Breaking:

Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic charity that was fighting Obama's birth control/abortion mandate. They sought an injunction against enforcement of the mandate while they were litigating the case. Obama's HHS, of course, refused, and claimed that they could not possibly be so cavalier about enforcing every single mandate in the law (despite not enforcing twenty mandates they found to be politically problematic).

Gabe writes:

Little Sisters get their stay during pendency of appeal. Will not have to fill out the mandate accommodation form which facilitates a third party to provide contraceptives coverage to employees.

The "accommodation" Obama offered them was that they could sign this form which says that a third party should provide the contraception coverage to their employees. As you know, this is fiction -- it's their insurance company providing it, and yes, just right out of their premiums -- but Obama said "free birth control" and people are supposed to pretend it really is free.

Little Sisters objected to being forced to participate in the deception, and being forced to provide birth control against their religious conscience.

Oh: One of the prerequisites for the granting of an injunction is a likelihood that the party will prevail on the merits of the actual case.

So it appears, hopefully, that the Court believes Little Sisters will/should prevail at the court level.

Posted by: Ace at 12:29 PM | Comments (475)
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

Creepy, isn't it?

Just breaking over the Belieber News Network: Bieber's bail has just been set at a mere $2,500 after his arrest.

Bieber was arrested after police said they saw him speeding down a residential street in Miami Beach in a yellow Lamborghini. Officers say he had an expired license, was initially not cooperative when he was pulled over and smelled of alcohol.

Police say Bieber later admitted that he had been drinking, smoking marijuana and taking prescription medication.

ABCNews asks the important questions: Could Bieber be deported? I'm not linking that because that's stupid celebrity bait. You don't have to read it because it says exactly what you'd guess it says: Well, maybe, possibly, we don't really know, the law isn't clear, but it probably wouldn't happen.

Although, to be fair, I did learn that Bieber is suspected (but not charged) in causing $20,000 in vandalism damage by throwing eggs at neighbor's houses. And that would make deportation more of a possibility.

Because someone asked for a silly post, and this Bieber crap doesn't seem like enough, I thought, "Where can I find stupid shit?" And I of course thought, "Why, the Daily Mail."

But they're just All Bieber All Day too. (Some more Miley/Bieber comparisons there.)

For reasons that aren't clear, Seth Rogan proclaimed: "All jokes aside, Justin Bieber is a piece of sh**."

I don't know if he actually was joking when he says he wasn't, or if this is one of those Celebrity Beefs I don't care about.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (226)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, with the State of the Union coming next week and all this talk of income inequality that'll come with it, I found this article to be a good primer. The three types of "Income Inequality" religious extremists.

image h/t more...

Posted by: CDR M at 05:56 PM | Comments (826)
Post contains 348 words, total size 4 kb.

So asks Althouse with a tilt towards "Yes." It's not that D'Souza is innocent, mind you; she notes his response pretty much confesses the action that he's being charged with.

The problem is Obama's pattern of not prosecuting his buddies-- and then hounding his enemies like a bloodhound on the trail of a bloodhound-chew-toy thief.

Laws need to be enforced neutrally, across the board, or we need to be free of them. When the executive authority spares its friends or, worse, targets its enemies, what is revealed is the insufficient or fake commitment to rules that bind everyone and that deter rule-followers (like me) from engaging in activities we might want to engage in. I want to smoke out this insufficient or fake commitment to campaign finance law by challenging government to prosecute all violators. If that challenge is unmet, we deserve different laws.

AND: It's really quite unfair, when some candidates spent lots of money carefully avoiding violations of the law and forgo contributions that would violate the law, for another candidate to get away with violations. But it doesn't undo the unfairness to prosecute some and not others. It only breeds more disrespect for the law.

Instapundit agrees, approving linking some blogger whose name I didn't catch, who noted Obama's and the Democrats' blatantly partisan use of prosecutorial resources to wage a political war by other means.

Instapundit be on FoxNews sometime today to discuss this.

Pronoun Confusion: Sorry, I said "He'll be on FoxNews," which, referring back to the last noun referenced, would mean Maetenloch.

But I didn't mean that. I screwed it up. I meant Instapundit will be on.

And yes, I also meant "Javert" not "Jalvert," though I've heard it both ways.

And I said "53 minutes from now" to save people the hassle of figuring out time zone shifts.

Any other complaints and criticisms, you f***buckets?

$1,000,000 Fine and Jailtime vs. a Misdemeanor. The feds seek a $1,000,000 fine from D'Souza. Plus up to seven years of jail.

They aren't always quite so tough on straw donors.

Democratic straw donors, I mean.

DÂ’Souza was charged Thursday with one count of making illegal campaign contributions, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. He also is charged with one count of causing false statements to be made to the FEC, which carries a maximum of five years in prison.

Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce OÂ’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.

More Corrections: Instapundit will not be on at 2:30. He'll be doing a Fox interview at that time, but he doesn't know when it will air.

And I got rid of the Javert reference.

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (512)
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Mætenloch ventures outside the ONT to join Ace, Gabe, Drew and John to talk about the week's events.

Admit it, you've always wanted to know how that "æ" thing is pronounced, and that mystery is unraveled on this episode before getting to the changes at the Washington Post, Wendy Davis's bad week, and the story of Dr. V., whose resume is almost as fraudulent as Abortion Barbie's.

Then there are the Quick Hit and Moron Mailbag segments, which are always informative and entertaining. Submit your questions & comments here: Ask the Blog

Referenced in this episode:

• In Brazil, you can always find the Amazon — in America, the Amazon finds you


• Why Wendy DavisÂ’s résumé issues matter


• Mau Mauing the Sports Reporters

[MP3 Download] | Subscribe: [RSS] | [iTunes]

Follow on Twitter:
AoSHQ Podcast (@AoSHQPodcast)
Ace (@AceofSpadesHQ)
Drew M. (@DrewMTips)
Gabriel Malor (@GabrielMalor)
John E. (@JohnEkdahl)
Andy (@TheH2 and @AndyM1911)

Open thread in the comments.

Posted by: andy at 11:08 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 159 words, total size 3 kb.

He specifically says he's not in favor of legalization, but of decriminalization.

“As governor, I have begun to implement policies that start us toward a decriminalization” by introducing alternative “drug courts” that provide treatment and softer penalties for minor offenses, Perry said during an international panel on drug legalization at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

It's the first time the governor, who's voiced support for drug courts in the past, took a position on decriminalization in Texas.

His spokeswoman confirmed that Perry is staunchly opposed to legalization of marijuana because of the dangers that have been associated with the drug but is committed to policies that would lower the punishment for its use to keep smokers out of jail.

“Legalization is no penalty at all, whereas decriminalization doesn't necessarily mean jail time (for minor possession offenses). It means more of a fine or counseling or some sort of program where you don't end up in jail but in a rehabilitative program,” said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry.

“The goal is to keep people out of jails and reduce recidivism, that kind of thing,” she said, adding that decriminalization would exclude violent offenders and dealers.

These remarks were made in Davos, Switzerland, in a panel with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Decriminalization is clearly superior to the current regime (though legalization may be superior to both; I don't know). I always hear pro-War-on-Drugs people making the point that, despite the 750,000 marijuana arrests per year, only a tiny fraction of people are in jail for simple possession of marijuana.

Okay that's a fact. I accept that. But in that case we have a law on the books -- with prosecutors permitted to seek long jail sentences for simple possession, even if they routinely do not seek such sentences -- at their discretion.

So, even per the pro-War-on-Drugs' argument, we're already in a state of partial decriminalization. So Bill O'Reilly's arguments about how decriminalization will have disastrous effects seems contrived -- out of his own mouth, he's constantly talking up the fact that we're already in such a system.

However, it's selective decriminalization. A prosecutor can still threaten you with the full sentence and scare the living shit out of you and induce you to copping to some lesser charge via that threat. And there are a small number of people -- just a small number, but they exist -- who are actually serving time in prison only because they were found with pot in their pockets.

I think it is elementary that the law should say what the law actually is. It is a strange situation where we keep laws on the books, justifying their continued existence by saying, "Well, you know, we really don't enforce the jailtime-for-pot-possesion law" (or, a few years back, "Well, you know, we really don't enforce anti-sodomy laws, so there's no problem keeping them on the books.")

It is a basic premise of law -- a false one, most of the time, but still a premise of it -- that the ordinary citizen should know what the law is, that he could know what the law is if he read the statutes (this is part of the reason they're published and publicized), and, therefore, that he is presumed to know what the law is if he is caught violating it, and cannot plead ignorance of the law as an excuse.

Laws which are on the books, but not enforced, or enforced in a strikes-like-lightning sort of way -- 98% of simple marijuana possession defendants do not go to prison, which makes it an unfair shock to the 2% who do -- are anti-democrat and an affont to the idea that the average man ought to, or at least could, know what the law really is.

And in these types of "crimes" where 98% of offenders are not punished with jail, but then, kapow!, 2% are, this makes What The Law Really Is almost entirely dependent not on the law but on men -- Has this particular prosecutor decided that, in his jurisdiction, for the cases he prosecutes, the full jailtime-for-pot laws are in operation? Did you piss off a cop a little too much with smart-mouth?

Do prosecutors suspect you of crimes they can't prove but can prove that you had some pot on you, and thus will seek to jail you as if they had been able to prove those more serious crimes they suspect you of?

Many people will call that last one a benefit. The reasoning goes: Well, they suspect this guy of more, but they can't prove it. So the fact they got him on drugs is a good thing. Otherwise, that guy would get off completely. It's like getting Capone on tax fraud.

Is this really a good thing, where prosecutors get to effectively jail you for crimes they suspect but can't prove, and thus impose jailtime for simple possession when 98% of other simple-possession-offenders don't get jail time?

Do we really want prosecutors empowered to throw people in jail for crimes they actually don't have enough evidence to prove?

That's a benefit? That seems like a deeply corrosive thing. That seems, actually, pretty unAmerican, in as much as the American system is pretty firm on the point that people should go to jail for crimes only after having been duly convicted of them by an airing of evidence before a jury of their peers.

That's not a "nice to have" feature of American justice. That's supposed to be a "must have."

If the actual law is that simple pot possessors don't go to jail (except for the 2% who do, on a prosecutorial whim), then that should be the written law as well. There should not be these great divergences between the Law As Written and the Law As Actually Applied.

The two should track each other almost perfectly. Sure, the Law As Written will never completely describe the Law As Applied. But neither should we deliberately build gigantic discrepancies into it.

I think... Perry's halfway position will be the "conservative position" in five years or less.

Because most people who support the War on Drugs will say they don't favor prison for possession, by and large. They just want to have it recorded in the law that drugs are bad, and they'd like to see people nagged, hectored, and otherwise dissuaded from doing drugs.

And I'm being snarky on that: I happen to agree, drugs are bad. While many people can do drugs without any particular consequence, you will also have a great many people who like the drug too much, and they'll become addicted, and unable to perform any kind of useful work, and ultimately either wards of the state that taxpayers have to feed and clothe, or criminals.

Or, and this is the wonderful part: Often both.

But most people who favor the War on Drugs say they don't actually want prison to be on the menu of penalties for simple possession. So Perry's sort of approach, paternalistic, yes, but not excessively punitive, might wind up being acceptable (or even preferable to the current regime) to the prohibitionists.

Posted by: Ace at 07:47 AM | Comments (667)
Post contains 1226 words, total size 8 kb.

• Satan And The Constitution
  
• A Better World Through America
  
• RNC Moves To Condense 2016 Primaries
  
• De Blasio Comes Out Against Fracking
  
• Smearing Tim Scott
  
• French First Lady Goes Nuts And Smashes 3 Million Of National Treasures At Elysee Palace
  
• IRS Moves To Stamp Out Scourge Of Hollywood Conservatives
  
• Krauthammer Shreds Obama's Whining Over Inability To Control 100% Of The Media
  
• Progressive Millenials: The Cheapest Date In Town
  
• VA State AG Won't Defend State Marriage Law
  
• Corbett Says He'd Sign Bill Ending Deduction Of Union Dues
  
• Is Rick Perry More Liberal On Marijuana Than Obama?
  
• Jay Leno Rips On Obamacare
  
• Love In The Time Of Obama
  
• Marijuana Banking Regulation On The Way
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:21 AM | Comments (750)
Post contains 123 words, total size 3 kb.

FRIDAY!

The incredible, shrinking Charlie Crist campaign.

Some food for thought over at PJMedia, which (amazingly) wasn't prompted by Certain Effin' Doomabee's big mouth, first from Roger Simon: "How Social Conservatives Are Saving Liberalism (Barely)" and then a response from Bryan Preston: "Rebuttal to Another ‘Why Won’t the Social Conservatives Just Shut Up?’ Post."

And a cool bit from a 1934 L.A. Times on the Lizard People who lived under Los Angeles 5,000 years ago.

Another cover below the fold. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:47 AM | Comments (514)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay I checked the blog rule book and it turns out that speaking in tongues and handling serpents within the comments are not specifically prohibited. So there you go.

Coincidence: Hollywood's only conservative group is getting close IRS nonprofit scrutiny

Another Coincidence: James O'Keefe Group Being Audited by NY. Again.

Yet Another Coincidence: Dinesh D'Souza Indicted For Election Fraud

Still Another Coincidence: IRS Proposes New 501(c)(4) Rules That Just Happen to Cover Most Tea Party Groups

Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin's 'John Doe' Subpoenas

Secret investigations targeted coincidently at most prominent conservative groups in WI who can only now legally talk about their harassment. If you want to see what American fascism would look like, well this is it.

Von Spakovsky, who previously served on the Federal Elections Commission and at the U.S. Justice Department as counsel to the assistant attorney general, says the prosecution's seizure of electronic equipment and files and its demands for phone email and other records make the probe look like nothing more than a "witch hunt to intimidate conservative groups."

"What's even worse about this is the secrecy imposed by state law," von Spakovsky told Wisconsin Reporter. "Political speech is one of the most fundamental things protected by the First Amendment. No kind of investigation like this should be secret. Any organization that receives a subpoena like this ought to be able to make it public and go to court."

But speaking out could land a witness or a target in jail.

Wisconsin's John Doe law comes with secrecy oaths, and violators risk contempt of court charges.

JournoList Powers Activate: Matt Yglesias Joins Ezra Klein's New Media Thingy

All they need is Dave Weigel and they'll have the Juicebox Mafia back together once again.

In the years surrounding the 2008 presidential election, The Washington Post employed Mr. Weigel; and The American Prospect and then The Post made his peer Ezra Klein into a multiplatform superman of blogging-twittering-column writing. The Atlantic and then Think Progress - the online arm of the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund - transformed Matt Yglesias from a formerly bored Harvard kid who hated reporting into an Internet star.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:49 PM | Comments (770)
Post contains 1239 words, total size 13 kb.

Horrifying.

Oh, and the Daily Mail has the sad story of a porn star with O sized fake breasts (and K-sized fake lips, too).

Before any women ask: The number of men who think that's hot is pretty small. Single digits percentages. Men like breasts. Those are not breasts. If you put a nipple on a cheese grater, it would not be a breast. And those are as far from breasts as cheese graters or, of course, basketballs.

I don't know whether to fondle those or go for three points.

Thanks to @comradearthur and @rdbrewer4.

Open Thread, of course.

Posted by: Ace at 04:58 PM | Comments (269)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.