Eh.

If you're subscribing to Hustler's porn operation-- and for God's sakes, even among my debased readership, I can't imagine you are; it was always awful -- I would suggest it's time to stop.

If you want alternatives, I can suggest some. And by some I mean "fifty."

Allah wonders if it's possible that this crosses the defamation line, since the Supreme Court decision which found that Hustler did not defame Jerry Falwell relied upon the notion that no one could mistake it for real.

Could people mistake this for real? I think some could.

What he doesn't wonder about is whether or not the mainstream media will advocate on behalf of S.E. Cupp's dignity, as they were so eager to do with Sandra Fluke.

No one wonders that.

They won't.

Period.

Let me give my own personal vow to SE Cupp: I'll never look at this hoax photoshop. So no, personally, I will never have this image in my head.

I hope/trust that almost everyone will also take this vow (unless they have to look at it, for example, if they're a lawyer suing Flynt).

So at least we can reassure S.E. Cupp that very few people she's ever likely to meet, or read her, or follow her column will know of it.

Absurd thuggery.

The left needs to understand something. This isn't a threat. This is common sense.

Success breeds imitation.

Some on the left may be rather pleased about this, or about Brett Kimberlin's serial harassment of critics exercising their free speech rights.

They might be pleased... for now.

But if the right is as thuggish and crazy and evil as the left suggests -- do they really think that this sort of behavior, if permitted to prosper, will not be imitated and deployed against the left?

Of course it will be. Success breeds imitators.

Now, I think this crap is disgusting, no matter who it's directed against.

But I gotta tell you -- if the left is just going to snigger and giggle at this ruthless behavior, I'm going to be inclined to do the exact same thing when some deranged thug on the right begins to take things personal against the left.

On the other hand, if the left stands for basic decency and humanity, I personally would go just as hard against a right-wing monster as against a left-wing one.

You know, there are not just two parties, liberal and conservative. There are at least two more parties that intersect with those-- the party of the decent, and the party of the indecent.

The party of the honorable, and the party of the repulsive.

I claim allegiance to the party of the decent and honorable over any and all other allegiances.

It would be nice to have reassurance that there are still those on the left who do likewise.

Posted by: Ace at 09:35 AM | Comments (202)
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

If not, why does Brett Kimberlin behave as if he's a prosecutor with the singular task of enforcing this law with his frivolous lawsuits and workplace harassment?

Do Congressmen know that Brett Kimberlin has now decided no one is permitted to mention his felonious past, and is exacting punishment on anyone who dares break his self-determined rule?

Michelle Malkin (who was always just waiting to publish about this) weighs in.

She mentions a show of solidarity. That's important. A media company has lawyers on retainer to fight off vexatious lawsuits and false criminal complaints; individual bloggers, many of whom are simply hobbyists (such as Aaron Worthing) do not.

So the proper response must be to band together to pool resources for cases like this.

I also think we have to exert our power as voting citizens in a Republic. We often act as if we have no control over our government at all; and it does often seem that way.

But we are supposed to have control over it. Our representatives are supposed to at the very least hear our concerns.

Here are some thoughts I have about agitating for positive legislative action.

First: Many states do not have vexatious litigant laws.

Vexatious litigant laws are wonderful. If a litigant is found to be vexatious by any judge, or to have filed three or more lawsuits found to be meritless, he gets put on the vexatious litigant list.

Once on the list, your ability to wage Lawfare is limited. You must post a large bond before filing suit -- that bond will be used to pay your target if the court awards him costs and legal fees (and any sort of punitive fine the judge might think sensible).

Even more importantly, a senior judge must approve of your lawsuits and motions and endless subpoenas before they issue.

Not only does this all make perfect sense, but it seems like the sort of thing conservatives generally support.

So let's start writing state representatives to urge them to adopt vexatious litigant laws -- especially representatives in Maryland.

And our representatives in the US Congress can act, too. 501(c)'s are nonprofit charities whose donors receive a tax deduction. That means Brett Kimberlin's litigious lifestyle choices aren't merely outrageous -- they are subsidized by you, the taxpayer.

When the Barbara Streisand Foundation donates to one of Brett Kimberlin's, uh, outfits, that's deductible, baby!

When Soros' Tides Foundation or Theresa Heinz's Heinz Foundation writes a big check for Brett Kimberlin's um, charitable endeavors, you kick in a little for that.

Now, the nation must perhaps tolerate some amount of harassment and abuse by convicted felons -- but does it also have to subsizdize it?

So here is something for the US Congress to consider: Given that a 501(c)(3) is not a "right," but a creature of the tax code, with very persnickety rules about how it shall be operated and what its principals must do--

Should the principal of a 501(c) be permitted to file vexatious lawsuits which are really SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation -- lawfare against free speech)?

Or, rather, if someone is a vexatious litigant, should that person be permitted to hold a position as a principal on a 501(c) while continuing to abuse the legal system? Shouldn't they have to make a choice -- respect the legal system, or run a charity, but you can't be a principal of a charity while engaging in serial abuse of process?

Considering all the rules that must be compiled with for a 501(c)- shouldn't someone acting as principal for one be expected to comply with rules against harassment by meritless lawsuit as well?

And if they're not doing the latter, what are the odds they're scrupulously following the law as regards 501(c)'s?

Are those odds high? Or not so high?

Seems to me that you should choose whether you're going to be a thug or run a charity.

You can be a thug if you like. But you can do it on your own goddamned dime.

One last thing we can do: We can urge/request/demand our representatives read Brett Kimberlin's criminal history into the United States Congressional Record.

Why? Not for punitive reasons. Rather, to answer the question I posed in the headline.

Did the US Congress strip American citizens of their right to state demonstrably true facts without unending harassments? Did we lose that right simply because Brett Kimberlin has decided, as a Congress of One, that we should no longer have it?

If we have not lost that right -- if it is still legal to say, in America, that Brett Kimberlin was convicted of planting eight bombs in Speedway, Indiana, one of which took a man's leg, and then, distraught over his maiming, his life, via suicide -- if it is legal to say this, can we have it stated by a US Congressman for the record that it is still legal to say this?

My interest in this matter is not over Brett Kimberlin's criminal history as a bloody bomber. My interest in whose leg he amputated-by-explosive-force 34 years ago.

My interest is in what he's doing today.

Either Americans have the right to state that Kimberlin was convicted of the Speedway Bombing Spree or they do not.

If I no longer have this right, I would like Congress to pass a law stating that I no longer have this right. If we're repealing the First Amendment, let's make it official.

If, on the other hand, I retain this right, I would like members of Congress to reassure me on this point, by stating so on the floor of Congress, and entering the long and sordid history of Brett Kimberlin, aka the Speedway Bomber, into the Congressional Record.

And then let him try to claim that no one is permitted to mention this.

Who Is Brett Kimberlin? Sorry, I wanted to write about positive action; I didn't write about context.

Here's an excellent start: This 2010 Fox News piece on him.

Andrew Breitbart called him out for needing exposure of his thuggish tactics last year.

For an account of how one man's life was turned upside down for the apparent crime of mentioning that a convicted felon is in fact a convicted felon, read Aaron Worthing.

Ever see one of those movies about someone gaming the legal system against law-abiding people? Like Pacific Heights, with Michael Keaton? It's like that.

That's Aaron's preview. His actual post is very long and detailed (too long and detailed, I think; I think there should be some medium-sized post that gets into the details but not so many of them), but his preview at least gives you the sense of it.

Lots of stuff at Lee Stranahan, including the archived article from the Indianapolis Star about the Speedway Bombings.

Shall the Indy Star be sued, too, for telling the truth? Perhaps they already have been.

Stranahan also did this Part 1 of Kimberlin's unspeakable career:

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (257)
Post contains 1216 words, total size 8 kb.

Judicial Watch has been in court for months trying to get access to records to see how the Obama Administration has been helping filmmakers produce their bin Laden raid move.

As many suspected, the answer is, quite a damn bit.

A transcript of a July 14, 2011, meeting between DOD officials, including Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers, Bigelow and Boal indicates that Boal met directly with White House officials on at least two occasions regarding the film: “I took your guidance and spoke to the WH and had a good meeting with Brennan and McDonough and I plan to follow up with them; and they were forward leaning and interested in sharing their point of view; command and control; so that was great, thank you,” Boal said according to the transcript. Vickers asks if the meeting was a follow-up, to which Boal responds, “Yes correct; this was a follow-up.” The documents seemingly reference John O. Brennan, Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama and Denis McDonough, who serves as President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor.

The July 14, 2011, meeting transcript also reveals that the DOD provided the filmmakers with the identity of a “planner, SEAL Team 6 Operator and Commander.” (The name is blacked out in the document.) In proposing the arrangement, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers said: “The only thing we ask is that you not reveal his name in any way as a consultant because . . . he shouldn’t be talking out of school.” Vickers went on to say during the meeting at the Pentagon: “This at least, this gives him one step removed and he knows what he can and can’t say, but this way at least he can be as open as he can with you and it ought to meet your needs.” Boal later responds, “You delivered.”

There's more, quite a bit more at the link but those two highlights are shocking. The President's chief counter-terrorism adviser and Deputy NSA were involved in this? And they outed a Navy SEAL involved in the raid? Are you kidding me?

Of course the movie was originally set to open in mid-October of this year but has been pushed back until December and after the election.

Team Obama obviously wanted this movie to be a big hit and a not so subtle reminder that he killed bin Laden with the power of his "gutsy call".

One thing to consider...could the movie have run afoul of campaign laws prior to the left's Bete´ noire´ Citizen's United decision? Remember Citizens United was about a movie the group made about Hillary Clinton. The FEC ruled it was a campaign ad and therefore subject to the laws blackout window on ads by outside groups leading up to primaries and general elections.

Of course the FEC had previously ruled that Fahrenheit 9/11 and ads promoting it were just fine. Funny how controlling speech only cut against conservatives.

Would it have been a stretch to include the bin Laden movie under campaign laws? Sure but that's what lawyers and bureaucrats do all the time. It's also exactly what the First Amendment is there for...to keep the government out of most speech, especially political speech.

Related(ish): Pakistani doctor who helped CIA try to ID bin Laden convicted of treason and sentence to over 30 years in jail.

It's not clear if the US leaked this guys name or his role in the operation but Leon Panneta, Director of the CIA at the time of the raid, confirmed the doctor's role in the operation to the entire world.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:46 AM | Comments (370)
Post contains 629 words, total size 4 kb.

So yesterday we discussed, with much laughter, the Democrat's hail-mary attempt to push back with their own internal polling, one which still showed Walker winning, 50-47.

Recall elections can be hard to gauge. So I searched around for another internal poll release regarding just such a race, and found it. A Mellmann internal showing Harsdorf and Moore in a dead heat. The poll was only FIFTEEN POINTS off.

Surely, yesterday's release has Walker shaking right now.

Posted by: CAC at 05:01 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

While you were sleeping, Gov. Palin endorsed uber-RINO Sen. Orrin Hatch. Zug zug, Tea Partiers.

Patterico notes that the Zimmerman timeline prepared by the Sanford police and included in the big evidence dump last week says that it was Zimmerman who screamed for help.

Yesterday, Wendell Goler actually stunned White House Press Secretary Jay Carney into silence by asking him about the President's prior support for the Occupiers. Video at the link.

New Quinnipiac poll has Romney up 6 over Obama in Florida in a poll of registered voters. Also notable, however, are the favorability numbers. Romney is in positive territory with 44 percent favorable (against 35 percent unfavorable), while Obama is underwater at 45 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:55 AM | Comments (335)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

It Came From The Senate: Rise of the Filibuster

Here's a cool little chart showing the rise of the filibuster (and cloture votes) over time.

And what really stands out is the fact that regular filibusters are a very recent phenomenon - with the vast majority happening since the 1975 rule change reducing the cloture requirement from 2/3 to 3/5.

And note that 'filibusters' these days are really just mere filibuster threats - since no one actually stands and talks for 21 hours anymore - which I view as a form of pansy-ass cheating.

Interestingly the filibuster itself was a historical quirk of the rules never envisioned by the founders:

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called "the previous question" motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted - which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. "Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate," Bondurant writes.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:03 PM | Comments (544)
Post contains 1613 words, total size 15 kb.

Who was Susan Catharine "Kitty" Genovese?

A victim who was brutally murdered over a long period of time. Neighbors heard her cries, but did not contact police.

They didn't want to get involved.

The case became notorious, especially for the syndrome which took the victim's name -- the "Genovese Syndrome," or "The Bystander Effect."

Put shortly: It is very easy to decide "this isn't any of my trouble" and permit vicious behavior.

Easy. Perhaps understandable.

But hardly ethical. And certainly not heroic.

Who wants to get involved? Easier, and surely safer, just to duck one's head and hide, and hope the danger visits someone else.

Perhaps the alligator will prefer to eat someone else first. Perhaps his belly will be full.

And why should you stick your neck out?

Hey, it's not like the Conservative Media is supposed to cast a spotlight on injustice, stick up for the common man abused by bullies, or fight leftist outrages.

It's not as if we're supposed to fight the fights that others shy away from, right?

We're all just supposed to sit back and let the traffic money roll in.

Right?

It's easier that way. A few victims here and there aren't our concern. We've got bigger things to worry about. We've got to keep focused on The Big Things, which just happen to be, felicitously enough, the things that won't draw any heat.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:09 PM | Comments (529)
Post contains 400 words, total size 3 kb.

I couldn't think of anything more original.
So tonight we see if President Barack Obama actually loses a state primary. Not just any state, the home of his party's last President.

Results will be updated in the thread.
Kentucky is already rolling in now.

KY: Obama 59% Uncommitted: 41% (74% reporting)---CAC's easy call: Obama misses embarrassment by this much.

Arkansas: Obama 60% Wolfe 40% (58% in)

Reminder- there is 2 weeks left until the Wisconsin recall vote. We will have full coverage here on AOSHQ with live results, mostly ahead of the AP and others. We will have coverage of the LtGov recall and State Senate recalls as well.

Posted by: CAC at 03:05 PM | Comments (449)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

In a desperate bid to show the race close, the Democrats released their rumored internal poll that would show the race is a dead heat.
SEE! SEE! They shout, pointing to a poll that...still shows Walker beating Barrett, 50-47.

The same poll which gave Barrett a lead the last time they polled.

So they are bragging about losing.

This doesn't even dip the average since it is a partisan internal, but if it did, it would move the needle only a point.

Remember to vote, volunteer, and keep laughing.

Oh, and Democrats, trolls, recall fanatics and the like: go ask Senator Martha Coakley how fantastic internal polling is.

Posted by: CAC at 11:51 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed.

That is the appropriate response. There are multiple ways in which this teacher is unfit for the classroom. She believes the classroom exists to further her partisan agenda. She uses her authority to bludgeon students into compliance with her beliefs and agenda.

But on a basic level, she's incompetent. She is a stupid woman. There is no getting around this: A social studies teacher really ought to know that in America, people are not "arrested" for "disrespecting" the president.

She doesn't know that. She is rather passionate in her stupid belief that the opposite is true.

I doubt very much that a teacher -- a social studies teacher, for God's sakes! It's not as if this is outside her usual classroom curriculum -- who does not know that your right to political expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment knows much else.

This is like a math teacher not knowing that if 3 x 5 = 15.

If the math teacher doesn't know that extraordinarily basic thing -- something that kids who haven't even been formally taught multiplication sort of know, by counting on fingers -- then what the hell does she know?

It is not enough to simply suspend her and investigate the "situation." The situation is that she is a know-nothing, just barely above being diagnosable with a developmental disorder. She must be tested -- like an oral defense -- in what she actually knows about the subject she presumes to teach.

And then fired anyway, because it's clear from the tape that she was absent on the day they taught Shit That's So Obvious Everyone Knows It in college. Or whatever passed for "college" in her case.

I was going to write that perhaps she could teach kindergarteners -- but that's not true either, because even though she might know some things a five year old wouldn't, she clearly "knows" things that are simply false, and obviously false, and you sure as hell don't want this woman teaching falsehoods to little children who might, unlike a teenager, actually believe her ignorant babblings.

How Often Does This Happen? This kid is on the ball, but he had an advantage many kids don't -- he's in a Red State. He has a certain level of social support for his stance. This emboldens him, where other kids might just be silent.

How many kids in Blue States are being taught by partisan freak-out ignoramuses but don't have the courage of social support?

I hope every kid in America subject to this sort of thing starts recording teachers.

Oh, by the way: Know that the next step, coming to your school, is a ban on recording devices or cell phones with a recording feature.

They don't want people to know how awful and incompetent many of them are, and they'll make up any pretext for keeping this a secret.

So expect your local schools to begin banning recording devices, arguing it's "disruptive" to orderliness and "promotes a climate of suspicion and guardedness rather than openness and honesty."

Meaning: The Teachers Union teachers could not keep their jobs if the public got a look inside the classroom.

Fight this when it comes to your town-- because it is coming.

Posted by: Ace at 10:48 AM | Comments (382)
Post contains 564 words, total size 3 kb.