commerce or business or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or business is guilty of a Class H felony.

So that means that if you are a protester as part of the promised boycotts or picket of a business based on the above letter: Presto! You are subject to this same penalty!

And in our litigious society wouldn’t you like to be the lawyer starting a class action suit against the Unions who are boasting of full coffers and financial support to fight in Wisconsin? Can you imagine the size of the civil suit and award in a case like this? You want to sue people with a lot of money or insurance for a big payout. The local sub shop who gets the letter might not have it but the Union that sent it does. Every business who got that letter is a potential member of the class and the unions who supported this campaign and their national counterparts is a potential target. It’s a money tree!

I’m amazed a union lawyer didn’t spot this but it’s what comes of arrogant and unchecked power.

Update: Big Government was on this first but didn’t think of the class action angle, Ann Althouse is bother by the police involvement:

I can’t get my head around the concept of police involvement in boycotting businesses. That reads like pure corruption. I can’t believe it’s being done openly. Can someone explain to me how you can even argue that it is acceptable for police to extort political support from citizens?

If you ever wondered why the left always seemed to side with totalitarians, now you know.

Episode 51 of the old Robin Hood TV series from the 50’s was called “Outlaw Money”. In the episode the Sheriff arranges for the arrest of the person in charge of minting coin for Nottingham and replaces it with his own man who mixes in base metal for silver coins while the Sheriff pockets the difference. Robin and his band hijack the new coin dies take them in the forest, and sheltering the old mintmaster provide silver mint their own coins and distribute them to the poor. When Friar Tuck is arrested for passing counterfeit money at the trial the mintmaster (disguised as the inspector from London) appears and notes that the “counterfeit” coins have the right amount of silver and the regulation coins do not, foiling the scheme.

I couldn’t help but remember that episode when reading this story:

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

I found this interesting:

The silver medallions were produced by a private mint in Idaho on behalf of Evansville-based Liberty Services, which also issued paper notes the group said were backed by silver reserves.

During the raid, about a dozen agents seized nearly two tons of coins that featured the image of Ron Paul, a Texas congressman. They also took about 500 pounds of silver and 40 to 50 ounces of gold, as was paper currency and other metals.emphasis mine

Two quick thoughts, Ron Paul? Passing currency with the image of Ron Paul? Paul fans have always seemed a bit messianic about him but this is ridiculous.

Secondly, on the law I think the conviction is correct but describing his as a “terrorist” is a bit much.

Silver if I’m not mistaken is trading at $20 an ounce or so $160,000 in silver and gold is going around $1500 so say $750,000. So that means that this guy was actually putting his money where his mouth was backing this stuff.

It’s an odd thing when you have “counterfeit” money backed by actual precious metals while the US dollar is backed by…faith?

Ironically Paul has a hearing coming up on Bullion.

…run to the courts:

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of a controversial new law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.

Sumi’s order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County Ismael Ozanne is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state’s open meetings law.

Sumi said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

This is now going to be appealed and appealed to death.

Quick question. Now that the democrats are back, why not just bring up the first bill? Let them run away again, I’m sure that will go over well, and as Ed Morrissey said:

However, this is strictly a ruling on the process used to enact the law. If it came down to it, the Wisconsin legislature could simply pass it again, and it could do so rather quickly. The TRO is not based on any defect in the legislation itself.

I’d expect the legislature to take that up very quickly. I’d also expect some of the protesters to return in anticipation of that effort, although most of them probably won’t get away with taking more sick time to do so. Walker and the GOP could render this issue moot by Monday or Tuesday of next week, if need be, although they’d be wise not to tip their hand until Monday.

I wouldn’t be popping the corks if I was the left, but expect that to a big topic this weekend.

The Anchoress being a wholly more holy person than me talks about the death penalty and Kermet Gosnell and finds herself opposing it:

If you remain unaware of what investigators (who were actually looking for evidence related to drug trafficking) found when they entered Gosnell’s abattoir-for-humans, read the Grand Jury’s Report, if you can take it.

Nevertheless, I would defend this man’s right to live his life out in prison, rather than watch the state take his life. His life is not anyone else’s to take. For pro-lifers, this is a no-brainer.

And he may need many years and much time, in order to understand the enormity of what he has done, and allow his heart to be turned. He may need time for conversion and salvation.

I would have to disagree here, this is not a “no-brainer” for pro-life people.

Unlike the elderly who have committed no offense other than being old, the sick who have committed no offense other than being sick or the unborn who have committed no offense other than being conceived Kermet Gosnell has committed acts that under our laws can bring the death penalty.

She is absolutely right that his may need time for conversion, repentance and salvation and we are OBLIGATED as Christians to pray for this, but even if he is convicted, loses all appeals and the sentence carried out there will likely be many years of time to avail himself of the opportunity. As long as the process takes place before death it will be achieved, remember Timothy McVeigh a lapsed Catholic in fact received confession and absolution mere hours before his execution, saving his soul if not his life.

But there is a huge difference between protecting innocent life and life taken under due process in a free society. Even Ed is ambivalent.

I am totally indifferent in this matter. I have absolutely no problem with him (if convicted) being given life in jail and I also have no problem if he gets the death penalty. Neither Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI nor has any pope proclaimed ex cathedra the death penalty sinful or an intrinsic evil. Until and unless he does so then I submit that it is not a “no brainer” that we oppose the death penalty in this or any case and there is no obligation for us to think otherwise.

…that is if Drudge is correct. Update: he is

Remember when civil unions came up and the claim was nobody was talking about gay marriage? I do.

Remember when the defense of marriage act was passed and people were claiming that a constitutional amendment was not necessary? I do.

The argument for gay marriage has been a study in prevarication during its pursuit. From the initial rulings in Vt. to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling to apparently today, the courts have created and imposed upon the people non-existent rights among a populace that has strongly objected.

The advocates of Gay Marriage continue their fear of the people. When they can they have kept them from voting (re Massachusetts) and when they can’t get have used to courts to legislate what they can’t win at the ballot box all with the loving support of a media completely out of touch with the public.

So once again we will go to the higher courts until we reach the supreme court.

Again we have done this to ourselves, by voting in people who ignore our will, by electing people who appoint judges who legislate from the bench.

From healthcare to illegal immigration to this, our elected officials have continually ignored the people will. As long as the people allow them to get away with it, they will continue to do so.

memeorandum thread here.

Update: from the hotair post

the EP ruling is that there’s no rational basis for limiting marriage to straights.

If that is true I await the rational basis to deny polygamy from the court.

Update 2: Brian Brown on the ruling at the corner:

Q: What’s next for marriage in California?

A: This will go to the Supreme Court, where we expect to win. Remember that originally, the gay legal establishment opposed this case, because they fear what we anticipate: that they don’t yet have five votes for a constitutional right to gay marriage. Two lawyers with very big egos (Olson and Boies) pushed this case over more sober heads, and I think in the end gay-marriage advocates will regret that they did.

Time will tell.

Two sentences are in the news today that are worth note.

First of all in NY we have justice for the victims of Islamic terror:

A judge had resentenced a 70-year-old civil rights lawyer to 10 years in prison for letting a jailed Egyptian sheik communicate with his radical followers.

Federal Judge John Koeltl sentenced Lynne Stewart in Manhattan after she pleaded with him to reimpose the two-year, four-month sentence he had originally given her in 2006. She said she has been diminished since her November imprisonment.

An appeals court had ordered a new sentencing, saying the judge needed to consider whether she committed perjury. Koeltl says she did and he says she lacked remorse after her first sentencing.

I suspect she will not be invited to many ethics conferences in the near future but expect to see “Free Lynne Stewart” signs at protests, for as Jules Crittenden snarks:

Dangerous trend. When they start expecting lawyers to not only uphold the law and behave morally, but to avoid actively aiding and abetting terrorists, there’s no telling where this could end. Pols who have sought to abandon entire nations to genocidal chaos, who would shrug and let mad mullahs have nukes, who would seek to put a figleaf on the religious motivation of mass killers, be afraid.

More at memeorandum but have no fear Jules, there is always Canada where an Islamic Mother’s right to kill her daughter under Sharia law is respected!

The judge rejected an argument by Crown prosecutors Mac Vomberg and Sarah Bhola for a 12-year prison term, instead accepting the position of defence lawyer Alain Hepner, saying a suspended sentence can still meet the demands of justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not,” said LoVecchio.

“The court has said the act in question does not merit a period of incarceration.

And to those who cry accident lets hear from Barbara Kay of the National Post for a moment:

In 2007 Aset Magomadova, at the end of her tether in dealing with a troubled and by her account troublesome 14-year old daughter, strangled the girl to death with a scarf.

Let it be noted, before going any further into this story, that to kill a healthy human being by strangulation, you have to cut off their air supply for 2.5 to 3 minutes. They lose consciousness and go limp long before they are at risk of dying. So you really can’t argue that you have strangled someone in self-defence or by accident or in a moment’s confusion or loss of control. If a person dies after you have had your way with a scarf around her neck, you can be sure the intention behind the attack was not benign.

If you want to see what dhimmitude looks like people, this is it.