Quote of the day:
Image of the day
Articles of Interest
A Decent Lawyer Should Tell Liberals They’re Damned Fools and Ought to Stop
“About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” So supposedly said Elihu Root, New York lawyer and secretary of war and of state, and U.S. senator from 1909 to 1915.
Today it seems that many liberal “would-be clients” are in desperate need of what Root called “a decent lawyer.”
Take Texans for Public Justice, the so-called public interest group that has been pushing for the indictment of Gov. Rick Perry by a grand jury at the urging of special prosecutor Michael McCrum.
The basis for the indictment is, in the words of liberal New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, “unbelievably ridiculous.” The first count says that Perry violated a vaguely worded statute by threatening to veto an appropriation. That, even though the Texas Constitution gives governors the veto power and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects their right to free speech.
The second count states that it was illegal “coercion” to demand the resignation of Rosemary Lehmberg, head of the public integrity prosecution unit whose funding Perry vetoed, after she was arrested for drunk driving with a blood alcohol content three times the legal limit.
“To describe the indictment as ‘frivolous’ gives it far more credence than it deserves,” Chait said. Liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz agreed. Perry’s actions, he said, are “not anything for a criminal indictment,” adding that the indictment is reminiscent of “what happens in totalitarian societies.”
The editorial writers of the Washington Post and the New York Times agreed. A “tendentious prosecution,” the Post wrote, noting that it was not the first one launched in Austin. The Texas town also produced the 2006 campaign finance indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay that was finally ruled invalid last year.
The Times, after making clear its distaste for Perry (“one of the least thoughtful and most damaging state leaders in America”), wrote that “the indictment appears to be the product of an overzealous prosecution.”
Were the “Times” an honest purveyor of information, which their bias does not allow, they would have mentioned that under Perry the state of Texas has a better economy than the rest of the country. In fact Texas is what raises those numbers that Obama likes to brag about. Stuff that up your wazoo NYT.
Her Highness Hillary and our leftist overlords.
Recently uncovered information about what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demands from those to whom she deigns to speak tells us all we need to know about how “progressive” leaders and wannabes really view the rest of us. From President Obama on down, it’s clear that it’s not as their equals.
To be graced with her presence, Mrs. Clinton expects to be treated like a rock star, and arguably even better. In doing so, she has effectively appropriated the three-letter abbreviation “HHH,” once the exclusive property of 1968 presidential candidate and selflessly driven Democrat Hubert Horatio Humphrey, for herself — as Her Highness Hillary.
Public records obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal show that our 21st century HHH extraordinarily obligates those who run the events at which she delivers a contractually limited 90-minute address.
On the financial side, the events must, among other things, provide round-trip private jet transportation on “a Gulfstream 450 or larger jet.” The going rate for the use of a G450 is over $6,000 — per hour. She also requires “a presidential suite” for herself and three to five additional rooms for her staff. Mrs. Clinton has quite an entourage, including an advance team of two to scout the event site, as well as several travel aides. Naturally, she demands expensive room, board and perks for all of them. All of these expenses, and more, are over and above Her Highness’s $300,000 standard speaking fee, which was marked down to a rock-bottom $225K for the UNLV Foundation.
HHH’s controls over the proceedings, as described by the Review-Journal, are particularly galling. They include:
- Final approval of all moderators or introducers.
- Being “the only person on the stage during her remarks.”
- No more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people.
- No press coverage or taping of her speech.
- No physical record of what she said, except for a transcript to be given to her — prepared by a stenographer the event must hire and pay.
The UNLV Foundation’s defense for its expenditure and cave-ins on conditions is that Mrs. Clinton’s appearance is a money-making venture, with donors paying up to $20,000 for a table. The obvious question thus becomes what these donors, an apparent who’s who of Vegas business and politics, believe they’re getting for their substantial “investment” that they wouldn’t receive by simply cutting checks to the foundation to further its mission. Sadly, the answer appears to be the “opportunity” to get barely more than a fleeting glimpse of someone who somewhere, someday, might grant them a favor or cut them a break. What a racket.
By their actions, modern progressive leaders, despite all of their pieties about protecting the middle class and defending the downtrodden, betray a belief system which in their minds entitles them to live the high life at someone else’s expense.
IRS: Oh, those Lois Lerner emails, yeah they’re backed up
Prior IRS denials have “been a pack of malarkey”.
by Amy Miller
Judicial Watch revealed today that Lois Lerner’s fabled “missing e-mails” may still exist on a government backup system.
Via Judicial Watch:
Department of Justice attorneys for the Internal Revenue Service told Judicial Watch on Friday that Lois Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system.
We obviously disagree that disclosing the emails as required would be onerous, and plan to raise this new development with Judge Sullivan.
This is a jaw-dropping revelation. The Obama administration had been lying to the American people about Lois Lerner’s missing emails. There are no “missing” Lois Lerner emails – nor missing emails of any of the other top IRS or other government officials whose emails seem to be disappearing at increasingly alarming rate. All the focus on missing hard drives has been a diversion. The Obama administration has known all along where the email records could be – but dishonestly withheld this information. You can bet we are going to ask the court for immediate assistance in cutting through this massive obstruction of justice.
Most Newspapers Skip Reid’s Asian Gaffe; WashPost Pleads He’s ‘Almost Built Up a Gaffe Immunity’
Scott Whitlock noted earlier today that CBS and NBC skipped over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bad jokes about Asians (you’re not really the smartest, I can’t keep my Wongs straight). Additional Nexis transcript searches for “Harry Reid” and “Asian” show no mention on NPR, the PBS NewsHour, and even CNN and MSNBC (at least the transcripts they send to Nexis).
But what about newspapers? Surely, the “every “ reported this? No. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today skipped over it, too. The Washington Post covered it, but Post political reporter Aaron Blake strangely argued that Reid is so gaffe-prone he’s “almost built up a gaffe immunity”:
But Reid has also made a career out of saying such odd things — so much so that few tend to notice stuff like this. He’s like Joe Biden; he’s almost built up a gaffe immunity by committing so many small-ish gaffes.
It’s hard to argue Reid (and Biden, for that matter) doesn’t pay a price — given his unpopularity back home and nationally — but he has yet to ruin his career.
Blake then listed the worst “gaffes,” like Reid shamelessly claiming Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes. That’s not a “gaffe.” That’s just lying. That was like claiming Obama was born in Kenya.
The Associated Press gave the Reid story a little 321-word blip by Michelle Rindels. In the story, no one outraged by Reid was quoted. Instead, Rindels went on defense: “Both comments were met with laughter from the crowd of about 150 people.” She and let the Asian group hosting Reid dismiss it as some sort of meaningless Republican tracker prank:
Asian Chamber of Commerce Director James Yu said Reid has been a longtime friend of the group, which was established in 1986 to promote political, social and economic parity for Nevada’s Asian Pacific American entrepreneurs, according to its website. Yu said he hadn’t heard any complaints from attendees about the Senator’s comments.
You have to wonder how many excuses and how unconcerned these same people would be if the remarks had been made by a Republican. Methinks not so much! If if weren’t for double standards the Democrats would have no standards at all.
Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection http://legalinsurrection.com/
Sad MoJo Panel Doesn’t Get Why Warren Buffett Doesn’t Want To Pay Higher Taxes
They get it alright. They just don’t want to call the old bastard what he is, a hypocrite!
Marc Lamont Hill Calls Out Hillary for Dodging Ferguson Questions
Todd: Admin Should Have Seen Vacation Criticism Coming
Pelosi takes the bucket challenge
Facts vs. Visions
The political left has been campaigning against the use of force since at least the 18th century. So it is not surprising that they are now arguing that heavily armed or aggressive police forces only inflame protesters and thus provoke violence.
Statisticians have long warned that correlation is not causation, but they have apparently warned in vain.
There is no reason to doubt that heavily armed police in riot gear may be more likely to show up where outbreaks of violence are expected. But when violence then breaks out, does that prove that it was the appearance of the police that caused it?
I strongly suspect that people who travel with armed guards are more likely to be murdered than people who do not travel with armed guards. After all, they are not paying to have armed guards for no reason.
If so, should we conclude from a higher murder rate among people with armed guards that having armed guards increases your chances of getting murdered? Shall we also conclude from this that we the taxpayers should no longer pay to have Secret Service agents guarding our presidents?
Actually, the history of assassinations of American presidents could be cited as evidence that armed guards are correlated with higher murder rates, if we proceed to “reason” the same way the advocates of weaker police presence seem to be reasoning.
There have been 43 Presidents of the United States, of whom four — Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy — have been murdered. That is a murder rate of 9 percent.
If the murder rate in the general population — most of whom do not have armed guards — were 9 percent, that would mean more than 27 million Americans murdered today. We haven’t quite gotten up to a murder rate that high, even in Chicago.
Does anyone seriously believe that leaving presidents unguarded would reduce assassinations? Probably not. But this is the golden age of talking points, as distinguished from serious thinking about serious issues.
Worth A Look
Michael Brown Funeral: Cop-Lynching Pep Rally
An Al Sharpton-led memorial service yesterday for Michael Brown, the black 18-year-old thug who gave a white Ferguson, Mo. police officer a severe head injury while trying to seize his handgun, became the grotesque political rally some observers feared it would be.
The distinctly anti-police tone of the service was proof that the lie that Brown tried to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, rather than trying to beat the life out of him, won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama, won’t let it go.
The Left’s narrative that the nearly 300-lbs. Brown, who had just robbed a convenience store on Aug. 9 mere minutes before encountering decorated policeman Wilson, is under withering evidentiary assault every day. As federal officials scour the riot-torn St. Louis suburb in a desperate search for material to justify federal civil rights charges, Sharpton is pressing on with his campaign to foment race-based hatred.
The funeral sets the stage for the mob-led lynching of Officer Wilson, an outcome eagerly sought by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon (D). Nixon has been covering his left flank in recent days, terrified because activists noticed that he seemed to support law and order and oppose mobocracy, rioting, and looting in the early hours of the crisis that followed Brown’s death. But after criticism from the Left, Nixon, like the Democratic members of the local congressional delegation, wants Wilson indicted, evidence or not.
Media Fail: Poll Shows Increase In Support for Ferguson Police
A very useful YouGov poll that tracks public sentiment about Ferguson over time shows that despite the 24/7 racial demagoguery from cable news network’s like CNN and MSNBC, public opinion is moving in the exact opposite direction of what the media is aiming for.
Between August 14-17 a plurality of only 45% believed Ferguson residents reacted unreasonably following the shooting of Michael Brown. Four days later that number jumped to a clear majority of 56%. Those that consider the resident reaction reasonable only increased from 25% to 27%.
Last But Not Least…
In Defense of the Brown-Shaheen N.H. Poll
by Sean Trende
The New Hampshire Senate race poll released last Thursday night caused quite a stir. It showed Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s lead over former Sen. Scott Brown collapsing to two points. Many people had begun to conclude that Brown’s campaign was on life support. Suddenly it looked downright sprightly.
Here are three points to consider:
1. The poll might be an outlier. FiveThirtyEight Senior Political Writer Harry Enten has made this case better than anyone else out there. Enten writes: “It’s possible that Brown is slicing into Shaheen’s lead, but there hasn’t been any sign from any other pollster that Shaheen’s edge is down to 2 percentage points. The other three surveys in the race taken after July 1 gave Shaheen an advantage of 5, 8 and 10 points. Before Thursday, no pollster over the past six months has given Shaheen anything less than a 3-point lead.”
2. But there are good reasons to suspect that the movement in the polls reflects actual movement of the electorate. The University of New Hampshire’s Dante Scala points out that the poll specifically shows tightening among Republican respondents.
Remember, when Brown entered the race, there was some resistance to his candidacy within the party. This shows up in the first WMUR/UNH poll from January, which found that Brown’s favorability among Republicans was a tepid 46/23 (+23), and that his lead among the group over Shaheen was 66 percent to 11 percent (+55).
Today, Brown’s favorability among Republicans is 63/15 (+48) and his lead over Shaheen among Republicans is 81 percent to 10 percent (+71), nearly matching the rate at which Democrats prefer Shaheen to Brown (85 percent to 12 percent). This suggests that the movement we see in the topline could also reasonably be viewed as a combination of two factors: First, a natural, inevitable tightening as Republicans “tune in” in advance of the primary and “come home,” and second, an increased Republican population making it through the likely voter screen, as Republican intensity increases in advance of the primary.