Rolling Stone's New Celebrity Icon
— Ace

So many people failed Jahar. Including, I guess, the children who lost limbs and eyes to his bomb.

Posted by: Ace at 03:19 PM | Comments (278)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Department of Justice Now Soliciting Tips About Any Possible Derogatory Information Useful in a Prosecution of Immanuel Goldstein George Zimmerman
— Ace

Oh I wouldn't sweat it, Holder. Thanks to you, your community organizer boss, and the media, he'll probably be murdered. Problem solved.

On Monday afternoon, the US Department of Justice appealed to civil rights groups and the general public across the country for “tips” on George Zimmerman in their pursuit of potential federal civil rights charges against the just-acquitted defendant in the Trayvon Martin killing. The DOJ actually went so far as to set up an e-mail address to allow such tips: Sanford.florida@usdoj.gov. The email address is slated to go operational by the end of the week.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told the Orlando Sentinel that the DOJ had held a Monday conference call “calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information” that would help build a case against Zimmerman. "They said they would very aggressively investigate this case,” Arnwine stated.

If you haven't read them yet, read @rdbrewer4's sidebar articles: Thomas Sowell asks "Is this still America?" and Andrew McCarthy on the politicized form of "social justice" delivered to us by arch-ideologue Eric Holder.

Posted by: Ace at 02:32 PM | Comments (535)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Liz Cheney Will Run for Wyoming Senate, Challenging Incumbent Republican Senator Mike Enzi
— Ace

This has been rumored for a while.

Former Vice President Dick CheneyÂ’s daughter Liz Cheney will run against WyomingÂ’s senior U.S. senator in next yearÂ’s Republican primary, her campaign said Tuesday.

Enzi, 68 or so, isn't stepping aside for her.

US Sen. Mike Enzi also announced Tuesday he was planning to seek a fourth term, making clear he was seeking re-election bid more than six months earlier than he has in the past.

“Anybody can get in the race that wants to get in the race. There’s at least one person that’s trying to get me to retire,” Enzi said earlier this month at a constituent meeting in Pine Bluffs. He declined to say who he was referring to, “No, people can judge who they think that is themselves,” he said.

I just looked Enzi up on Wikipedia -- I know nothing about him. He is a pretty conservative guy (rated the sixth-most conservative senator), so this wouldn't be a trade-up in terms of conservatism, most likely.

Not saying I oppose Cheney's bid, just saying this isn't one of those cases where a conservative is challenging a RINO. It appears to be a conservative challenging a conservative, so the decision will be made largely on non-ideological grounds.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (314)
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

"Filthy Filner" Responds to Allegations of Serial Sexual Assault: "I'm Just a Hugger," I Like Hugging Women With My Hands, Tongue, and Penis
— Ace

Yes, hugging.

Let's call it that. Sometimes a man's just gotta get his hug on. It's biology.

Oh, and he's announced that he's not resigning. Of course. Democrats don't resign.

A letter had been sent by a woman victimized in DC, when he was a Congressmen, to Filner's then-opponent, Carl DiMaio, calling him "Filthy Filner."

"More than one of us transferred out of his 'territory' to avoid his ‘advances,' " the letter said. 'Any claim he makes to holding the 'high moral ground' is simply ridiculous, if not self-delusional."

The letter writers added, “Because we choose to remain anonymous, this letter may just be tossed into the round file. We’ll take that risk because even though our purpose is to 'expose' him, we know not to trust him, his methods, or his tendency towards revenge."

According to the letter, "Many women in D.C. refer to (Filner) as 'Bobo,' 'Mr. Misogynist,' 'Nasty Narcissist,' or simply 'Filthy Filner.' "

...

God forbid, if you were a single woman he found the least bit attractive. He was relentless and disgusting, and sometimes unforgiving.

Or, as Filner calls it, "huggy."

Too Good to Resist? I mentioned earlier that the media often excuses its partisan bias by claiming a non-bias reason for their errors -- such as a story being "too good to resist."

And yet, we see hear that the mayor of one of America's largest cities is a serial sexual harasser and groper.

Too good to resist?

Nope! They seem completely capable of resisting this one.

I wonder why. I wonder what it is that separates a "too good to resist" story from one that's extremely easy to resist -- such as the Gosnell House of Abortion Horrors.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (330)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Treasury IG: The IRS Improperly Audited Four Candidates and Donors Since 2006
— Ace

That sounds low to me, but I'll take it as some momentum to get the investigation and prosecution ball rolling again.

A government watchdog has found for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.

Its investigators also are probing two allegations that the Internal Revenue Service “targeted for audit candidates for public office,” the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, has privately told Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Don't worry, though. I'm sure the Moses of Our Age, the Lawgiver, is already prosecuting those who abused their position to access confidential candidate information and punish citizens with audits.

Mr. Grassley has asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute any of the cases.

Oh, right, Holder's a criminal. I forgot.

...

“The Justice Department should answer completely and not hide behind taxpayer confidentiality laws to avoid accountability for its decision not to prosecute a violation of taxpayer confidentiality laws,” Mr. Grassley told The Times. “With the IRS on the hot seat over targeting certain political groups, it’s particularly troubling to learn about ‘willful unauthorized access’ of tax records involving individuals who were candidates for office or political donors. The public needs to know whether the decision not to prosecute these violations was politically motivated and whether the individuals responsible were held accountable in any other way.”

It's astonishing that agents of the government can launch attacks on citizens willy-nilly but when the citizens begin demanding answers, we start hearing about "confidentiality laws" and such.

Posted by: Ace at 10:57 AM | Comments (501)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Familiarize Yourself With The Marissa Alexander Case Before The Media Misinforms You
— JohnE.

In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict, many media outlets have erroneously focused on Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which was never invoked by the defense. In fact, Zimmerman declined the opportunity to seek a Stand Your Ground hearing earlier this year. Reason explains:

The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground."

This discussion of Stand Your Ground has allowed to the media to revive the story of Marissa Alexander, a black woman from Jacksonville, Florida who "only fired a warning shot trying to protect herself from an abusive husband" and who unsuccessfully tried to invoke the law in her defense. They're attempting to show that the law does not protect blacks as it does whites, but the case has almost nothing in common with Zimmerman's and the reporting of the Alexander story has been wildly inaccurate. Take it away, Think Progress:

But just months after TrayvonÂ’s death, FloridaÂ’s notorious Stand Your Ground law did not spare Marissa Alexander, who fired a mere warning shot into the wall during a violent incident with her husband.

Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year, after a judge rejected her Stand Your Ground defense and a jury convicted her on three counts of aggravated assault.

Taken at face value, this would be an absolutely offensive sentencing. But, this account (and many more like them) is not what actually happened.

Alexander claims she felt her life was at risk, but she left the house and went into the garage, retrieved a handgun from her car and returned to the kitchen where her husband (Rico Gray) and his two children were located. Stand Your Ground does not require that you attempt to flee, but she already had. At this point, it no longer applied. She then fired the "mere warning shot", which in many accounts was aimed at the ceiling, but the court documents indicate "barely missed Gray's head". Here is the relevant part of the court document:

[Gray] moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, [Alexander] emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. [Alexander] testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite [Alexander's] claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [Gray], she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence to support her claim.) [Alexander] then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. [Alexander] returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three victims. [Gray] put his hands in the air. [Alexander] shot at [Gray], barely missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. [Alexander] stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911.

Well that's a whole different story, isn't it? It should also be noted that Alexander wasn't even living in the house at the time, as she and Gray had separated. Sean Davis over at Media Trackers has a much more detailed account of the case. I've been seeing the case start to gain more attention recently, so it's important to get the facts right before the media tries to turn it into another drummed up racial discrimination story. Definitely give it a read.

The real outrage here is Florida's 10-20-Life mandatory minimum law, which essentially gives prosecutors (like the detestable Angela Corey) power to act as both prosecutor and judge. As soon as Alexander discharged her weapon, it immediately became a 20 year minimum sentence since it was used in an aggravated assault. The judge's hands were tied. The law does not include a first time offender exemption and includes more absurdities like this:

The "10-20-Life" statutes exclude manslaughter from any minimum sentencing requirements, Assistant State Attorney Mark Caliel confirmed. That means if Alexander had actually killed her husband or one of his sons and been found guilty of manslaughter, she could have instead gotten as little as time served. Caliel said manslaughter should be added into the statutes.

Since Florida has tied firearms to minimum sentencing laws, the real reason Marissa Alexander will sit in a jail cell for the next 20 years is because of gun control legislation, whether the media wants to admit it or not.

Update: Melissa Harris-Perry butchers the story this weekend.

Posted by: JohnE. at 09:46 AM | Comments (305)
Post contains 901 words, total size 7 kb.

USA Today Media Writer: Media Is To Blame For Simplistic, Hero/Villain Narrative of Zimmerman Affair
— Ace

Well of course, and while I agree with much of this essay, the writer eventually loses the plot, and probably deliberately.

Here's the stuff that's obviously true:

The story of their tragic confrontation on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was framed early on. Zimmerman, then 28, was the neighborhood watch captain/"wannabe cop" who racially profiled and ultimately killed Trayvon, an unarmed, hoodie-clad black teenager out on the streets of the gated community Retreat at Twin Lakes simply because he wanted some Skittles.

The storyline quickly took root, amplified by the nearly ubiquitous images of the two: a sweet-looking photo of a several-years-younger Trayvon released by his family, and a mug shot of Zimmerman from a previous arrest in which he looks puffy and downcast. The contrasting images powerfully reinforced the images of the menacing bully and the innocent victim.

He goes on to list the media sins of NBC (deceptively editing the call to police), ABC (claiming videotape showed no injuries to Zimmerman, and later having to admit that in fact video did show injuries), and everyone who tried to fit the half-Peruvian Zimmerman into the neat simple black/white duality by inventing a new category of racial description, the infamous "White Hispanic."

The writer says that's like calling Obama a "white black."

But then he does that thing that every single media critic does when he comes to the issue of media bias: He essentially dismisses it.

Conservatives see this episode as yet another manifestation of the pervasive bias of that dreaded liberal media. But there's something else at play. Journalists are addicted above all else to the good story. And the saga of the bigoted, frustrated would-be law enforcement officer gunning down the helpless child was too good to check. It's also another example of how groupthink can shape news coverage.

They always do this. Whenever the media gets something wrong -- and they get a lot of things wrong -- they offer up various reasons for having gotten it wrong but none of those reasons are ever "persistent, ubiquitous, and blatant bias to the leftist worldview and pro-Democratic partisan sympathies."

It's always the same things, according to the media: We got sloppy. We're not perfect. Sometimes a story is "just too good to resist," whether it's true or not.

But let's look at this "too good a story to resist." The writer successfully diagnoses the Zimmerman coverage as the media attempting to simplify a complicated story, in which the facts are simultaneously messy and unknowable, into a childishly unsophisticated White Hat/Black Hat Narrative.

Fine. But why does the media always choose the same predictable Designated Heroes for its simplistic Narrative, and the same Designated Villains?

This guy says this particular storyline was "too good to resist." But why that storyline? What about another storyline -- that a man was accused of murder by an overreaching, corrupt DA who was playing politics to the anger of the mob?

That's a pretty good storyline too. It has a Hero and a Villain. It's simple.

And yet, of course, you'd never see that "too good to resist" story in the media.

Yes, the media is stupid, sloppy, lazy, incapable of showing the necessary skepticism about storylines, and monstrously herd-like in its group think. All of these things are true.

But the media's errors always fall against one side of the political divide, and always in favor of one side of it. And that is not just due to stupidity, incompetence, laziness, and all the rest.

An unbiased incompetent would get a lot of things wrong, but he'd get things wrong randomly as regards political benefit to either side of the divide.

The media does not get things wrong in a random way. They always get it wrong the exact same way.

And that's because they're not merely liberals -- which is not a knock in and of itself -- but because they are relentless, blatant, shameless partisans for the liberal cause.

And the six bazillion "the media got it wrong but not because it's liberal" claims aren't going to change that fact.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (374)
Post contains 712 words, total size 5 kb.

Deal Reached on Nuclear Option
— Ace

As I mentioned yesterday, I thought the GOP's highest priority was to keep off the unconstitutionally-appointed members of the NRLB. It looks like the GOP did in fact fight hardest to keep those unconstitutional members off the NRLB, because the deal says they're out.

At the moment, it appears that the deal involves agreeing to hold a confirmation vote for Richard Cordray as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by Dodd-Frank in 2010 but has yet to have a confirmed executive. Barack Obama gave Cordray a recess appointment while the Senate wasnÂ’t actually in recess, angering Republicans who vowed to block Cordray in the next session.

In return, Democrats will only get two confirmation votes for the NLRB, whose recess appointments have been overturned by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It appears that Reid will ask the White House to choose new appointees rather than try to restore the overturned appointments.

The deal apparently requires the GOP to stipulate, in writing, that they'll confirm Obama's next two NLRB appointments, whoever they are.

Did the GOP cave? Well, they certainly gave a bunch. I guess it depends on if you think Harry Reid was bluffing on the nuclear option -- I sort of think he was. But I don't know that.

I think I agree with Drew's take earlier:

Personally, I don't care if Reid pulls the trigger. In fact I kind of hope he does. The filibuster is not ordained by God nor is required by the Constitution. The republic shall endure without it.

And let's face it, the Republicans aren't going to have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate anytime soon. If you want to dismantle major programs, it's going to be a lot easier to get 50 or 51 votes than 60 ever will be. Sure it will be easier for Democrats to make mischief and put them back in or worse. But honestly, a federal government that alternates between growth and repeal of programs is a lot better than one that grows and...grows.

Yeah I don't know how much I want to fight to keep something I sort of want wiped off the books.

I think Drew might have nailed something interesting and important about this-- the filibuster, by supposedly encouraging moderation and supermajority support on important votes, may actually lock-in the inexorable growth of the state.

Maybe we shouldn't fear the "wild swings" in the Senate the filibuster is designed to ameliorate. The only thing that can really slow down the growth of government is a wild swing to the right.

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (266)
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

Butthurt Prosecutors Making the Rounds
— rdbrewer

Via Mediaite.

In an interview with ABC, Bernie de la Rionda suggests when a defendant doesn't take the stand there is something wrong with the defendant and that he must be a coward. This is absurd, and the presumption of innocence in this country is part of the bedrock of the criminal justice system. It's outrageous that a prosecutor would do that. And think about it: have you ever seen a prosecutor suggest such a thing? It never happens.

Angela Corey says, "Nobody just gets a gun out and shoots, even trained police officers. When theyÂ’re on the ground, with a suspect on top of them, they canÂ’t get their guns out that quickly." I thought the evidence was that Zimmerman was being beaten for about 45 seconds prior to firing his weapon. One witness, for example, talked about Martin doing a "ground pound," repeatedly punching Zimmerman while straddling him. A cop wouldn't have been able to get his gun out in 45 seconds? Not only is that silly, it also makes it clear Corey rejects the jury's decision. In fact, yesterday she called Zimmerman a "murderer." (Video below the fold.) This is reckless and unintelligent, since we know that Zimmerman is not a murderer, and it appears to be an instance of defamation per se. The case is over, and there is no prosecutorial privilege. Most importantly, as in the case with de la Rionda, it's an attack on the fabric of our criminal justice system. It's terrible for a prosecutor to do this, and I have never seen anything like it. The proper response is to say "the jury has spoken" and maybe even "now we must move on," but it's clear Corey has no respect for the jury, despite her frequent statements to the contrary.

Prosecutor John Guy said he thinks there was a struggle and that Martin saw the gun "and was backing up." No evidence was presented in court that Martin backed up. Guy just makes this up from nothing. It's unconvincing, and it's disingenuous in that it contributes to the appearance the prosecutors are simply butthurt and that there is no ethical or moral limitation on what they will do or say when going after someone and/or trying to save their own skins. They will stop at nothing. And recall there was evidence presented in court Martin reached for the gun (Zimmerman's recorded statements). There was also evidence Martin had the opportunity to go for the gun (during the "ground pound").

I've never seen behavior like this. I expect it from civil lawyers, but not people with the backing of the state when someone's life and freedom are on the line. You give the other side all the exculpatory evidence; you try your best case, and if you lose you say "the jury has spoken." That's it. These prosecutors are something else.

Thomas Sowell from the sidebar link:

More important than the fate of George Zimmerman, however, is the fate of the American justice system and of the public’s faith in that system and in their country. People who have increasingly asked during the lawlessness of the Obama administration, “Is this still America?” may feel some measure of relief.

But the very fact that this case was brought in the first place, in the absence of serious evidence — which became ever more painfully obvious as the prosecution strained to try to come up with anything worthy of a murder trial — will be of limited encouragement as to how long this will remain America.

more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:14 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

Senate Nuclear Option And Senate "Gangs"
— DrewM

So the Senate had their big joint caucus meeting last night behind closed doors. Gee, if only there was a forum where Senators could get together and debate, maybe in public even. We could call it, The Senate or something.

Anyway, they didn't come to any agreements so we're on the edge of Harry Reid going nuclear.

Reid reiterated Monday morning that he could trigger the so-called nuclear option as early as Tuesday if Republicans do not agree to give up-or-down votes to seven of President ObamaÂ’s pending nominees.

By going nuclear, Reid would change the SenateÂ’s rules to allow the nominees to be confirmed with a simple-majority vote. The rule change would prevent the minority from filibustering nominations, which requires the majority to win 60 votes to get a nominee confirmed.

Personally, I don't care if Reid pulls the trigger. In fact I kind of hope he does. The filibuster is not ordained by God nor is required by the Constitution. The republic shall endure without it.

And let's face it, the Republicans aren't going to have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate anytime soon. If you want to dismantle major programs, it's going to be a lot easier to get 50 or 51 votes than 60 ever will be. Sure it will be easier for Democrats to make mischief and put them back in or worse. But honestly, a federal government that alternates between growth and repeal of programs is a lot better than one that grows and...grows.

Of course that presumes Republicans would dismantle major programs if they had the chance. That ties into this filibuster fight because it's important to remember that back in 2005 the GOP was going to "go nuclear" over George W. Bush judicial nominations. You may recall that a group of idiot Republicans, led of course by John McCain. created the Gang of 14 which sold out the GOP majority and forced Bush to abandon some of his most conservative judicial nominees.

Note there are no "maverick" Democrats stepping up to undercut Reid and Obama. That kind of cowardly "bipartisanship" is for suckers, er, Republicans.

I realize that there are wider implications but I honestly am enjoying seeing the sellout Republicans who want to "work with the Democrats" (Hi Marco Rubio!) get slapped in the face by their Democrat "friends". Sadly, I doubt they'll actually learn that they can't trust Democrats. Hopefully Republican voters will realize that sending people "to DC to get things done" means sending people willing to cave to the Democratic line. Chose wisely.

The Senate convenes at 10am Eastern today. We'll see what happens then.

Added: Two word to keep in mind when Democrats say it's terrible, horrible and unprecedented to filibuster executive nominations....John Bolton.

UPDATE: There's always a Republican willing to sellout and it's usually John McCain.

The GOP needs to come to terms with the fact it nominated a Democrat in 2008.

Via @JayCost

Posted by: DrewM at 05:44 AM | Comments (354)
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.