I'm up at Laura's Connecticut Moronapalooza and within an hour it is required that I begin drinking again. This will be the third day straight of drinking, whereas usually, that number is zero.

I am really tired and just want to nap but no one throws Napping Parties.

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

This is good in a bunch of ways.

Republicans have been wrangling for more than a year over how exactly to handle the tea party movement, but now Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is bringing them under the big tent.

The House Administration committee, which usually takes days to approve something of this nature, approved Bachmann's request to create a House Tea Party Caucus in a day. It will certainly give the national movement a more official voice within the House Republican Conference.

....Republican leaders have flirted with the tea party — often appearing at rallies — but there has been no consensus over exactly how to include the movement within the party.

She has to be watchful about who she lets in, obviously. There are a lot of Republicans who'd love to be in this caucus but simply do not meet the entry requirements.

Posted by: Ace at 08:46 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

Good stuff.

Add oversight, more inspections, sure, that makes sense and is absolutely do-able. But shutting down production adds "insult to injury".

To ensure that such a disaster does not happen again, should the federal government increase oversight, or require additional and better equipment or on-site federal inspectors, or even temporarily pause drilling at specific rigs for additional reviews? Of course. Could it? Of course. But by simply stopping all deepwater drilling, federal officials appear more interested in ideology and scoring political points -- as they have done with the misguided cap-and-trade legislation -- at the expense of Americans who derive their livelihood from the energy industry.

He also points out two losses in court ought to get the Feds to rethink matters, and then he points out it won't.

I can't help but wonder how much embarrassment plays a role in Obama's thick-headedness here. But then that would get me to speculating on the various other factors involved (ineptitude and malice for example), and that all makes my brain hurt thinkin about it.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:17 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 192 words, total size 1 kb.

Strange bedfellows.

So far, then, the Ground Zero Islamic facility rests on a support network linked to the anti-Jewish Mahathir and the Perdana-supported Gaza raiders, some notable servants of the Iranian clerical dictatorship, and an Egyptian property developer associated with the pro-Hamas chief of the Arab League.

But the questionable aspects of the Ground Zero Islamic project do not end there. Feisal Abdul RaufÂ’s wife, Daisy Khan, executive director of ASMA, has been one of the most assiduous promoters of the lower Manhattan mega-mosque....

RaufÂ’s wife failed to mention another feature of her background: She is the niece of Dr. Farooq Khan, formerly a leader of the Westbury Mosque on Long Island, which is a center for Islamic radicals and links on its website to the paramilitary Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the front on American soil for the Pakistani jihadist Jamaat e-Islami.

Jules Crittendon writes:

Politics aside, itÂ’s hard to think that putting up a 15-story Islamic center named after the storied time of Muslim domination of the dhimmi spitting distance from the would-be CaliphateÂ’s greatest hit is going to make a lot of friends or positively influence people, if that is what the goal is. It starts to sound more like a bricks-and-mortar case of the Flying Imams. On that subject, BTW, still waiting for the greater Islamosphere to stop squawking about how it has been victimized and misunderstood in all of this business. If anyone is sincerely interested in fostering better relations with their Christian and Jewish brothers, how about a 15-story Islamic contrition and anti-terrorism center?

And that may sound snarky, but that is precisely how the West displays contrition for group sins. Why can't the Muslims so interested in "peace" and outreach do what we do when we've sinned? Why are they determined once again to make their monument a triumphalist one?

Posted by: Ace at 08:08 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

So how about some good news - GOP-Leaning Voters Are Enthused
A lot and Democrats are not. Which points to an very unhappy November for them. This chart seems to only have data points from every four years which is why you don't see the huge Democratic peak in 2008.

Plus Gallup now finds that 42% of Americans describe themselves as conservative versus 35% as moderate and 20% as liberal. So we've got numbers and enthusiasm on our side. Lets just hope that the GOP doesn't discover a new way to screw things up.

Meanwhile the dreaded M-word - malaise - is being used to describe the US under the Obama administration. From the lips of Zbigniew Brzezinki who served the last malaise-ridden president:

On Morning Joe, Carter’s former national security adviser said there “is a sense of pervasive malaise” in America. What’s worse, suggested Zbig, Pres. Obama hasn’t been able to figure out how to deal with the malaise.

Cue the cardigans and swamp rabbits!

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:47 PM | Comments (1257)
Post contains 727 words, total size 7 kb.

Abigail Thernstrom is a conservative member of the Civil Rights Commission who has been saying for months that there's not much there there when it comes to the New Black Panther Party case.

Now she's accusing the other Republican members of the commission with political motives for pursuing the case.

“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration,” said Thernstrom, who said members of the commission voiced their political aims “in the initial discussions” of the Panther case last year.

“My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO.

She says there's not an ugly race based motivation behind the dropping of the charges, just a difference in interpretation of the relevant statute.

Given the new liberal friendly storyline that's now on the table, I imagine a lot of people who get their news from the MFM and have never heard of this case are about to get an earful of it.

It's funny to see how this case is constantly dismissed as a one off even by a small group of kooks. If the two guys in question had been KKK members, do you really think the 'unimportant nut balls' excuse would be employed? Yeah, neither do I.

Still, it's going to fall to the Republicans on the Commission and whistle-blower J. Christian Adams to come up with something more. Given the Obama administration's unwillingness to cooperate with the Commission, this is probably going to have to wait until January (assuming Republicans win the House and have the power to subpoena officials).

Posted by: DrewM at 03:30 PM | Comments (212)
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.

No the headline doesn't make any sense but neither does anything from this administration when it comes to next year's deadline withdrawal date checkpoint transition date or whatever they call it.

One GOP senator said, “[Gates] said he was frustrated with the mixed messages coming from the administration and was doing everything he could to fix that. But he did not say what the official position is.”

The senator said he and his colleagues donÂ’t know how many troops will be withdrawn or whether the goal to begin withdrawing troops next July is fixed or depends on conditions in the war theater.

...Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, said Gates acknowledged that some in the administration have sent mixed messages about the withdrawal deadline but the secretary told Republicans that Obama has always been clear about his policy.

“There’s been no confusion within the administration over policy because the president has been very, very clear,” said Morrell.

The spokesman said July 2011 marks “a transition in our military posture — it doesn’t mean we’re running for the exits.

“How the drawdown proceeds and from where and how many forces will be determined by conditions on the ground,” he said. “It won’t be driven by politics or arbitrary determinations.”

See? Clear as mud.

Look at the last bit. It presumes that there will be a draw down starting around July 2011, the only question is how it will proceed. But that's a time line based plan not conditions based. Yet in the same breath he says it will be conditions based and not on "arbitrary determinations".

Of course Sheriff Joe, when he's not telling "withdraw now" Congressmen to keep it up is saying, hell yes we're bugging out.

Interesting quote in that second article from Gates himself just a month ago.

"We clearly understand that in July of 2011, we begin to draw down our forces," Gates said. "The pace with which we draw down and how many we draw down is going to be conditions-based."

I hope that helps clear things up and puts the fear of God in al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Liberals are forever crying about their message problems. More often then not they have a policy they'd like to hide problem.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:32 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

And sadly, I agree with the court.

First, the story....

A federal judge in Denver has ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.

...Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Stolen Valor Act - specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.

He posed as "Rick Duncan," a wounded Marine captain who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Strandlof used that persona to found the Colorado Veterans Alliance and solicit funds for the organization.

Actual veterans who served on the board were suspicious of his claims and the FBI began investigating.

The court's opinion is here (pdff) and it's a relatively short and interesting read.

On the government's position that lying about military service isn't protected speech.

The governmentÂ’s argument, which invites it to determine
what topics of speech “matter” enough for the citizenry to hear, is troubling, as well as contrary, on multiple fronts, to well-established First Amendment doctrine. See Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, (“The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. To this end, the government, even with the purest of motives, may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of
speakers and listeners[.]”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., (2000) (“We cannot be influenced, moreover, by the perception that the regulation in question is not a major one because the speech is not very important.”).

...The government does not seriously contest that the Stolen Valor Act criminalizes speech on the basis of its content. “Content-based restrictions on speech are those which suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content.” Golan v. Gonzales. Stated inversely, “[g]overnment regulation of expressive activity is content neutral so long as it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism. Given these standards, there is little doubt that the Stolen Valor Act is content-based. By definition, the speech regulated is speech about a particular topic –the speaker’s claim to have been awarded a particular military medal or decoration.

The effect on such speech is not incidental; the entire purpose of the Act is to suppress those precise utterances. The Act, in other words, is justified by a desire to curb speech about a specific topic. I therefore have little trouble in concluding that the Stolen Valor Act constitutes a content-based restriction on speech.

(Note: I removed some of the court citations to clean things up)

There's a lot more and as I said, it's a quick and easy read.

A lot of vets are understandably outraged.

Jon at This Aint Hell takes issue with the judges contention there are no victims.

CDR Salamander is unimpressed with the idea that wearing medals is the same as speech.

I think the law would be on better constitutional ground if it stuck to medals and uniforms (though the judge dealt with that by referencing SCOTU's flag burning decision) but once it got into the notion of criminalizing lying to impress a chick at a bar with a load of BS it pretty clearly crossed a constitutional line.

A lot of the Supreme Court 1st amendment jurisprudence is a mess but I tend to the side of the speech absolutists (which include Justice Scalia as Gabe pointed out to me). Yes, it can lead to crappy things but I'm a whole lot more comfortable with more things being allowed than the government getting into the business of picking and choosing what's ok.

So it saddens me to be on the other side of so many bloggers and vets I respect but I promise that should I find myself on a jury for the trial of a vet accused of punching one of these SOBs, rest assured of at least one not guilty vote no matter what the evidence.

Thanks to Gabe for the news link.

Oh and just to be clear, this case has nothing to do with attempting to get any sort of benefit based on one's veteran status. Trying to get something from the VA or other government service by lying about being a vet is still fraud.

UPDATE: In the comments "I R A Darth Aggie" lays out something I absolutely agree with, the guy should be charged with the underlying fraud involved in the case.

Then the state of Colorado should go after him for fraud and grand theft. So far as I know, neither of those are covered by the First Amendment. And if he did any fund raising across state lines? nail his ass with federal charges, too.

UPDATE 2: Eugene Volokh, who filed an amicus brief in the case seems to generally disagrees with the decisions but offers up a possible compromise construction of the statute that protects vets and speech.
(see his update)

Added (Much Later)... more...

Posted by: DrewM at 12:24 PM | Comments (234)
Post contains 1090 words, total size 7 kb.

A Corner reader suggests reading these two columns back to back. It's a useful thing.

Krauthammer: Obama's won, even if he's booted out of office.

ObamaÂ’s most far-reaching accomplishment is his structural alteration of the U.S. budget. The stimulus, the vast expansion of domestic spending, and the creation of ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see are not easily reversed.

These are not mere temporary countercyclical measures. They are structural deficits because, as everyone from Obama on down admits, the real money is in entitlements, most specifically Medicare and Medicaid. But Obamacare freezes these out as a source of debt reduction. Obamacare’s $500 billion in Medicare cuts and $600 billion in tax increases are siphoned away for a new entitlement — and no longer available for deficit reduction.

The result? There just isn’t enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases — most likely a European-style value-added tax. Just as President Reagan cut taxes to starve the federal government and prevent massive growth in spending, Obama’s wild spending — and quarantining health-care costs from providing possible relief — will necessitate huge tax increases.

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism.

Grim eh? Well, Goldberg is as optimistic as Krauthammer is pessimistic.

For nearly a century now, the rules have said that tough economic times make big government more popular. For more than 40 years it has been a rule that environmental disasters — and scares over alleged ones — help environmentalists push tighter regulations. According to the rules, Americans never want to let go of an entitlement once they have it. According to the rules, populism is a force for getting the government to do more, not less. According to the rules, Americans don’t care about the deficit during a recession.

And yet none of these rules seem to be applying; at least not too strongly. Big government seems more unpopular today than ever. The Gulf oil spill should be a Gaia-send for environmentalists, and yet three-quarters of the American people oppose ObamaÂ’s drilling ban. Sixty percent of likely voters want their newly minted right to health care repealed. Unlike Europe, where protesters take to the streets to save their cushy perks and protect a large welfare state, the tea-party protesters have been taking to the streets to trim back government.

...

As a conservative, IÂ’m very reluctant to believe that the rules change easily or often. And thereÂ’s no end of explanations for the political climate that would leave the rules intact. But itÂ’s just becoming harder and harder to shake the feeling that something bigger than politics as usual is at work.

Whipsaw, eh?

Posted by: Ace at 11:14 AM | Comments (201)
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

Terrible.

The photograph is part of the Los Angeles County SheriffÂ’s Department investigation into the actor for domestic violence.

ItÂ’s also included in OksanaÂ’s declaration to the court in the estranged coupleÂ’s vicious custody battle over their eight-month-old daughter Lucia.

The image shows the damage to the Russian-born musicianÂ’s front teeth after the coupleÂ’s brutal blowout at MelÂ’s Malibu mansion on January 6.

Oksana has told police that Mel punched her in the face while she held their infant daughter Lucia and that the force of his blows broke her teeth and left her with a concussion, RadarOnline.com has learned exclusively.

...

“Oksana lost a veneer and the right front tooth was severely chipped,” said a source, familiar with the law enforcement investigation.

Gibson's camp issued a statement that she hadn't suffered injuries or broken teeth, but that doesn't seem accurate.

Yeah, as they keep saying, Mel's career is the least of his worries. He will likely go to jail for six months or a year.

TMZ: Oksana's Own Dentist Cries "Fake." Actually he doesn't say that at all, though TMZ cries that to get some attention.

What he claims is that he believes she was struck in the temple, not the mouth, and she reacted by biting down hard, breaking her own teeth.

But TMZ is representing him as casting doubt on how she received her injuries -- well, sort of, but not really. He says the teeth were broken in a "chain reaction" injury (hit, then bite), but he's not really undermining the claim that Oksana was hit, and that this hit, whether directly or indirectly, broke her teeth.

Extortion? So claims TMZ.

Except it's probably not really extortion -- the law of extortion specifically excludes from the offense threats (and attempts to get money) that are connected to a real, legally recognizable complaint.

That is to say, if you could sue someone for failure to pay for your services, you could threaten, in an effort to get your money, putting out the word that he's a deadbeat, which would damage his reputation and all, but the law wouldn't call that blackmail. (In most cases -- I imagine you can take this too far.)

Assuming that Gibson actually hit her, she'd have a bona fide suit for assault. I'm not sure how far one can take threatening to reveal it in order to get some money before the law would call that extortion, but there is some room there.

I have to say that based on what I hear on the tapes, Gibson is plainly out of control, and it's hard for me to think he's anything but the villain in this.

Clarification: It's not her teeth that were knocked out, but the veneers/caps on them. This is why her dentist says "her teeth are intact" and so does Gibson's camp in a statement which avoids the subject of veneers.

I'm sure it probably takes less force to dislodge veneers than actual teeth, but I'm not sure how well that argument will play.

Posted by: Ace at 10:27 AM | Comments (242)
Post contains 519 words, total size 4 kb.