I've kind of got a bombshell about "Scott Thomas."

Trouble is, I can't confirm it.

So, see, I'm not actually running it. Because I don't actually "have" it. I just have heard it. So I'm not mentioning it until I can establish it.

TNR should try something along these lines.

PS: Don't ask, I can't dish rumors. It's not the sort of thing that would blow the lid off the story or anything. It's more interesting than probative either way.

"Top Men Are Working On It:" Who? Top men.

Well, I'm not the only one who got this tip. It's being checked out.

Posted by: Ace at 02:28 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

"Don't fuss at me. You asked me a question, let me answer it."

Though they are asking here about the coming "North American Union," they are first and foremost Truthers. Conspiracy theorists tend to be "completists" by nature. If you like one, might as well pick up the whole set.

At the end he gets into the allegation that he paid his son about half the money collected from a political PAC in order to perform "a no-show" job with light, if little work. He says it's not the case his son didn't work for a living.

Oh-- and then she begins screaming about WTC7 and how gravity can't cause things to fall. Or something.

Meanwhile, as Slublog's post below notes, Ron Paul's surpsised that appearing on Truther radio shows, pandering to Truther lunatics, and making soft Truther-ish statements capable of being read as suggesting 9/11 was a put-up job all have somehow made people believe he's a Truther.

PS: Shocker of shockers, the whiny-ass Truther in the video above turns out to be rather fond of Ron Paul, here endorsing him for president in a post titled Think Different: Ron Paul for President.

Fancy that.

Posted by: Ace at 02:16 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 206 words, total size 2 kb.

Salvation never looked so hot.

Before finding God.

After finding God.
And also, after finding their waists.

In related news, the American Society of Atheists are frantically calling Jared from Subway asking him if he'd be comfortable renouncing God.

Via Hot Air.

Posted by: Ace at 01:49 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

A Guest Editorial By Dr. Ron Paul

Look, I’m not a hateful person or anything—I believe we should all live and let live. But lately, I’ve been having a real problem with these Truthers. You see, just about wherever I go these days, one of them approaches me and starts talking about melted steel and conspiracies.

Take last Sunday, for instance, when I casually struck up a conversation with this guy who was attending one of my rallies. Nothing weird, just a couple of fellas talking about the gold standard, the true meaning of the Constitution and the suspicious lack of Jews at the World Trade Center on September 11. The guy looked like a real conservative, with the proper opinions and fervor for the cause. He didn’t seem the least bit crazy. At least not until he handed me a DVD with the movie “Loose Change” on it.

Where does this guy get the nerve to hand me that video? Did I look Truthery to him? Was I wearing a “Investigate 9/11″ t-shirt without realizing it? I donÂ’t recall the phrase, “9/11 Truth” entering the conversation, and I donÂ’t have a sign around my neck that reads, “Please, You Truthers, Talk to Me About Melting Steel.”

I've got nothing against Truthers. Let them be free to do their doubting the government line on 9/11 thing in peace, I say. But when they start thinking IÂ’m one of them, then I've got a real problem. more...

Posted by: Slublog at 12:28 PM | Comments (32)
Post contains 868 words, total size 5 kb.

Allah thinks this is a case of the best deal the Republicans could get.

The language provides for immunity, assuming the tip is made "in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion." Allah's troubled, a bit, by the "objectively reasonable suspicion" part. After all, couldn't a jury disagree that the suspicion was reasonable?

It's often dangerous to craft a law conferring complete, absolute immunity. Look at Mike Nifong -- we'd all like to see him sued, but his well-nigh absolute (in fact, probably just plain absolute) sovereign immunity shields him from civil suit. Maybe there's an escape clause somewhere, but most lawyers seem to think there isn't.

I think the "good faith" standard would have been enough -- that alone would have granted immunity to most, but not to people who file knowingly false reports just to harass people. Still, without the "objective reasonable" standard, simple paranoids could file reports all day. Their good faith alone would shield them, despite the fact that their reports were bonkers.

But still, that's a rather rare case to be worried about. And most cops are pretty good at playing Spot the Loony. They're not going to put much effort into investigating tips coming from paranoid or even barking-mad tipsters, and hence people are unlikely to be actually harassed due to such reports.

The thing is, of course, that "suspicious behavior" is a hell of a lot more suspicious when it's a Muslim. That's simply a fact. Terrorism is almost entirely a Muslim phenomenon, but for some reason no one in the world of official law enforcement or politics or law is permitted to admit this. Judges will not admit it. Ergo, a group of Muslim imams moving around a lot and seeming to signal each other won't be viewed as "suspicious" by the "objective reasonable" standard, because, supposedly, it's not reasonable according to the objective person to have any additional suspicions about Muslims. That wouldn't be reasonable; in fact, that's racist. Or Islamophobic. Whatever.

I really don't see this conferring much protection on people. The good faith test alone was enough. Now one must have both good faith and be able to persuade a judge or jury that it's "objectively reasonable" to be more suspicious of Muslims than the general population? You can't so persuade them, because no one is officially allowed to acknowledge simple reality.

Scrap the deal. Try again.

Adds Nothing? I have to imagine that what a plaintiff has to show in winning a case based on a theory of harassment by a tip given to authorities is that the tip was objectively unreasonable and/or offered in bad faith.

In other words, a defendant in this sort of suit already has to establish his good faith and the objective reasonability of his tip.

So how, really, is it "immunity" to say he's shielded from suit if he acted in good faith and in an objectively reasonable way? He's already shielded from suit -- at least, shielded from losing a suit -- if he can show that, isn't he?

It's like passing a law saying a doctor is "immune from malpractice lawsuits" unless a plaintiff can show he was guilty of malpractice. Well, um, the plaintiff had to show that to prevail anyway, right?

Worse Still: To even provide any protection at all, a John Doe bill would have to allow a judge, from very early in the proceedings (when all is still reasonably inexpensive, and you haven't mortgaged your house to defend yourself yet) to decide immunity applies, and thus dismiss the suit.

Does this bill do that?

No. It allows the suit to drag on for months and months before any decision about immunity is made.

One thing I find troubling is that in REAL qualified immunity for federal and state officials, it's an immunity from SUIT, not a defense to liability. The language here says "immune from liability" -- which sounds like a defense to liability. The significance of this is that in qualified immunity, the courts decide as early as possible whether the immunity applies, so they can spare the defendant the cost and burden of litigation. Here, at least the way it appears, the defendant may have to go well into the litigation, possibly to trial, before the "immunity from liability" can be determined.

I could be wrong in my reading of this, but let's just say, this will have to be litigated for years before the meaning is clear enough for it to be helpful to John Does.

Thanks to the law offices of Atilla the Pillage Idiot.

Posted by: Ace at 12:13 PM | Comments (13)
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.

Check it out:

Franklin Foer, the editor of the New Republic, said that he has met Thomas here in the States and that he is "absolutely certain" that he is a soldier in Iraq. "Not an ounce of doubt," he told ABCNEWs.com. Asked about how he attempted to verify Thomas' military credentials, Foer said, "I've got many, many data points to back that up" although one of those proofs didn't include a military e-mail account.

Well, I just wrote a big post about my "near certainty" this guy was a soldier, and here I am walking into the trap anyway.

Still, interesting -- wouldn't Foer want that military email address for simple confirmation purposes? If he hasn't secured this elemental evidence, I can't say I have a lot of confidence in his "many, many data points."

The article, by the way, quotes Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard blog and BlackFive.

Dan Riehl notes that TNR claims they've finally confirmed the mere existence of the disfigured woman, who they know identify as a civilian contractor (something that soldier "Scott Thomas" was unable to ascertain based on uniform or lack thereof).

I have a feeling it's going to all be like this. Next up: TNR confirms the presence of Bradley Fighting Vehicles in Iraq.

And also: Dogs.

No Big Deal On Military Email: Jeff at RedState writes:

It doesn't bother me personally, because, were I him, there's no way I'd use a mil computer (and mil email) to send this stuff, even if I could get access to the NIPR long enough to do it.

The FOB (Falcon specifically) is wired with FUBI ("For Us By Iraqis") internet, which is available in most barracks there, and there is also an internet "cafe," so there'd be ample opportunity to be much, much smarter about the whole thing (we are, of course, speaking in relative terms here) and to use a civilian email account from a non-official-business computer, especially if you want less chance of getting caught -- the DOD can and does monitor mil accounts.

Yes... I didn't actually think he'd use the account to send his dispatches, but just to establish he was who he said he was. True, he wouldn't want any contact with TNR's domain, but Google allows one to create lots and lots of account. Foer couldn't have created an account just to receive a message from "Scott Thomas" saying "Hey, bro, what's up?," simply to establish he had access to military computers?

Posted by: Ace at 11:27 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

In case it wasn't clear, which it almost certainly wasn't. This post may seem like a ripoff of Allah's, but it's not quite. I got the same emails and tips and had been meaning to write a similar post. For what it's worth, here's my take on this.

Greyhawk sends this email:

Some time ago I advised folks not to focus on whether Jamil Hussein was actually an Iraqi police officer and instead concentrate on the accuracy of his claims. I'll now suggest avoiding the argument as to whether Thomas is or isn't a soldier. The exhumation of a graveyard has already been corroborated, that alone leads me to believe Thomas is indeed a soldier here. (This certainly doesn't prove a soldier pranced around wearing a "skull cap".)

There probably have been dogs struck and killed by vehicles. There probably have been people insulted in DFACs. And there are assholes in the US Army. The New Republic wants people to believe those assholes are typical soldiers. I suggest my bottom line comments from my first take on the story might be useful.

...

Of course, if this guy is a soldier, he's going to face some repercussions for his actions. Although that will be for the behavior he confesses to, the media will try to construct a fiction that he's being persecuted for speaking out. Meanwhile, those who now claim Thomas isn't a soldier will perhaps find themselves described as naive, or part of a cover-up. Those who want to be "in front" of this story might prepare for that.

All true. I know from this blog that it's very hard to fake being a veteran. Trolls have tried it. But real vets just ask three or four simple questions and the fakers are unable to answer. "What's your M.O.S.?" seems to be a killer.

I still have no idea what an M.O.S. is, but I know all real military guys do and I know that almost all fakers don't. I can now spot a faker just by asking "What's your M.O.S.?" No idea what the answer should be, but the fakers won't have a good idea either.

There's a line from a Douglas Adams book -- the first Dirk Gently book -- that runs like this: "You are a very clever man, Mr. Gently. But like many other very clever men, you mistake everyone else for an idiot." The left, I think, makes this mistake all the time; innate intelligence being to their religion what virtue and piety are to standard religions, they are almost compelled to believe that the Unbelievers are lacking in it. They make this mistake all the time, and it usually results in their embarrassment or defeat.

On the right we make that mistake less often, or at least try not to. While I may call Franklin Foer an "idiot" or "moron" (though I'm not sure I have, but it wouldn't be out of character), of course he is neither. He's a 31 year old editor in chief of a small but influential policy magazine. His young staffers are all stars of semi-wonkish opinion journalism. The collective brainpower at TNR is nothing to be scoffed at, even if they occasional demonstrate the thought-patterns of perfect buffoons.

My focus on Foer's statement that he has "near certainty" that "Scott Thomas" is a soldier isn't intended to suggest it's terribly likely "Scott Thomas" is not a soldier. He almost certainly is -- and serving in Iraq, to boot.
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:57 AM | Comments (157)
Post contains 2447 words, total size 14 kb.

Good stuff. Democrats have yet to figure out a way to pretend to be in favor of even fighting the war on terror with law enforcement while actually doing the best to subvert it. Thusfar they keep losing these battles as they haven't been able to come up with a solution.

Posted by: Ace at 09:21 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Whenever my gf gets on my ass about my playing this (admittedly stupid timesuck of a) game, I now need only say "I'm developing contacts."

Thanks to Xoxotl.

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

DP tells me this one claimed "regular Americans" don't fear Al Qaeda -- only our military does.

I could prove that, but, as you see, the article is gone. I guess we'll have to wait a day for the cached version.

Posted by: Ace at 07:25 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.