Man and son snap almost the same picture of themselves, 30 years apart, watching different shuttle launches-- the first and last launches, actually.

Even sweeter, a terrorist in an Indonesian boarding school attempts to demonstrate bomb manufacture to young terrorists in training; kills himself.

Police are still persuading the school officials to let them enter the compound, Husen said.

Yup. Wonderful people. Terrorists teaching murder at boarding school, and the police not permitted to enter these "schools" after a bomb blast.

Thanks to JohnnyE and Ogre Gunner.

Edit: I initially wrote the two pictures were "coincidentally" alike. They weren't. The father and son staged the second pic to echo the first.

Posted by: Ace at 12:56 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Or at least one of several missions. I'm not sure this proves the case that many wish to be proved, because it seems, to me, to be an ancillary goal, rather than the main goal.

But certainly it seems to have been a goal.

They did in fact just pass a rule requiring gun dealers to report anyone buying multiple long arms in a five day period.

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (173)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Ouch.

Demographic breakdown:

Eighty-six percent (86%) of GOP voters support a generic candidate from their party, while 82% of Democrats back the president. Voters not affiliated with either political party favor the Republican 46% to 38%.
Male voters support the GOP candidate by 11 points, while females are evenly divided. Voters under the age of 40 favor the president, while their elders back the Republican.
Ninety-three percent (93%) of black voters and 53% of voters of other races back Obama, while 55% of whites prefer the Republican.
Conservatives (79%) overwhelmingly support the Republican, while 82% of liberals - and a majority (54%) of moderates - like the president.

Let me use this poll release to showcase the NEW design for the 2012 map projections. This will be the design for all prediction maps through November of next year. If this Rasmussen poll were applied to actual results, factoring in PVI per state and the party ID shifts Gallup reported earlier this year, here is how things break down in the electoral vote using our new map design (Warning, map is big. Very big.): more...

Posted by: CAC at 11:28 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

An assistant attorney general named Ogden says he was specifically charged to combat Mexican cartels' gun-trafficking by the President and the Attorney General.

The operation he names, in furtherance of their demand: Operation: Gunrunner.

“The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels,” Ogden begins, “and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the Administration’s comprehensive plan.”
He goes on to outline that plan, using the exact words below:

“DOJ’s Drug Enforcement Administration, which already has the largest U.S. drug enforcement presence in Mexico with 11 offices in that country, is placing 16 new DEA positions in Southwest border field operations specifically to target Mexican trafficking and associated violence.”

“The DEA is also deploying four new mobile enforcement teams to specifically target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking, both along the border and in U.S. cities impacted by the cartels.”

“DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is increasing its efforts by adding 37 new employees in three new offices, using $10 million in Recovery Act funds and redeploying 100 personnel to the Southwest border in the next 45 days to fortify its Project Gunrunner which is aimed at disrupting arms trafficking between the United States and Mexico.”

He resigned from office December 9, 2009. That is actually a full year before the border agents were shot by gangsters wielding US-provided guns, so I don't think there's a direct connection between scandal and resignation.

I think we need to talk to this man.

Confusion Reigns... I had long thought that Fast & Furious was an offshoot or subprogram of Operation: Gunrunner.

This Reason article says they're not the same, and catching Holder with knowledge about one isn't proof he knew about the other.

Thanks to Drew for that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (129)
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

A commenter said an anarchist-looking guy was caught on video, but the picture wasn't good enough to ID him.

But we probably wasn't a Tea Partier.

What the media is unlikely to talk about is when the governorÂ’s mansion actually burned. It burned the weekend of June 8, 2008. Guess who was in town that weekend? The Texas Democrats had their state party convention in Austin that weekend, not far from the mansion itself. It didnÂ’t take long to suspect arson in the mansion fire, and the only persons of interest ever named in connection with the fire are lefty anarchist types.

And now the Democrats are trying to make an issue over the expenses that one of their fellow travelers actually caused.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (106)
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Crime and, um, punishment?

A Russian man who tried to rob a hair salon ended up as the victim when the female shop owner overpowered him, tied him up naked and then used him as a sex slave for three days.

Thanks to Mike Flynn of Big Government.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

This "scandal" is lame.

The taxpayers are paying for Governor Perry's Austin residence, you see. To the tune of $600,000 or $700,000 per year in rent.

Wait, not per year. That's the total rent over four years.

But wait -- Don't taxpayers usually pay for the governor's residence, in the form of an official state mansion?

Why yes they do. In this case, the state is paying for a different residence, because the official governor's residence is being renovated after damage caused by... well, arson, they think.

So I'm not really getting the scandal here. The mansion the governor gets to live in was damaged by arson -- most likely by a Democrat, just noting that -- and is being repaired. While it's repaired, the taxpayers are paying for a second residence.

Is this a scandal? The AP thinks so, and so do some in the conservative press, I guess.

For almost four years, Perry has resided in a lavish rental home tucked into the hills overlooking the capital city of Austin, a house that has been publicly financed to the tune of over $700,000 thus far. At a time when the language of belt-tightening drives grass-roots GOP politics like little else, Perry would likely face scrutiny over whether his personal lifestyle choices befit a candidate who has made vast spending cuts a cornerstone of his platform.

As Texas faced a projected budget shortfall last year, the Associated Press reported that state taxpayers had been billed for almost $600,000 to pay rent, utilities and upkeep on the five-bedroom mansion outside the state capital, which Perry had moved into in the fall of 2007 while renovations were being done on the governor's mansion.

In 2008, a fire that investigators deemed arson partially destroyed the mansion, and Perry has continued to live in the rental home, which is currently valued just north of $1 million, while his official residence continues to be restored.

The AP's 2010 report laid out some of Perry's state-funded expenses on the temporary residence, including $8,400 for maintenance on a heated pool, $1,001 for Neiman Marcus window coverings, and $1,000 for repairs on a filtered ice machine. And in a detail that might be of negligible concern to Texas taxpayers but could make for a convenient talking point for Perry's future GOP opponents, the governor charged the state $70 for a subscription to Food & Wine Magazine at his home.

"We're paying $10,000 a month for it at a time when Texans are facing a massive budget shortfall, and it's irresponsible for Texans to have to pay for his extravagant lifestyle," Texas Democratic Party communications director Kirsten Gray said. "No governor who spends $1,000 in taxpayer money for Neiman Marcus window coverings can call himself a conservative."

That's just awesome, but a thousand dollars for "window coverings" (which I think we generally know as "curtains") doesn't seem so extravagant to me.

Meanwhile, top operatives and donors say most of them are uncommitted, as they're not taken with the current field, and are all but inviting Perry to sweep them up.

“It’s a huge opening for Rick Perry — huge, huge, huge,” said New Hampshire operative Mike Dennehy, who is neutral in the race. “If he announces and really announces with a bang, he could gobble up a solid third of the Republican Party establishment in New Hampshire and, I do believe, nationally.”

Many of former Republican National Committee chairman Haley BarbourÂ’s supporters, who have largely stayed on the fence since the Mississippi governor decided not to run in 2012, are preparing to back Perry. Henry Barbour, the governorÂ’s nephew and a member of the RNC, said that he would endorse Perry if he runs.

Meanwhile, Perry's checking out Iowa...

Republican activist Joni Scotter told POLITICO she got a surprise phone call this afternoon from Perry, asking about the political landscape as it relates to him.

“It was just a surprise,” said Scotter, of Marion, who’s well-known for her frequent appearances at Iowa Republican events and is a coveted worker bee on presidential campaigns. She said she didn’t know how Perry got her number.

“He sounded great and just asked if he should run,” she said. “And I said, of course.” She said he said he hadn’t made up his mind. …

Dave Carney, PerryÂ’s top strategist, confirmed that the governor had been reaching out to Republican caucus-goers.

...and Perry's checking out New Hampshire...

Multiple Republican sources tell NH Journal that Perry is calling top-shelf Republican leaders in the Granite State. One Republican state Senator who received a call from the Governor confirmed that he has been discussing his entry into the presidential sweepstakes with leading state Republicans for the past few days.

Another Republican who spoke to Gov. Perry told NH Journal it sure sounds like heÂ’s planning to run.

Yeah so he's in.

A Qunnippiac poll has Perry at 10%, in fourth, after Romney, Bachmann, and Palin (at 12%). And that's his debut, as a not-yet-announced candidate.

Posted by: Ace at 09:00 AM | Comments (432)
Post contains 860 words, total size 6 kb.

Just to be clear: These are the primaries to determine who will run against standing Republicans in the actual recall elections, which come later.

We put up some Republican candidates here, so that, if we won, we'd actually have Republican vs. Republican in the recall elections, which would be a no-real-loss situation.

But it didn't work. Only one of these is even close.

All six official Democrats have been projected as winners by the Associated Press. Only one race was at all close, the one between schoolteacher Shelly Moore (D) and 2010 Republican Assembly candidate Issac Weix in the primary to take on Sen. Sheila Harsdorf. Every other Democrat is projected to win by double-digits.

This was a good idea -- I literally did not even hear of this Operation Chaos plan until yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

She patiently explains it all again.

The problem is, I do understand it. He's punting on the debt ceiling -- giving Obama all he wants -- and hopes to get in exchange only the dubious political value of having the Democrats vote for the debt increase three times.

I posted on this three times yesterday. The first time I recognized it as a capitulation, but then mused that if we're doomed to capitulate, might as well get a political benefit out of it.

In the second post I praised McConnell's speech, and considered the political benefits of the proposal further, and was generally positive about them -- assuming this is the best we could get. (Which I don't assume, but assuming that.)

In my third post I noticed liberals were jumping at the plan, lovin' it, and I also noted this:

McConnell had a similar scheme back in December 2009 as we were voting on ObamaCare. We could have forced the Democrats to remain in session through the holidays; instead, McConnell agreed to let them recess and come back, in exchange for a supposedly prominent vote on the 2010 debt ceiling hike.

Yeah, that wasn't as prominent as planned, was it? No one reported on it and it resulted in zero political benefit.

Plus, the media would have a reason to downplay these later votes that are supposed to be so "brutal" for the Democrats. They would claim the Republicans caved early and set up a rubber-stamp formality for the later votes, so the later votes are unimportant. And they'd have a point.

The liberals are right here. The public took no notice of the debt ceiling increase in 2010, and they will take no notice of it in 2011, either.

Since Jennifer Rubin is in explaining mode, can she explain the big benefit we got from this the last time we did it?

Because all I remember is the media briefly noting the debt ceiling had been raised yet again. I don't even remember McConnell himself pushing the story to the media. (Then again, maybe he tried, and the media just ignored him.)

So here we are again, with the same basic plan: We'll cave to the Democrats, but we'll get them on the record with a vote, and then we'll bash them over the heads with it.

Like last time?

The concept isn’t that hard to understand. 1. McConnell had enough of the phony White House talks. The White House offered a paltry $2 billion in actual, immediate cuts. 2. McConnell gave a speech to make clear that wasn’t enough and that the debt limit would be raised only with real cuts and without tax hikes. 3. McConnell could sit back and wait for default. 4. But he comes up with a mechanism to force Obama to put up cuts, send them to Congress and face “default” if the president’s cuts don't get through. 5. In the process he makes 34 Democratic senators vote over and over again on cuts. (The sound you hear in the background is the conga line at the Senate Republican Committee headquarters.)

Again: Like last time?

And you know what she's leaving out? That bit about voting on the cuts? She means Obama would veto the cuts and need those 34 senators to sustain his veto. So while she's speaking of "cuts," she isn't mentioning the salient fact that in this scheme there are in fact no cuts at all. The Democrats just keep voting against them, and they get their debt ceiling rise anyway.

But apparently we're going to really get some huge political benefit by making them merely checking three boxes in a form that McConnell has already filled out for them.

But Rubin continues insisting that people just don't understand the brilliance here:

The critics who dimly understand the plan forget that the alternatives are limited....

If there is a criticism of the McConnell plan it is that he vastly overestimated the ability of the political class to understand an out-of-the-box proposal. Maybe he could come up with a chart or a video. For now, expect another speech on the Senate floor tomorrow and some talk-radio appearances. And guess what? If no one likes the plan we can go back to the main ring, where Obama is offering only $2 billion in real spending cuts.

No, I understand, see. I just know this was pitched to me a year and a half ago and resulted in doodly-squat as far as alleged political benefit accruing to us thanks to a capitulation.

Does Rubin? Does Rubin remember this episode? Or did she never even know of it?

This is, per my initial reaction, too cute by half. It's a deliberate, cute trap McConnell is creating, where instead of voting against the debt ceiling increase, they vote for it, but then require the Democrats to go through the formality of requesting the debt ceiling increase (three time) to get it.

The media will see this for what it is: An initial capitulation by Republicans, followed by three votes which are no more than formalities, and deserving of that level of reportage.

Dan Riehl takes her to task. First I thought he was being a little hot-headed, but now that I read Rubin's column, seriously, she is ineffably snotty.

Posted by: Ace at 08:08 AM | Comments (196)
Post contains 901 words, total size 6 kb.

She's charged with aggravated mayhem. The legal definition of mayhem is causing someone to lose a limb via a deliberate attack.

Via Hot Air, a truly horrific crime, and I have to tell you I think it's weird that mayhem carries a lesser sentence than murder. There have been cases of psychopaths deliberately cutting the limbs off their victims, but then permitting them to live; we're not imposing the maximum sentence in these cases?*

She drugged his food to make him sleepy then tied him to the bed.

Catherine Kieu Becker, 48, was taken into custody on Monday night after telling officers who found her husband tied to the bed and bleeding from his groin that he had "deserved it", Garden Grove Police Lt. Jeff Nightengale said in a written statement.

* I don't think we can impose the death penalty because of the Supreme Court's ruling that only murder will do, but who knows, worth a shot. To me, this shows a greater maliciousness than murder.

Posted by: Ace at 07:35 AM | Comments (193)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.