As Instapundit says, they told me if I voted for McCain that teabagging racist traitors would be coddled and encouraged by our "law" enforcement system, and they were right!

It looks like James O'Keefe won't be in cuffs after all.

The conservative activist filmmaker, who was arrested in New Orleans in January along with three cohorts in the office of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, is expected to enter a plea to a misdemeanor on Wednesday in federal court. HeÂ’s accused of entering federal property under false pretenses.

Oh noes, oh noes.

Welcome to "AmeriKKKa," people.

I knew this would happen the moment Bush cancelled the 2008 elections.

Correction: Not really a correction so much as an update -- he didn't just cop a plea to illegally entering, but to tampering with phone lines.

So he copped to two rinky-dink misdemeanors.

Still -- $1500 in fines. No stretch in federal prison, as famously dispassionate court-watcher David Shuster promised.

Thanks to sauropod for the update.

Cancel that Update: First I thought he'd pled to entering under false pretenses.

Then I read this article that claimed he pled to guilty to tampering with her phones:

New Jersey activist James O'Keefe pleaded guilty along with three other activists to entering a New Orleans senator's office and tampering with her phones, according to a report by the DailyRecord.com.

That's a lie. He did not plead guilty to tampering with her phones. He pled guilty to entry under false pretenses -- this report simply made that up to sweeten the story for its liberal audience and claim he pled to more than he did.

This article -- which the previous article links to as authority - says it's just entry under false pretenses.

So where'd they get the "tampering with phones" plea?

Just made it up. Because they were invested so heavily in the "slam-dunk case, O'Keefe is frog-marched to prison for wiretapping" storyline, they can't admit he didn't plea to that; no, they instead get some vindication by just makin' it up that he pled out to that.

Why not? Why not just make stuff up?

Thanks to Rocks.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (174)
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know if he's Will Folks Funny, but he'll do for you morons.

Yesterday in my Law and Order cliches thread, a commenter linked John Mulaney's bit about Law and Order cliches. Very funny. (The last joke is a bit too much set-up for a good payoff -- a good one, but still too much set-up -- so you might just want to listen through the taxonomy of cliched characters on Law and Order.)

He's got that old-timey 1930s style voice/delivery I dig. Another comic I like, Dan Naturman, does that too. Maybe I have a bias towards the 30's motor-mouth palaver.

But anyway, back to John Mulaney. Never heard of him until yesterday, but wound up listening to his whole show on YouTube. Very funny stuff. Here are some of the best clips in the batch (mild content warning for some occasional f-bomb and, uh, what HBO calls "Adult Content and Adult Situations"):

Accidentally chasing a woman in the subway at 2 am.

He discusses his problems with the way crime stories are presented in tabloid newspapers like the Post.

This one destroyed me -- First part is math, which is pretty funny, second part is his quibbles with the story of King Solomon and the disputed-parentage baby ("Cut it down the middle").

If you like those the other ones are good, too; but these are the ones that had me laughing out loud.

And This One... Blacking out and making money.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (42)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

I nailed it. Hey, that's not me saying that, that's Gateway Pundit, and as Will Folks can tell ya, It ain't braggin' if it's true.

What I didn't nail is that they'd be so shamelessly obvious in the timing. I thought they'd at least give it a couple of weeks.

A team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the new immigration law in Arizona has recommended that the U.S. government challenge the state law in federal court, but the recommendation faces an uncertain future and tough scrutiny from others in the Justice Department, sources with knowledge of the process tell Fox News.

Staff attorneys within the Justice Department recently sent higher-ups the recommendation. At the same time, the Justice Department’s Civil Division, which oversees the majority of immigration enforcement issues for the department, has drafted a “civil complaint” that would be filed in federal court in Arizona, sources said.

The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.

Wow, like I so totally didn't know you were going to do that.

The troops are not being deployed to the border to stop the river of illegals flowing in, but solely to stanch the bleeding in Obama's poll numbers. They know they need some cover for their next wildly-unpopular move.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

I just wrote the Secretary of the Navy job offer as if it's confirmed, which it really isn't, but pretty much everyone thinks that's what Sestak was offered, and he's never denied that's what it was.

So: We're now using major, major postings like SecNavy as political gifts.

In violation of law, of course.

Pretty sure Holder's going with "no controlling legal authority" here, which is a lie, because the law happens to say an awful lot about giving away federal jobs for political favors.

Some jobs are considered political and you can give them to your cronies. Most are not.

Axelrod concedes that if the facts are as Sestak alleges, it's a serious breach of the law:

Rep. Sestak, D-Penn., who defeated Specter in the primary last week, told Comcast’s Larry Kane in February that the White House had offered him a position in exchange for not challenging Specter. White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on Monday that White House lawyers had looked into it and judged everything “perfectly appropriate.”

CNN’s John King suggested to Axelrod that such a job offer “marches up into the gray area, perhaps into the red area of a felony. It is a felony to induce somebody by offering them a job.”

“If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law,” Axelrod told CNN, “and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing"

But, um, I guess we shouldn't actually get the facts here, but rather allow the Administration to investigate itself and, while withholding from us the facts which would allow us an independent analysis, just accept their conclusion that "nothing inappropriate" occurred during this phone call.

Here's a vid that's going to bring back memories. Victoria Tonsing, cable-news fixture during the Clinton Impeachment Ordeal, is here to tell you that yes indeed this is potentially criminal.

Actually the other guy goes further than she does.

More:

Karl Rove, longtime White House adviser to President George W. Bush, said the charge is explosive because of federal law.

"This is a pretty extraordinary charge: 'They tried to bribe me out of the race by offering me a job,'" he said on Greta Van Susteran's "On the Record" program on the Fox News Channel. "Look, that's a violation of the federal code: 18 USC 600 says that a federal official cannot promise employment, a job in the federal government, in return for a political act.

"Somebody violated the law. If Sestak is telling the truth, somebody violated the law," Rove said. "Section 18 USC 211 says you cannot accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody. Well, arguably, providing a clear path to the nomination for a fellow Democrat is something of value.

He continued, citing a third law passage: "18 USC 595, which prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office. ... 'If you'll get out, we'll appoint you to a federal office,' – that's a violation of the law."

Remember November!

Posted by: Ace at 09:31 AM | Comments (187)
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

But the community board does not have final approval or anything; it seems advisory in nature.

New York City has gone from vowing to never forget to vowing to never remember in just eight and a half years. And this -- this self-inflicted cognitive dysfunction -- is what passes for sophistication in New York.

Angry relatives of 9/11 victims last night clashed with supporters of a planned mosque near Ground Zero at a raucous community-board hearing in Manhattan.

After four hours of public debate, members of Community Board 1 finally voted 29-1 in support of the project. Nine members abstained, arguing that they wanted to table the issue and vote at a later date.

The board has no official say over whether the estimated $100 million mosque and community center gets built. But the panel's support, or lack of it, is considered important in influencing public opinion.

Holding up photos of loved ones killed in the Twin Towers and carrying signs such as, "Honor 3,000, 9/11 -- No mosque!" opponents of the proposed Cordoba House on Park Place called the plan an insult to the terror-attack victims.
"That is a burial ground," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Al Santora, referring to the fact that victims' remains were scattered for blocks.

Santora's 23-year-old son, Christopher, was the youngest firefighter to die that day.

"I do have a problem with having a mosque on top of the site where [terrorists] can gloat about what they did," said Santora, with his wife, Maureen, by his side.

Not so much a burial ground as a scar in the earth, a mass grave for the slaughtered and (apparently) the disposable.

I'm recalling the big Arab thing about feet and shoes -- the face of George Bush (the Elder) painted on the entrance floor to one of Saddam's places, so all visitors would put their dirty shoes on his face; liberated Iraqis slapping the soles of their shoes on depictions of Saddam. And this nice Islamic learning center, or whatever the hell it's supposed to be, right on the unmarked graves of the victims of Islamic learning.

Terrific.

Submission

If you can't beat 'em, grovel.

Oh, I just got an email from Terrell Owens. He says he wants to build a Terrell Owens Cultural Center at midfield of Cowboys Stadium.

But he assures me it will "moderate" and "designed to foster understanding between Terrell Owens and the subhuman infidels of the Dallas Cowboys organization."

Posted by: Ace at 08:57 AM | Comments (210)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Lots of fun numbers here-- like mere interest on the debt is $6,165 per citizen.

But remember, Teabaggerz, Obama gave you a "tax cut."

Posted by: Ace at 08:34 AM | Comments (76)
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

It's hard to tell from the article but I think she was just generally criticising spending cuts in education, but then in about as tone-deaf an assertion as you can make, declares that she doesn't make enough money. She did do some arithmetic, saying if her hourly rate was 3 bucks an hour, she'd be making $83,000 a year. Which I guess means she's working 27,666 hours a year.

I suppose she could mean she thinks she should make 3 bucks an hour per kid. But then that would mean she's only working 922 hours a year.

...

Ok, she's probably an English teacher.

When Wilson, who has a masterÂ’s degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:

"Well, you know then that you donÂ’t have to do it." Some in the audience applauded.

Christie said he would not have had to impose cuts to education if the teachers union had agreed to his call for a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5 percent increase in employee benefit contributions.

"Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state," Christie said. "ThatÂ’s why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that."

via TheDC

Related: Someone tipped me this a couple weeks ago, a rally by teachers union members from Chicago at the IL capitol. It's stunningly offensive, but it does show you how important your kids are to the unions.

Now, I wouldn't want to paint Rita Wilson with this broad brush, noo..

I'll paint her union with it though. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:07 AM | Comments (296)
Post contains 313 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy Humpity-hump, mos.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:06 AM | Comments (208)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry, I can't keep away. Doesn't this strike you as odd?

Folks said the proof exists in e-mails and texts between him and Haley that he and his attorneys are pulling together now. “Nikki says it’s categorically false. The problem with that is it’s categorically true,” Folks said in a phone interview Tuesday. “I have a stack of emails and phone records in my possession, right now, that prove, right now, the affair happened.”

See that last sentence? I changed it. That's not what he said. That's what I would expect him to say. He has all the texts, right? And all the phone records. This is not a complicated procedure.

But here's the actual sentence he really did say:

"There will be a very aggressive effort mounted to obtain all of the data that will corroborate what IÂ’ve said."

There will be (future tense; indicates intention, not existing fact) a very aggressive effort mounted ("effort" comes pre-packaged with the possibility of failure) to obtain (to-- future tense again; and obtain -- he doesn't have them now) all of the data (all of it? Wouldn't one untoward email be enough?) that will (future tense) corroborate what I've said.

See what I'm getting at? The way he's saying this, he's setting it up so it seems like there is a real chance of failure of proving this so if he fails, he can say, "Well, I tried, but I couldn't get the data together. But I'm telling the truth."

But I don't understand how someone who had any sort of relationship with someone would not have some incriminating records easily at hand. I mean -- can't you just dig up your old emails? Again -- one naughty one would suffice. One flirty one wouldn't prove an affair, but it would make the allegation more plausible.

Am I missing something? How is it so difficult for the very-capable, awesome Will Folks to get the sort of emails that he'd naturally have bunches of?

Why does he need a team to dig into his own awesome pipe-layin' past? Are there so many names in his little black book?

Why is this merely an "effort" and not an already-achieved fact? Why is he speaking of things that will happen, rather than those that already have?

It just seems that all of this has excuses for failure built into it.

Why the hell would he need excuses?

He's claiming this happened in 2005, not 1905. What the hell is with the archeological dig here?

Does he have the fucking emails as a previous statement said or is it that he "will" have them after an "aggressive effort" is made to collect "all of the data"?

This guy has said six things since I've heard of him, and five of them are either obvious lies or very suspicious, as they make no frickin' sense, but he's seriously asking people to trust him on that last one, the big one.

Which is pretty hard to believe, too.

The thing is, I kind of want to believe him. I have no big thing for Nikki Haley (just heard of her, really) and I'm cynical, so I tend to believe the worst, and further, psychologically, I feel less bad about being wrong when I suspect someone of something dirty than I do about being wrong when I defend them as innocent.

Know what I mean? If I said "Nikki Haley probably did this," and I was wrong, I'd feel bad about casting aspersions, but I wouldn't feel dumb and gullible.

But if I say "I don't believe this, she's innocent," and then she turns out guilty, I would feel dumb and gullible. Which is the worse thing for me. Feelin' stupid.

Psychologically, I have less at risk to just say, "Ah, she did it, come on. All rumors are true."

But... damnit, everything this guy says is either transparently false or suspiciously weird.

Right out of the box, he came at with me with some nonsense about revealing this in order to avoid "humiliation" to his honor and other twaddle; so his first introduction to me was a lie. "'Hello,' he lied," as the quote goes.

And then the strangeness just keeps on coming.

Uh-Oh... Here's some funny stuff that might have gotten lost at the end of the last post:Commenters have gone to Stage Three of a full internet craze -- Demotivator posters.

Demotivator: "Honor".

Slublog: Proof of Will Folks' DC Super-Playah Past.

Demotivator: "Principles."

From Empire of Jeff. This one playing on Folks' claim he had to reveal this to the press, but wanted to do so "respectfully" as concerns Nikki Haley. Demotivator: "Respectful Revelations."

(Don't send me these; it's too big a pain in the ass to upload and link them... just save them yourself to photobucket or flickr and post the url!)

Posted by: Ace at 11:31 PM | Comments (164)
Post contains 845 words, total size 6 kb.

So says the Most Discreet Man on the Face of the Earth, a man who only wants to be left alone with his solitude and his secrets, as he posts a picture of himself with Nikki Haley in a compromising position, with two men.

Hot chick with douchebags:

Right. That proves... um... Whatever. That other guy is Mark Sanford.

Here's his post:

Seriously Â… how funny is this?

ItÂ’s a framed photo of Mark Sanford, Nikki Haley and Sic Willie following a fundraiser for Haley back in 2007.

Let the bidding begin!

Oh, it's like awesomely funny, dude. They don't call you "Sic Willy" for nothing.

Oh wait, they don't call you that; you call yourself that. No one calls you that because no one knows who you are.

Alex Forrest from Fatal Attraction just called; she wants her dignity back.

PS: Remember when I shook George Bush's hand?

Yeah, that's right: I got to second base with him. Under the shirt, over the bra.

Remember... He promised you 24 hours ago that that single post would be his first, last, and only statement on the topic.

And that's the vow of an uncompromising straight shooter who calls it like he sees it and contends mightily only for the purpose of the good of the citizenry of the state of South Carolina.

Uh-Oh... Commenters have gone to Stage Three of a full internet craze -- Demotivator posters.

Here's mine.

(Don't send me these; it's too big a pain in the ass to upload and link them... just save them yourself to photobucket or flickr and post the url!)

Now Slublog... Further evidence of Will Folks' status as super playah.

Another one... Principles.

New Story: I Leaked It Because My Wife Was Suddenly About to Read the Rumors I Had Been Pushing to the Press About It: I don't get it. It's this fool who's blubbering this to people, and then he says he needs to come clean to protect his darling wife?

Dude, why were you blubbering about it in the first place?

Folks, SanfordÂ’s former communications director, said he admitted to the relationship on his blog because he heard that media outlets were working on the story. He said he also thought it was likely that others had evidence of the relationship.

“I did it because my wife was about to read it in another (media) outlet,” Folks said, adding he is not working for any rival campaign nor was he paid to make the admission.

“I decided I would get ahead of it and (reveal) it in a way that was respectful to Nikki.”

Folks said he was told that people associated with the GOP gubernatorial campaign of U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett of Westminster were pushing the story.

My wife was going to find out that years ago, before I dated her, I had had sex with another woman, and therefore I was compelled to spread the story in the media, so she wouldn't read it in the media I had just spread it to.

I just couldn't sit her down and tell her privately; it just wouldn't be fair to her.

Instead I had to do her the courtesy of telling her via blog.

Another One... From Empire of Jeff. This one playing on Folks' claim he had to reveal this to the press, but wanted to do so "respectfully" as concerns Nikki Haley: "Respectful Revelations."

Posted by: Ace at 07:21 PM | Comments (165)
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.