The Casey Anthony Murder Trial-What Happened And Why?

A lot of the punditocracy are totally outraged at the Casey Anthony verdict, which I could have predicted in the event of a Not Guilty verdict a lot easier than I could have predicted the verdict itself. A lot of the comments are so over the top they aren't really worthy of serious response. I'm halfway expecting Nancy Grace to call for the jurors to be investigated by child protective services on the grounds they would have to be unfit parents, grandparents, or even unfit to be in the same neighborhood as small children. Another extreme reaction might be to suggest they should have to hire Casey Anthony as a baby-sitter. Don't be surprised at anything you might hear over the course of the next few days.

But like it or lump it, it is what it is. Thanks to the arrogant attitude of the lead prosecutor in the case, his dismissive and at times even overtly derisive attitude towards the defense, no one was willing to listen to him objectively to start out with. Moreover, this was a typical case of judicial overreach. If the DA had been content to go for a second degree or a manslaughter charge, with maybe a secondary charge of abuse of a child, there is a very good chance Casey Anthony would be sitting in a prison for at least the next thirty years.

Granted, the jury could have found her guilty of those charges anyway, but the capitol murder charge sucked all the oxygen out of the room. That was the focus of the prosecution, and because of that, it became the focus of the jury. In other words, the jury did their job and followed the case the way it was presented to them. And unfortunately for the prosecution team, they came up short.

I would remind everybody of one other very important fact. These jurors lived, ate, and breathed this case. They were sequestered and had no outside contact with any views or reports pertaining to this case, and I suspect precious little of anything else. Because of this, they were focused on every single aspect of the case, and were up close and personal to the defendant and to both sides.

Translation-they saw the case uncut, unadulterated, and in its entirety. The rest of us saw it piecemeal through the eyes of a lynch mob media driven by ratings and the quest for advertising dollars. Because of this, they presented the most sensationalistic parts of the case, and the evidence, and I am of a mind that they did so in a good many cases out of context, possibly even out of all connection to reality.

Because of all of these things, Casey Anthony will be a free woman soon. Does that mean she is innocent. No, it just means the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

It might be depressing, maddening, unfortunate, and even in a sense unjust-but the jury did the only thing they could do in their heart of hearts.

And frankly, I would take that any day over the show trials of the old Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or for that matter even over the relatively civilized and advanced system of Great Britain. There, the burden of proof isn't on the state or government. The burden of proof there is on the defense to prove their innocence.

That to me is a sobering thought. We are possibly the only country in the world-if there's another one I am not aware of it-where the burden of proof is on the state to prove their case. Our founding fathers made it that way purposely, in order to insure that a capricious or vengeful state could not single out political enemies for unjust prosecution, over any charge they might dream up.

Thus, as mad as you might be at the idea that a woman you are convinced is guilty is going to go free, you might want to take a deep breath and be grateful that our system made it so difficult, when the law is followed, for the state to throw her-or you, or me, or your family-in prison, or to death.

And again, bear in mind that a great deal of this trial, from the prosecution perspective, was political in its own right and media driven, which was doubtless the reason for the overreach. If this case had not drawn anymore than moderate regional attention, I can promise you it would have gone a lot differently, and would be very unlikely to have been tried as a capitol murder case. The result would probably have been a lot different as well.

As for what I think might have happened, I expounded my own theory here. Having followed the case to some extent since that post, I would have to amend certain parts of it, particularly the possible complicity, albeit innocently, of unknown parties. Otherwise, I stand by my theory as the most likely explanation for what happened to Caylee Anthony. It explains how she died, why there was no forensic evidence to speak of, and even explains why Casey acted in such a bizarre fashion in the immediate aftermath of the child's horrible, untimely and. yes, accidental demise.

And I would repeat, if the case had been investigated along these lines, and prosecuted that way, the chances are very good Casey Anthony would be in prison for a great deal of her life, perhaps up into her middle age, and maybe even beyond.

But hey-there's just something sexy about a capitol murder case, huh? It's a great way to pad your resume, sell a book or two, and maybe one day become a member of that most these days renowned of personages-the cable news network legal punditocracy.

North Korea Assumes Leading Role In UN Conference On Nuclear Disarmament

You read that right. If you want the details, here is the link to the whole story, and here is the link to the current membership, along with the reactions of former members, including the outgoing Chairman.

Is it any wonder the UN is not taken seriously by anybody, probably even by many of those who outwardly support it, if the truth was known. Yet, we fund this monstrous exercise in international hubris to the tune of 22%. Why? It doesn't make us look like the well-intentioned good guys, it just makes us look like the international chumps of the world, even to our allies. Just because they don't come right out and say that doesn't mean its not true. A great many of these people should never be allowed within our borders. And some that are should be accompanied by an armed guard, accompanied by the word "Ready, Aim, Fire!"

I can't get completely behind any of our elected leaders, not even the best of them, who won't call for the dissolution of this outrageous organization.

H/T The Colussus of Rhodey

Kahn Job

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French Socialist and head of the IMf who was recently accused of sexual assault against a New York hotel worker, has now been released on his own recognizance. It seems like the woman, an African immigrant and reputed HIV carrier, made up the rape allegations in order to, apparently, take advantage of a recent immigration law that allows an alleged rape victim to remain in the country until the case is adjudicated. In the meantime, according to the NYPD, who now say the woman lied constantly and is not credible, the woman received 200,000 dollars from "shady characters", apparently drug dealers, to tide her over, evidently expecting a big pay day from the wealthy and influential Frenchman.

Nothing is written in stone yet, but if the story works out the way it is shaping up so far, I and a great many others owe Strauss-Kahn one hell of an apology.

But before the Left crows about any rush to judgment, I have to point out that it is our lax immigration laws that have helped this scam to take shape. It also doesn't help that a woman who accuses a man of rape is automatically given a kind of credence that no other accuser is given. For all their protestations to the contrary, when it comes to rape, or any other kind of sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse, presumption of innocence is for all intents and purposes out the window.

For that we can also thank the Left. So after they get through crowing, they might want to help themselves to a double dose of humble pie.

Most ironically, Strauss-Kahn himself is probably a supporter of these very policies that almost cost him his money, family, career, and reputation.

Regardless of that, and how we might feel about Strauss-Kahn's socialist leanings, common decency demands that we reflect on our rush to judgment, and express our condolences to what he was put through as well as gratification that, in the end, the truth, and justice, prevailed.

A Vacation In Cuba

Sonia-Belle recently packed her bags, put on some clothes, and spent some time in the former island paradise known as Cuba. The account of her trip is a very worthwhile read.

Although the Cuban economy is a basket case, the people manage to make it quite well, all thing considered. According to Sonia, the people are socialist two weeks out of the month, and capitalist the other half. The official currency, the standard Cuban Peso, is almost worthless. Two hundred fifty of them is worth roughly ten dollars. What actually keeps the economy afloat is the tourism industry, which is the most popular and sought after career goal there. It's easy to see why. Workers get paid by the government in pesos, but what makes the tourism industry so attractive is the tips, paid in the international Peso known as the CUC. One of them is roughly the equivalent of one dollar. So if a worker makes 250 Cuban pesos, plus 250 CUC's in tips, he or she is making roughly the equivalent of 260 dollars a month, which provides a fairly good standard of living, for Cuba.

This by the way puts paid to the lie that the American embargo of trade with Cuba is harming the economy. Tourists come to Cuba from all over the world (Sonia is not from the US), and any country in the world that wishes to trade with Cuba can do so. The US embargo does not affect that, nor does it attempt to do so. No, the problem with Cuba is simple-its called socialist malfeasance and incompetence, the usual story anywhere and anytime socialism is implemented.

Sonia in her post also rips apart the myth of free Cuban health care and education. According to her, only a consultation with a physician is free (provided you can find one that hasn't left for greener pastures-otherwise known as Miami). Anything past that consultation is dependent on your ability to bribe a doctor for extended services.

As for politics and the future, the outlook might not be as grim as some might envision, but its going to be a hard slog. The systemic poisoning of the overall culture and climate in Cuba is going to take a long time to eradicate. Following is Sonia's take on the outlook of a significant portion of the Cuban people-

If you ask a Cuban about socialism, he will give you the same look a gangsta rapper would give you when asked about 17th century Gregorian chants. But it doesn`t mean that most Cubans are necessarily anti-Castro. Mention United States of America, and the attitudes are often very hostile. Mention the Cuban community in Miami and the hostility reaches a boiling point. The education system is free for a reason. Every Cuban is taught intense hatred towards Americans in general and Cuban-Americans in particular. Imagine what Germans were taught about Jews under Adolf Hitler, multiply it by a hundred and you still won`t get nowhere near what Cuban are taught about “imperialismo yankee”.

That of course is surface reaction which may not have as much meaning as Sonia ascribes to it. Like all communist systems that oppress their people, most Cubans are going to be wary of expressing their true sentiments to an outsider, who for all they know might be spending the rest of her evening in the arms of a well-connected government apparatchik with access to the finest luxuries the island has to offer, albeit to a very limited few.

But there can be no doubt that, as Castro approaches his long-overdue, hopefully agonizing demise, and as Raoul himself looks starkly toward the long-feared end of days, the road ahead will be difficult. Civil war could loom between those who want freedom and those who will be intent on carrying on with the system as is.

And what will the United State's position be during this coming time of travail? Will we have a policy of aid to these our neighbors so close to our coast? Will we do what is necessary to put down any attempts to bolster the old repressive regime? We will help the Cuban people rebuild their shattered economy and lives with the understanding that to do so is in our own national security interests? Or will we accept a secondary role while others of the "international community", many of whom do not have the best interests of the US in mind, step in and initiate a trade regime aimed at raping the Cubans further of their natural resources and talents under the facade of the implementation of parliamentary democracy while inculcating dependency through the IMF, and in the meantime establishing a beachhead with the potential of undermining US economic and national security?

It is high time we awoke from our slumber and recognized the likely potential that awaits a troubled future in regards to this island nation of Cuba. You can rest assured that if we do not, there are others who are ready, willing, and planning as I write these words to step into any vacuum we leave untended.

It's Fucking Golden

Looking over his history its a wonder Rod Blagojevich made it as long as he did. This is a man who spent most of his time, or at least a significant portion of his time as Governor of Illinois, either out of his office or hiding in the men's room. In the roughly six years he held the office (he was about midway through his second term when he was impeached, convicted, and removed from office) his accomplishments, if you want to dignify them with such a term, were scant at best. Mostly they were boilerplate liberal initiatives-for example, a gun control bill. He also forced through a program that guaranteed universal preschool and health insurance for every child in Illinois. Yet, he did all this without paying for it. This might have been his first major mistake.

As a result he ran up deficits that he never got under control, and in fact the state of Illinois is still buried under a mountain of debt to this day. This leads us to what might have been his second major mistake, which came in the year that, in an effort to balance the state budget, he kicked the can down the road by not paying into the state pension fund for that entire fiscal year. And indeed, unfunded pension liabilities are one of the major problems Illinois faces to this day.

His third fatal error might have come about when, while refusing to raise taxes in keeping with his re-election campaign promise, he pressured the Illinois State Legislature to stay on the job until they passed a budget. But in the meantime, the Chicago Transit Authority was facing massive budget shortfalls. In order to prevent massive layoffs and potential cuts in services, Blagojevich pressured Chicago Mayor Richard Dailey to fund the CTA with the proceeds from the sale of city property, including Skywalk.

By this time, not only had the Illinois and political establishment had more than enough of his incompetence, so had the people. His approval ratings hovered somewhere around twenty percent or less. He became a an expendable target. Enter Patrick Fitzgerald, the Federal Prosecutor who decided to put paid to his political career, having in fact had Blagojevich under surveillance for some time.

Unbelievably, Blagojevich's malfeasance extended far beyond merely trying to sell the Senate seat formerly held by President Barack Obama. He did more than attempt to shake down the director of a children's hospital, among others, for campaign funds.

One of his more notable crimes involved the Herald Tribune. During a time of massive budget shortfalls, Blagojevich offered the publisher of the Tribune a one hundred million dollar tax break for the year. All that Blagojevich wanted in return was for the publisher to fire an editor who had written articles that had been critical of Blagojevich's administration. The publisher agreed to the governor's demands. The Tribune got its tax break and the editor was fired.

I started out researching this post secure in the knowledge that Blogojevich was probably corrupt, but that he was targeted by a corrupt political establishment with whom he was not a member in good standing. I also suspected, and still do, that Prosecutor Fitzgerald was and is angling for an appointment, perhaps to the office of Attorney General, or possibly to FBI Director.

But regardless of the veracity or not of those suspicions, there can be no doubt that Blagojevich made himself a far too easy target. As a result, he was convicted on seventeen of twenty charges and may well spend the rest of his life in prison. For those who suspect that he might know things, that he might have information about corruption among other Illinois officials, or even Barak Obama, my honest opinion is, don't raise your hopes too high. Blagojevich would not be the kind of politician that would fit in with the standard politician's clique. No one would trust him, for obvious reasons. He obviously isn't that smart, and he doesn't have the right connections. His political career, and the fact that he rose as far as he did, is as much a fluke of the times as anything else, a phenomenon easily explained by a man with ambition taking advantage of a climate of low regard for the traditional political establishment, yet who never really fit in once he made it through the door.

But do you want to know the real proof that he doesn't really know anything worth knowing about anybody else? The simple fact that he's alive tells you all you need to know.

Chokehold

Ann Althouse, who lives in Wisconsin and has blogged extensively about recent events there, provides as concise of an explanation as you are likely to read anywhere about the recent controversy involving Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley. Moreover, it sounds credible.

The background is straightforward enough. The Justices had met in the chambers of Chief Justice Abrahamson, where a heated argument ensued over the prospect of ruling on the recently passed Wisconsin public unions law. At one point, Bradley accosted Prosser, who reacted by placing his hands on the throat of Bradley. Prosser maintains it was an automatic response to Bradley attacking him and that he merely meant to push her back away from him. Bradley, however, insists that Prosser actually attempted to choke her.

Here's the most relevant part of the account from Althouse-

On Monday night, Bradley called Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to talk to him about the incident. On the morning of Wednesday, June 15, Tubbs joined the justices in a closed-door meeting, where he discussed “issues relating to workplace violence.”

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs... During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

Ah, but pay close attention to the following-


“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck.

So in other words, the bitch was lying. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Frankly, I didn't need Althouse to tell me that. Of course, seeing as how it is an established fact that Bradley first accosted Prosser, I also wouldn't give a shit if it was true. But that's a whole other issue.

This is a woman who is obviously in the tank for the public employees unions, and for the Democrats to whom she acts as a rubber stamp in her rulings, all the time claiming, in this cunt licking piece at Global Thinking, that she is an independent judge who puts a premium on courage when making her judicial decisions. And she wants to make sure you all know that.

In her own words-

“In my professional life, it means making rulings, regardless of the political pitfall. It means embracing our constitution, and giving meaning to the first amendment, freedom of speech; and the fourth amendment, freedom from unlawful search and seizures — even in tough times. It means standing up for unpopular causes — the victims, the poor, and the powerless.

“Being a person of courage is by no means easy. It means taking a stand. It can be a formula for being unpopular and misunderstood. You may be subjected to criticism and ridicule.”

So there you have it. To a liberal, activist Democrat appointed judge, judicial courage is to be defined as standing up for the mob and the special interest unions over the rights of the taxpayers she holds in such scorn, who frankly have every right to subject her to the criticism and the ridicule she holds beneath her dignity.

The next time this bitch physically accosts somebody to the extent they feel the need to choke the bitch, I offer the following instructional diagram for their perusal-

They's Dese Playahs In Peoria

I think its time the country had a serious discussion about race, don't you? Let's start the discussion this way. When you rampage down the street of any American city or town as part of a group threatening bodily harm to blacks as well as whites while expressing the intention or desire to kill white people, guess what? Your civil rights are out the window. At that point forward you're nothing but a rabid animal who deserves nothing better than to be shot down in the streets like the savages you are.

Unfortunately, the response of the City of Peoria to the recent rampage of dozens of black youth was a bit more benign, in fact, maddeningly tolerant. Citizens were advised to stay in their homes and keep their doors locked.

Here's from the Peoria Chronicle-

Tonight, around 11 p.m., a group of at least 60-70 African American youth marched down one of the side streets (W. Thrush) to the 4 lane main drag (Sheridan). They were yelling threats to white residents. Things such as we need to kill alll the white people around here. They were physically intimidating anyone calling for help from the police. They were surrounding cars. Cars on the main drag had to slam on their brakes to either avoid the youth blocking not only all four lanes, but a large section of the side street as well. fights were breaking out among them. They were rushing residents who looked out their doors, going on to porches, yelling threats to people calling the police for help.

Cars were doing U turns on the streets just to avoid the mob, mostly male. One youth stated his grandfather was white and several assaulted him on the spot. One police officer answered the call. The youth split into two large groups, one heading north, the other south. They were also yelling racial threats to the police officer but he was outnumbered. Another police car did not show up until after the youth finally dispersed and the patty wagon (van) also eventually showed up.

Residents are very shaken, both black and white alike. This is the fifth large mob action in about a month with smaller groups of 10-12 are out threatening children and adults a few evenings a week or later into the night. The times vary, even occuring during the day. In talking to the police officer, they are short staffed. Residents were advised to simply keep inside and to lock their doors. In other words buckle down, it’s not even safe to sit on your porch or go into your yards.

Is this what we've come to? If so, we have radical leftist freaks like this to thank for it, at least in part.



Maybe Obama should step in, wave his magic crack pipe and call for a neighborhood beer summit block party. You know, being as how he's the nation's post-racial president and what have you.

Apple Infused Horse Semen Cocktails

That's what they're serving in New Zealand at The Green Man Pub for the 14th annual Monteith's Beer And Wild Food Challenge.

The offering, said to taste like custard, is far more popular with women than it is with the men. That figures. I've known some women who I am pretty sure have had the drink straight from the source-sans the apple, of course. Who knows though, I knew one whore who kept her horse gorged on apples, so ya never can tell.

Oh well, it gives a whole new meaning to one old phrase. The next time somebody tells you to go suck a donkey's dick, just ask them "does that come with spring rolls?"

H/T Tiny Nibbles

Obama May Be A Warmonger-But Hey, At Least His Heart Is In The Right Place

That's right, according to Michael Moore, when Obama wants to engage in war hostilities in Libya its different than when Bush went to Iraq. Obama wanted to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians, but Bush, well he was just determined to get Saddam and made the CIA "find" the evidence he needed to justify it.

Missing from the discussion is the fact that Saddam murdered tens of thousands, at least, of his own civilian population and was a financial supporter of global terrorism, including Palestinian terrorists. By contrast, Libya's Colonel Qaddafi had actually disavowed terrorism, going so far as to voluntarily dismantle his own nuclear program and was aiming to improve relations with the West.

But hey-why let facts get in the way of making excuses for Obama on Keith Olberfaggot's premiere broadcast of Countdown With Keith Olbermann on Current TV?

In Defense Of Mitt Romney And Herman Cain-Aborting Future Democrats In The Womb Just Makes Good Business Sense

Mitt shows good business sense. So does former CEO Chairman Herman Cain. These men are entrepreneurs who deserve the appellation "Captains of Industry". And when they speak out on economic matters, regardless of how you feel about their overall political stance, you know they deserve to be heard.

As such, I feel it is very unfair that men such as these have been criticized just because Romney and Cain refuse to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. These men, men who have headed corporations which employ tens of thousands of people, men who have been responsible for turning around failing and anemic companies and making them successful, certainly understand the economic impact of a country with too many progressives.

As such, they are more than aware of the fact that, the more future democrats you abort the better off the country will be. It's just too bad that Michelle Bachmann, a successful businesswoman in her own right, can't see the wisdom of that. But I guess that's just the difference between a person who is or has been a small business owner as opposed to an executive of a large corporation. When you're in the position of a Romney or a Cain, you learn to put less stock in sentimentality and in doing so you are more likely to see and appreciate the big picture.

Taxpayer funding of abortion might well be unconstitutional from a conservative or from a federalist perspective. But from a purely business or economic standpoint, its money well spent.

The Killing-Who Killed Rosie Larsen

Tonight's the season finale of the AMC series The Killing, without a doubt the best show on television right now. It follows the investigation of the murder of a young girl. If you've been following the series then you might want to add your two cents as to who killed Rosie Larsen.

I decided to put forth my own theory but ran into a snag when I looked over the list of suspects. My rather suspicious problem is, my suspect isn't listed in the cast of characters, even though he is a fairly important character and presence in the show.

He's the Chief of Police, and rather than repeat myself, I'll just copy and paste my post from the website forum linked above.

I think its the Chief-Of-Police, can't think of his name. But he was the one who put Sarah on the case to begin with and insisted she put off going away for her wedding until she was finished. Then, suddenly, sometime after mid-season, he's pushing her to finish it up and to get on with her plans, a complete 180 degree turnaround. I thought that was suspicious, as well as his adversarial attitude towards Stephen, even though Stephen had uncovered a lot of clues. Or maybe that was the reason for his attitude?

As far as why, it could have something to do with him wanting to derail Richmond. Maybe he's afraid Richmond as Mayor will dig up some crooked stuff in the Department he doesn't want brought out. It could have something to do with an association with Janek, or Drexler, etc. If he was having Richmond spied on and somehow Rosie kept turning up he could have taken advantage of the opportunities that presented. If he had simply exposed Richmond's flings with the "escorts" he might have risked exposing some of his own shady partnerships and activities, so he just killed Rosie. The only thing left to explain is how he got hold of one of the campaign vehicles, but that could be explained by him having a mole working for the Richmond campaign. By the way, why is the Chief not listed as a character?

Well, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it. The series finale airs tonight on AMC at 10:00 pm.

UPDATE-LAME! Continued to next season. Boy are they ever going to be hearing it! This story should have been resolved and a new one started next season. But no, AMC has to milk the shit for all it's (they think) worth. I can almost promise you, when it returns, Belko will not kill Richmond, more than likely won't even shoot him, and the newly revealed corrupt cop wasn't really a surprise either.

If they're going to keep this shit going until next season the least they could do is have a demoniac entity to keep things interesting.

The Other McCain Interviews Director Of Sarah Palin Film "The Undefeated"

Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain was lucky enough to get to attend the Right Online conference in Minneapolis where he was able to view a screening of the soon-to-be-released Sarah Palin documentary The Undefeated.

Afterwards, he scored an interview with the director, Stephen Bannon, who went into some detail about why he made the movie and what he hoped to accomplish, in the following video.



McCain by the way is not a Palin supporter for President. He has made no secret of his support for Herman Cain, ending each post about the Republican candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO with, to paraphrase "Isn't it about time you joined the on-line grassroots group Citizens 4 Cain?"

Nevertheless, McCain was duly impressed with the Palin film, saying it "will change the way you think about Palin."

Judging by that alone, it looks like Bannon has accomplished what he set out to do-make a film that will make people think about Palin-her talents, abilities, contributions and qualifications-in a reasoned, thoughtful way. As he said himself in the interview, he did not make the film for Palin devotees. He made it for people who maybe don't really know her that well outside the media hype, be it positive or negative. In other words, it like any good documentary strives for historical accuracy and basic truth.

My only question is if it will find its target audience. Or rather, will its target audience find it? As I said in a comment on the post at The Other McCain-

It won't change the way her more ardent supporters or detractors feel, but it might change the way moderates and independents feel about her, which is what's important. The key though is getting them to see the film. That's the problem right there. People that have mixed feelings about her unfortunately might not care enough to make the effort to see it.

I hope I'm wrong about this. Palin has been the subject of an obscene quantity of negative propaganda from not only rabid progressives and Democrats, but also from corrupt establishment RINO Republicans and, perhaps worse of all, from a disparaging press determined to bury her career in an avalanche of skewed and hateful coverage and manipulated data, even outright lies.

This film is a chance to see a true history of the woman and her career. Anyone who has any preconceived notions about her should make the effort to see it. It's not so much that they owe it to Palin. They owe it to themselves.

Heavy Metal Cats

The Casey Anothony Murder Trial-A New Look

The Casey Anthony trial in Florida has attracted so much media attention its surprising that spectators haven't been barred. Many more incidents like the below free-for-all that transpired after two men tried to jump line (and got their asses kicked by some women waiting in line) and it could result in everybody that isn't directly involved being banned from future proceedings if they don't have a vested or legitimate public interest, such as the media.

Yeah, its been a real circus. Worse, its been like going to Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

Fists fly at court house as people wait for Casey Anthony trial tickets: MyFoxORLANDO.com

In the meantime, the trial itself seems so open and shut its a wonder anybody is interested enough to want to sit it out. After all, its not like there's any big mystery to be solved. While some defend Casey Anthony and insist she is innocent, most people are convinced the woman killed her daughter, end of story. The only real question seems to be, was it intentional or accidental? And how exactly was she killed?

But is it really all that cut-and-dried? The prosecution in the case seems to think so, otherwise they wouldn't be so adamant about seeking the death penalty.

I do have one question though. And that is, if Casey Anthony did murder her daughter Caylee-either intentionally or accidentally-why did she leave the body in her car long enough to leave such a strong, horrible odor, before she finally got around to disposing of the body?

I have an idea that would probably be impossible to prove, but I think the timeline of events might well bear me out. Casey allegedly was so hooked on the party life, the sex and probably drugs that go along with it, that she used chloroform to knock her daughter out long enough for her to go party down.

Now for some reason, Casey decided she couldn't take the risk of leaving her alone in their apartment. Maybe Caylee was adjusting to the chloroform and waking up earlier. It might have required stronger doses to keep her out longer with repeated use, and this could well be what killed her. But remember, there had been a problem between Casey and her mother, probably over the party lifestyle. So for whatever reason, she could not leave the kid with her parents. This is where my theory comes into play.

Not being able to find a baby-sitter, what if Casey Anthony doused the kid in chloroform one night and took her to the party, locking her in the trunk of the car? It was night, she had enough air in the trunk, so as long as she stayed asleep all would be well. And if she woke up early, the duct-tape over her mouth would prevent her from attracting attention by screaming and crying out for help.

Let's move on into the club with Casey, say two or three hours later. Casey is stoned to the gills. Who knows, maybe she's even been drugged. Maybe she has even left the club with one or more men. She is brought back to the club a few hours later, possibly mid-morning, only to see her car is gone. Maybe its been stolen. Or maybe in her drunken state of mind, she has actually loaned the car to somebody, possibly someone she barely knows, having forgotten all about the kid in the trunk. The car is gone. And so is Caylee.

When it occurs to her what she's done, and what has happened, she goes completely nuts. She doesn't even know who has her car. Or maybe she knows them vaguely but doesn't know how to get in touch with them. Days go by, maybe one or two weeks, before the car is abandoned. It is very conceivable that the people who had the car for one or two weeks never knew Caylee was in the trunk. It is also very understandable that by the time Casey Anthony found her car, where it had been towed in after it was abandoned by whoever might have had it, the poor kid Caylee was long dead and in at least the intermediate stages of decomposition.

There could be another explanation, but this makes sense and explains why the body was in the car for so long. Granted, its conceivable Casey herself could have abandoned the car, with the body in the trunk, possibly to lay the groundwork for claiming the car was stolen and Caylee kidnapped. But it sounds to me more like she freaked when she realized her car was gone with Caylee in the trunk and was terrified of calling the police and the truth coming out about her locking the kid in the trunk after knocking her out with chloroform. All so she could just go out and party, and maybe get laid.

The child wouldn't have lasted long. One day in that hot Florida sun-remember, this was the middle of June-bearing down on the trunk of that car and its doubtful she would have lived through the first day. Ironically, she might have been afraid to make a noise in the trunk of the car when it might have done her the most good. Who knows what she might have heard in that car from whoever the people were who were driving it?

Another irony-these people might not even realize what they done. By the time this became news, Cassey Anthony might have been a vague, drunken memory. Who even knows if that was even the name they knew her by.

All Casey could do at that point was make up some crazy story that might get her off the hook. After she disposed of the body, of course.

The only question is, did anybody help her after the fact. Even though it is known now that Caylee's father was not Cassey's father, or Casey's brother, whose to say she didn't threaten one or both of them by threatening to reveal the secret knowledge of past sexual abuse, possibly even telling her own brother that he was the father even though she knew he was not. This might explain why the body ended up so close to the Anthony home. It also explains why in the opening day of the defense case, the jury was informed that there were allegations that Casey's brother had fathered the child. It might have been simply laying the groundwork for strengthening their case that the death was accidental, and that Casey's brother had helped cover it up. The reason? He was afraid DNA testing would reveal he was the father.

There are a lot of things in this case that don't add up. Chief among these is the length of time the body was in the car. If the truth ever does come out it probably won't be enough to keep Casey Anthony out of prison for the rest of her life. But it might keep her off death row.

If I were her I don't know that I'd care that much about that.

The Truth Is Not Racist, It's Just Reality

Leave it to a Democrat to want to raise taxes for programs that benefit criminal gangs, which seems to be the unintended(?) effect of Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's gang intervention program. It was supposed to go toward hiring convicted criminals as "gang specialists". Instead, the money was used to actually subsidize gang activities. The truth came out in 2009, along with federal indictments.

Even the New York Times took notice-

Federal agents announced criminal indictments for 24 high-ranking gang members, along with a prominent gang intervention specialist who associated with city politicians and routinely raised money from Hollywood’s elite.
The specialist, Alex Sanchez, director of Homies Unidos, a gang outreach organization in Los Angeles for more than a decade, was arrested and charged with a federal racketeering count for his alleged role in the assassination of a man in El Salvador in 2006.

Now Hahn is running for Congress, to replace the retiring Jane Harmon, and is opposed by Republican Craig Huey. In opposition to Hahn's campaign an independent political group has produced the following video.



The Daily Caller calls it the most offensive ad ever, but let's face it-sometimes the truth is offensive. And when a US Congresswoman funnels taxpayer funds to a criminal street gang, the truth is something that's hard to sugarcoat when that truth involves the use of said funds in the furtherance of the same criminal activities they were ostensibly meant to combat.

The Other McCain has the video and a different take on it, while providing an explanation from the video's director which makes use of the Congresswoman's own words, to wit-

Before you charge racism at the ad, consider her one line in the video: “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language.” By that she means, it takes black people to talk to black people. It takes gang members to talk to gang members. They have their own language, we should coddle them. They’re not responsible for their actions if they murder someone, rape someone. They’re a minority.

Spot on. Democrats take a passive aggressive stance towards the minority groups they keep down and under their thumb while yelling racism at everybody that opposes their lunacy. Same story different day. The only thing missing is the Klan robes. The Democrats haven't changed, they've just substituted the rope for a welfare check.

The video was funded by Turn Right USA which is an independent political action group not affiliated with Democrat Janice Hahn's Republican opponent Craig Huey. Here is their mission statement-

Turn Right USA is a Federal Non-connected, Expenditure Only Political Action Committee (SuperPAC) organized to execute Independent Expenditure campaigns by a group of American citizens who are:

unrepresented by the political class of this Country;
nauseated by the laughable stupidity of professional politicians;
outraged by their liberal benefactors like George Soros, and
angered that their opposition is too cowardly to fight back!

Turn Right USA’s mission is to expose and lampoon the typical politico’s microscopic brain through cutting-edge viral videos with guts and humor!

Unfortunately for Hahn's defenders, the fact that the gang receiving her taxpayer-funded largesse is black is not a reflection on the overall African-American community, who in fact are the community that suffers the most from the influence of these kinds of criminal gangs-and the Democratic Party and its members who support and enable them.

Right And Wrong In Yemen And Libya-The Arab Spring And The Coming Internationalist Downfall

There is good and there is bad, and sometimes, you have your in-between gray areas where you don't really know what to think. You just try to muddle through and hope things work out for the best. That's the situation right now in the Middle East, where let's face it, there's almost never any good news, so why start now?

The so-called Arab Spring is something I have been wary of from the start, just like I am of any alleged "pro-democracy" movements among the Arab/Muslim states. We have already seen the result of President Bush's insistence that the Palestinians be granted free elections. That turned into a fiasco which haunts us, and the Israelis, to this day. True enough, it resulted in the removal from power, in Gaza, of the corrupt Fatah organization, but it was replaced by the insanely and fanatically evil Hamas.

Proponents of the Arab Spring revolts throughout the Middle East, which started in Tunisia and spread first to Egypt, and then throughout the various countries of the Middle East with varying degrees of intensity, insist that it is a mostly secular movement. They might be right to a degree, but scratch the surface and it doesn't take long to smell the rancid, stinking odor of fanatical Islamic fascism, already taking strong root in Egypt, resulting in attacks on the minority Coptic Christians.

But so far, the most violent and dangerous disruptions have come about in Yemen, where the presidential palace was attacked and the President seriously injured. The place is in all but name a failed state, where a significant percentage of the people are either loyal to or terrorized by the local Al-Queda group, Al-Queda in Yemen. This is especially significant in that one of the most influential leaders of this group is a transplanted American who is deemed responsible for the Fort Hood Massacre.

It's also important to note that Obama, while expressing sympathy for the insurgents throughout the Arab world-after all, they only want the right to self-determination and freedom, supposedly-kept a generally hands off approach. He was criticized for this, and for his inconsistencies when it came to the status of our former ally, recently deposed President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He has also been taken to task for his lack of support for the anti-Assad factions in Syria, just like he was condemned, generally, for his lack of involvement with the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya.

It was good that Obama was criticized, but it was all for the wrong reasons. In reality, Obama is in this up to his eyeballs. The State Department, various socialist factions within the EU and the UN, in conjunction with disparate leftist organs, including organized labor activist and progressive activist groups such as Code Pink, have engaged in a coordinated effort to inflame tensions in the region.

And when some people do point this out, they also err in casting aspersions related to the influence of Islamic radicals. The perpetrators here are not the radicals, but pro-democracy forces who are by no means republican in orientation, but of a progressive, socialist cast. These are the people Obama, the State Department, the EU and the UN, as well as international labor and progressive activists want to use to recast the Middle East, in a socialist, parliamentary democratic image. The problem is they fail to see the danger posed by the Islamic radicals in the event their schemes are initially successful. This is a blind spot of the ideological progressives, one that could induce them to lead the whole region over a cliff.

Why there haven't been demands for a Congressional investigation is beyond me, but on the other hand, conservatives wasted too much time and energy making political hay out of Obama's seeming lack of involvement, when the reality was quite the opposite of the perception he was purposely manifesting.

Obama has learned well the political lessons of the last few years. No matter what he does he will be attacked. And he would obviously be excoriated if he openly sought to throw the Middle East into the kind of turmoil that it is now experiencing. He would be criticized not just by the GOP, but worldwide. Few Democrats even would support him.

This might go a long ways towards explaining the recent involvement of NATO in the Libyan insurgency. The problem is, the US is expected as usual to contribute the lion's share of money and resources, and Obama is pressured daily by NATO elements to provide "boots on the ground".

For once, criticism of Obama is justified, and not misdirected. He has, in jumping on board the NATO bandwagon, defied established US protocol. Such actions should first go through Congress and gain congressional approval. Bush did this when he went to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He sought and received bi-partisan support. Obama, when it comes to the Libyan theater, acts like it is beneath him to even answer congressional queries concerning his actions.

Yemen, however, is an altogether different matter. Yemen has been our ally, at least officially, in the War on Terror. Our troops have been stationed there. We have an already vested interest in what happens there. Plus, we are at war, not just ideologically but in point of fact, with Al-Queda in Yemen.

Therefore, when people criticize Obama for his assault on the insurgent forces and Al-Queda in Yemen, they are off the mark and out of bounds. This is especially true of the charge that he is doing this without congressional approval. Of course we have congressional approval. We have had that approval, implicitly, ever since our troops were stationed there, ever since we had an agreement with the Yemeni government.

Sometimes it pays to step back and take a deep, long hard look at everything that's going on. Oftentimes if you just take the time and make the effort to peel back the layers, you might find things are not so simple as they might appear at first glance. And, sometimes they are even more simple.

There are some things that are just not appropriate venues for political grandstanding no matter how much or even how rightly you dislike the target of your attack. Obama should be investigated as to what his real role in the Arab Spring insurgencies. I might be wrong, but if I am right, he should be impeached and tried on that, among some other things.

But his attack on the insurgents in Yemen is not only justified, it is appropriate.

Celebration For Mentally Challenged Special Olympics Athletes Disrupted By Leftist Zombie Infestation

Ann Althouse, who lives in Wisconsin and has provided extensive coverage of the protests in Madison Wisconsin, has a video of a recent appearance by Governor Scott Walker. The governor was speaking in commemoration of the accomplishments of Special Olympics athletes. The minute he walked to the podium to speak, however, he was rudely interrupted by a group of pro-union protesters dressed as zombies.

I wonder if any of them considered how it would look to protest an event held in honor of mentally challenged athletes by appearing as a group of brain dead monsters.

In other words, as themselves.



Althouse is as usual mystified by the lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of these protesters. She regularly points out how they hurt their own cause in the eyes of the general public with their antics.

What she doesn't seem to get is, they don't care about the general public to begin with, in part because they think most people are basically on their side, but mainly they feel the courts will back them up, as in fact was most recently the case when a liberal activist judge declared that the recent law passed by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Walker, could not be implemented due to the lack of input by the Democratic legislators-who had actually left the state in order to forestall a quorum for a vote they knew they would lose.

So they have held the state hostage and will continue to do so. No one or no group is safe from their disruption. Not even mentally challenged athletes who perform in the Special Olympics. These ersatz zombies purposely walked in between Walker and the attendees in order to block their view of Walker. It was supposed to be the athletes special day, a day to be honored for their contributions. Instead, their day was hijacked by a bunch of union thugs and leftists.

To tell you the truth though, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if these union jackass thugs and leftists actually do have a hunger for BRAAAAA-INS!! They do seem to be sorely lacking in that regard.

But the worse thing about the whole ordeal?

At the end of the day, they were still very much alive.

Stand By Your Weiner Night

I would like to announce that I am now promoting a special night for all supporters of New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner to show solidarity for the beleaguered Congressman. To all of you who insist on defending him, I have one thing to say to you-talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words ever could.

With this is mind, Stand By Your Weiner Night is really a simple concept. On Saturday Night, Midnight, June 11-12 2011, all Twitter followers of Representative Anthony Weiner should tweet a dic-pic or, if a woman, a pussy-pic. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bare naked shot, it can just as easily be one taken of your self in your underwear, with an emphasis on the crotch, though preferably the outline of your sexual organs in a state of arousal would be appropriate for the occasion. If a man your the outline of your dick should be prominent. If a woman, the crotch of your panties should be suitably moist.

You should do this on Twitter at the stated time, using the hashtags #WeinerYes and #CollateralDamage.

I invite all of you to help me get the word out to all followers of @RepWeiner. Tweet the message early and often so we will get a big crowd standing in solidarity with the Weiner.

Let's not let our Weiner down.

GOP Strategist Ed Rollins Attacks Sarah Palin-On Behalf Of Michelle Bachmann

Michelle Bachmann might have made a fatal mistake in hiring long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins as a campaign adviser for her fledgling presidential campaign. For his first day on the job, Rollins attacked potential Bachmann opponent Sarah Palin, calling her unqualified, and not a serious candidate. As you might imagine, this has Palin supporters in an uproar, and rightly so.

I wondered where I had heard of Rollins before, and then it occurred to me. I had a lot to say about him here, where he came across as more of an Obama supporter who was actually worried about Obama looking bad. Of course, come to find out, originally Rollins was a Democrat, so it makes sense that he would fit in with the establishment, RINO wing of the GOP.

But his salvo at Palin was beyond the pale, and potentially an embarrassment for Bachmann in yet another way-no longer ago than this last January Rollins said the exact same things about Bachmann.

Professor Jacobson, he of Legal Insurrection, seems to think that hiring Rollins was a rookie mistake on Michelle's part, though it definitely calls into question her decision making abilities. Many have wondered openly whether Michelle might actually be a stalking horse, for some other candidate, in an attempt to drain Tea Party votes from Palin in the event Sarah decides to run.

It makes sense to me. Bachmann tried to get an appointment to a committee chair following the 2010 mid-term elections but was turned down. Maybe this is a way of proving, to somebody like for example Speaker of the House John Boehner, or maybe even House Whip Eric Cantor, that she is capable of being a team player. Believe me, there is nothing the Party leadership would like better than to derail any hopes of a Palin campaign. But would Bachmann go that far? Doesn't she believe in the same things as Palin, more or less? Aren't they both Tea Party favorites?

I don't know, and I'm not making any accusations, just asking questions. But the hiring of Rollins should have set off alarm bells before he ever opened his mouth. The man has a checkered history at best. Legal Insurrection commenter Trochilus contributed some links to an old story that tells a sorry tale indeed.

Rollins was at the center of a big controversy in New Jersey during the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman as Governor. He alleged that Whitman's funds went to suppress the black vote. He later admitted he made the whole thing up. It later turned out there was indeed an attempt to suppress the vote, but the Democrats were the guilty party. By the time the truth had come out, some months after the initial allegation, Whitman's administration had been seriously hampered by the charges and the resultant official investigation and bad publicity.

So I don't know, Rollins might just be a stupid man who hasn't caught on to the fact that the political strategies of the seventies and eighties, and even the nineties, no longer works in the modern internet age where people have far greater access to fact-checking resources and where past history and records are an open book, accessible in fact at the click of a mouse.

Or maybe his presence is more nefarious. Maybe he is actually trying to sew discord among the conservative factions of the GOP with the goal of derailing not only Palin, but ultimately Bachmann as well. In the meantime, if Palin stays out of the race, Bachmann can drain more votes from the rising star that is Herman Cain, and maybe also knock out Pawlenty in Iowa. Seen in that context, hiring someone like Rollins makes sense if Bachmann is culpable in such an attempt.

Otherwise hiring Rollins was really a stupid mistake on Bachmann's part, one she needs to rectify immediately. I never thought it was a good idea for her to run a national campaign this early in her congressional career. I am sure she would be a good president-though I sincerely doubt she would be a great one-but there's the matter of getting there. I just don't think she's ready for the rigors of an electoral campaign for national office, especially for the highest office in the land. It stands to reason it would be tempting for her to jump at the chance to have somebody with the reputation of an Ed Rollins.

Unfortunately, she seems to have focused solely on his selling points and elected to ignore the more inflammatory aspects of this man's history. In doing so, she might have done a lot of damage to her credibility with the very base of support she's trying to cement.

Romney Must Be The Republican Nominee-Because Gallup Says So

HIP HIP HOORAY for The Romneylan. He comes in as the number one pick to win the Republican nomination for US President in 1968, ahead of Richard Nixon. Romney is favored by 45% of the general public, ahead of Nixon who garners 41% according to a poll conducted by the Gallup organization on March 1st, 1967.

Well by golly I guess that just settles that, huh?

The Triumph Of Civic Virtue

The below neoclassical statue by Frederick MacMonnies has been standing outside Borough Hall in Queens New York since 1942. Guess who recently started an initiative to have it taken down and sold on Ebay, saying it was sexist and out of touch with the current time and culture?

You might not be shocked to learn it was none other than New York Democrat Congressman Anthony "Dic-Pic" Wiener.

The semi-nude, muscular male figure is a symbolic representation of "Civic Virtue". The two women, lying prone at his feet, are supposed to represent the twin sirens of Vice and Corruption. This strong, masculine male figure has conquered these two shameless hussies. So of course, it was offensive to feminists, and therefore by proxy, to the Weiner. Look at the artwork in totality, and you be the judge.

I can understand how some would be put off by this. After all, in our modern age Civic Virtue would be represented by a multiracial person with a limp wrist and a vaguely non-sexual appearance, while the twin sirens would probably be distinctly white males in rich attire, carrying guns and Bibles.

That is to say, that might be the officially sanctioned artistic view, but in reality, Civic Virtue is on life support, hanging by a thread. He's been showing remarkable improvements over the last few years, but he has a ways to go and his improvement thus far is tentative.

As for Vice and Corruption, they were last seen skulking and slithering around the corridors and alleyways of Washington, still going strong-down for sure, but by no means out.

After all, for every man or woman who strives to live up to the ideals of Civic Virtue, there will always be an Anthony Weiner drawing on the hypocrisy and the promise of Vice and Corruption while hiding in plain sight.

H/T The Other McCain

How Many Weiner Pics Did The Weiner Prick Send If The Weiner Prick Did Send Weiner Pics

Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is starting to look more and more likely that New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner has sent quite a few intimate photos of himself, and not just to Gennette Nicole Cordova. It seems that he might have sent them out to other young ladies and, as fate would have itsome of them are coming forward.

We already know he's in tight on Twitter with a porn star named Ginger Lee. But that's just the beginning. He has also been a follower of a high school girl from Delaware who goes by @maggiehenning. It also bears mentioning however that in addition to being followed by @RepWeiner, Maggie Henning is also followed by none other than New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Odd, to say the least. But is it proof of anything shady?

No it is not, and in fairness I should relate that I have seen it explained by another of Weiner's mutual followers that if you want Weiner to follow you on Twitter, you just need to send him a tweet with the hashtag #WeinerYes.

By the same token, where there's smoke there very often is, in cases like this, a conflagration, and I find it very, very doubtful that the Weiner Dic-Pic with which we are so familiar is his first and only foray into the shady world of internet cyber-sex and porn, if you want to dignify Weiner's little Weiner pic with such an appellation. But let's face it-you wouldn't really call it "soft-porn". Then again, you wouldn't exactly call it "hard-porn" either-

But the question remains, how many of these things, or other similar kinds of things, has Weiner sent out there, and who did he send them to? And what can be, and should be, done about it, particularly if it turns out he has sent inappropriate communications to underage girls? Or for that matter, to anyone?

What is the true extent-and depth-of his connection to porn star Ginger Lee, who it turns out is suffering from the disease Lupus, which she talks about quite openly on her web-site.

Was this the reason for her initial interest in the Congressman? I ask this because it goes to Weiner's potential MO. If Ginger Lee reached out to Weiner for aid and assistance, urging him for example to support and champion research into a cure for Lupus, did this turn into a cyber friendship, and if so, from where then did it lead? Is this an example of a man elected to national office using his power and authority to manipulate and take advantage of a woman who might be vulnerable?

And if he would do that to a porn star-who, say what you will, would know how to attract attention and publicity-is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do it to somebody he might think is just one of those little people who don't really matter, who no one would believe?

Previously-

The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World

Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner

Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner

By now you would have to have been spending the last ten days on some deserted island or some similarly secluded spot to not know the story about New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner and The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World.

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart certainly knows about it, and evidently he doesn't think its a laughing matter. How mad is he? He is so mad he has told him flat out "if you did this you gotta go".

No big deal there. People might interpret this as some kind of indication of Stewart's sense of morality and ethics, but I wouldn't go that far. Of course Jon Stewart is mad at the Weiner. Why wouldn't he be? The question is why is he really mad at him.

I say Stewart's just mad because Wiener makes all liberal dicks look like the little pricks they all really are.

Obama Loses Key Ally In War On Terror

Now that Al-Queda is rampaging through Yemen, I guess we'll get to see now just what are the real implications of the "Arab Spring".

The country's president, Saleh, was wounded seriously in an attack on the presidential palace and had to be flown out of the country for medical treatment. Although he did not officially abdicate his position, leaving the country in the hands of Vice President Hadi, many observers doubt that the president will ever return.

Now we have a situation where Yemen is swiftly spiraling out of control and on the verge of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. In the meantime, across the Red Sea, we have Somalia, also a failed state and a terrorist haven, and which is infested with pirates which regularly threaten international shipping.

Time to bring out the nukes.

Oh wait, that's right, Obama's president.

Time to wring our hands.

How Could Anyone Possibly Think Progressives Are Antisemitic?

Progressives in San Francisco only want what is best for young infant boys, and to that end have initiated a ballot measure which would ban the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. In order to build support for the measure, someone has produced a comic book starring the blond, blue-eyed, unabashedly Aryan looking super-hero known as "Foreskin Man".

As for the villain of the comic book, take a look and see if he might seem somewhat familiar.

This is blood libel of a most profoundly incredible nature. Amazingly, I have no doubt that many of the people involved in this political initiative, as well as the comic book, are probably secular Jews, in this case of a particularly self-loathing variety. I just can't conceive of any group having the temerity to produce something like this for mass consumption-in pursuit of political aims, at that-without their input.

For what its worth, the foreskin has outlasted its usefulness from the days before mankind started wearing clothing, when it probably served a protective function. The only reason evolution has not eradicated it is probably because it still serves a protective function of some kind in the womb.

Otherwise, not only is it useless, it is actually detrimental. Like wall to wall carpet, which at least serves some useful purpose, it serves now only as a repository and incubator of germs, bacteria, and viruses. It is not unheard of for a foreskin to contribute to penile cancer, necessitating the removal of more than merely the foreskin. It can also increase the contraction and frequency of other diseases.

If anything, there should be a law requiring circumcision, not banning it. Of course, the main reason given for banning the procedure is the lack of input of the child, who has no say in the removal of something which, because it contains nerve-endings like any other part of the body, can contribute to the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Like everything else the left pushes, they use such bullshit scare tactics while insisting the procedure should be put off until the child has a say.

Yeah, let's imagine a potential father-son talk-

Dad-Son, your mother and I would like to have the foreskin of your penis cut off.

Son-Huh? Why?

Dad-Well, its what God wants. Plus there's good health reasons to have it done.

Son-Will it hurt?

Dad-Well, yes, for a few days it will be awful sore. But it won't last more than a few days.

Remember this is an eight or nine year old boy we're talking about here. And in the case he does give his consent, you can bet your bottom dollar the very same leftists who are saying now to "wait until the child has a say" is going to be raising the roof about parents "coercing" their sons to do something they don't really want to do.

There probably aren't many Muslims living in San Francisco. If there were this ballot initiative would have never seen the light of day. And if a sizable number of them moved there today, the cowardly leftist pukes would be falling all over themselves to have this insane initiative taken off the ballot on the grounds of religious insensitivity.

H/T AceofSpadesHQ

Christine O'Donnell Cleared Of Ethics Charges

She was accused of violating election laws that restrict coordination between candidates and outside political organizations, the group in this particular case being the Tea Party Express. She was cleared by the Federal Elections Commission, which decided that the suit brought against O'Donnell was frivolous.

But the damage has already been done. O'Donnell was targeted from the beginning of her campaign for the US Senate from Delaware by those who went out of her way to make sure she would not, could not be elected. Since that time they have gone out of their way to make sure there is not a repeat performance.

Shame on those Democrats, you say? Well actually, in this case, the true culprits were not the Democrats but the Delaware State GOP. They were the ones who opposed her in the 2010 GOP primary, which she went on to win against Mike Castle. They were the ones who refused to support her in the general election against the ultimately victorious Democrat candidate. And, finally, they are the ones who brought this suit.

Like I keep saying, the Republican Party establishment is the worst enemy of Republican voters, and the best friend the Democratic Party could ever hope to have. They don't care so much about beating Democrats as they care about holding on to their piece of the pie, their own specially carved out territories. And candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, and Jim DeMint, to name just a few, are the true natural enemies of the Republican Party establishment.

If Barak Obama goes on to win his bid for re-election in 2012-not at all impossible-you will have them to thank for it.

Facebook Trashing Conservative Groups

That's what many conservative Facebook group administrators are afraid is going to happen once Facebook implements its new upgrade, which will archive all old groups but eliminate the lists of members. This would cause the administrators to start rebuilding their groups from scratch, even in those cases where some groups might have tens of thousands of members. In order to prevent this from happening, Facebook groups will have to ask for a new, special software key which will enable users to upgrade their page.

It may sound akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it has been pointed out that of all political donations that went to political campaigns from Facebook employees, 98% went to Democrats. And it is well-known that Mark Zuckerberg himself is a supporter of Barak Obama, with whom he recently appeared at a forum discussing the economy. Zuckerburg was noted here for his support of the President's economic policies, including Obama's express desire to raise taxes on "the rich".

When you add all of these factors together, Facebook Groups administrators have a right to be concerned that their groups might be purposely targeted for-well, let's just call it what it is-elimination.

This is especially true when you consider that some liberal groups have seemed to experience no undue difficulties with the upgrade-

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. “We changed over very smoothly,” said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. “We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,” he said.

This could be a way to simply eliminate groups that don't meet Facebook standards by targeting specific instances of what the company decides is "intolerance", or "hate speech".

You know, like for example making such racist statements as "I oppose Barak Obama because of his liberal, progressive policies."

Joe Biden Not Worth Killing According To Bin Laden

For once me and the late Al-Queda chief are in total agreement. Some people are saying this was because in Bin Laden's opinion at the time he wrote this in his diary, the office of the Vice President was just not important enough to worry about. Therefore, his advice to Al-Queda operatives was that they should leave Joe Biden alone and concentrate on killing Obama, or other high ranking officials such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Maybe, but I for one have an idea he didn't have such a cavalier opinion about killing Dick Cheney. Let's face it, our Vice President is a clown, and everybody knows it.

The only thing I can't figure out is why he would want to kill Obama, who is over time going to do more to destroy the US than Bin Laden could ever hope to accomplish in his wildest dreams.

H/T LibertasLogos

Fair Warning To The GOP-I Will Not Vote For The Romneylan

To the Republican Party-

Many of you among the party elite are promoting Mitt Romney for President. I see it all the time, people like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News being just the first and most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head.

Why are you doing this? Not only will this clown lose, he will drag the down ticket Republican races down with him.

First he defends his foray into socialized medicine, which as Governor of Massachusetts he implemented via RomneyCare, on the grounds of federalism, swearing he would never support that on a national level. But he just didn't defend government controlled medical care at the state level, he went that extra mile and defended the mandate policy wherein everyone is forced to purchase health insurance. That, or face fines and possibly even a jail sentence. Well, I'm sorry but there's not enough free riders in the universe to justify that on constitutional grounds.

But even that is almost negligible in comparison to his recent statement in support of a government policy to control what he insists is man's contribution to global warming.

This guy just wants to lower taxes. Fine, but what good is that if he is going to maintain the current regulatory regimes that are the real villains choking the life out of the American economy? In fact, in this case he might even make things worse than they already are.

But let's face it, the Republican Party establishment wants somebody that isn't going to rock the boat too much. They want a conservative, but they want a big government conservative, who will lower everybody's taxes but at the same time maintain the status quo that allows the big corporations to maintain their hold on the economy. After all, its regulations, more even than taxes, that kills competition in the market. They are crony capitalists who only pay lip service to the concept of free markets when it helps them advance their cause.

And I for one am not going for it.

But give the Romneylan credit for one thing-if he runs like a RINO in the GOP primaries, you know he's not going to turn around and govern any differently if he were to win.

RIP Kevorkian

A lot of people didn't like Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and I can certainly understand that. He isn't exactly the first person who would be on my party list. The very mention of his name, after all, invokes the aura of death, almost as though he were the Grim Reaper incarnate.

But a lot of objections to him were political as well as religious. He felt he had a mission in life, to ease the transition to death in the case of those who simply no longer wanted to live. Although he concentrated his practice on those who were suffering through debilitating illnesses, he himself felt neither the federal government nor states should intervene whenever anyone wanted to end their lives, whether or not they suffered from an illness from which they stood no realistic chance of finding a cure or any kind of substantial relief from the agony it caused. To him, the state just did not have the right to make that call. In the case of states that allowed euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, he generally complained their laws were too restrictive.

When he was finally prosecuted successfully by the state of Michigan, he had performed in close to one hundred assisted suicides by his own admission.

The state was right to prosecute him. The law is the law. Nor do I necessarily think euthanasia is a good practice or that it should be sanctioned by the state or codified into law. I don't, in fact, because it could be, and doubtless would be abused.

Still, I'm in awe of the man, and always was. He never backed down, right or wrong, even when it would have been to his advantage. He protested against what he considered an unjust law by breaking it. It was his own private foray into civil disobedience.

No matter what one might think of the man and his actions, he did help people die in peace and relative comfort. He saved them years of agony. Many people who live on for years in states of severe illness and incapacitation have nothing but misery to look forward to and their families have years of exorbitant medical expenses that can drain their finances and ruin the futures of their children and grandchildren.

He helped many people avoid these sufferings. He helped them to rest in peace. May he do likewise.

Zombie Jesus

He rose from the dead. He wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And all he wants in return is for you to turn your life over to him completely. He wants your heart. He wants you mind. He wants your soul. He wants your-

BRAAAAAAIIIINSSSS

Questionable Timing In Soutthworth Murder Arrest

As I posted earlier here, Lexington Police have arrested Donald Southworth for murder, presumably for the murder of his late wife Umi Southworth, who was beaten to death June 16th of last year in a case that led to widespread criticism of police misconduct and the initiation of procedural changes. The police waited five hours after finding Southworth, battered in the bushes of her Meadowthorpe Lane property, before they called an ambulance because they didn't realize she was still alive. She died some hours later at the hospital.

It just so happens that husband Donald had earlier yesterday filed paperwork to make himself the executor of the late Umi's estate, in preparation for filing a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's daughter Almira Fawn.

Southworth's lawyer questions the timing of the arrest, which occurred late last night. As do I.

There's nothing worse, and more dangerous, than official incompetence married to corruption, and it looks like that might well be what we are seeing here. It almost beggars belief, but as of now it looks like the Lexington Police Department is trying to cover themselves by engaging in malicious prosecution based on circumstantial evidence. If Southworth was guilty of the crime, I find it difficult to understand why the police would not have long ago arrested him. It should not have been that hard to gather the necessary evidence for such a brutal, bloody crime.

Two things for sure-

1. I'm glad I don't live in Lexington Kentucky.
2. If I did I wouldn't be writing this post.

UPDATE-The story just gets more bizarre. According to the LPD, Southworth murdered his late wife Umi Southworth by hitting her over the head with a piece of wood. Okay, so in so many words, not only do they not have a murder weapon, they don't even know what the hell the murder weapon was. All they "know" is that it was some kind of wooden object. I don't know, maybe they found splinters in Umi Southworth's head, or the nature and extent of her head injuries was somehow suggestive of wood as opposed to metal. Some enterprising investigative reporter should ask them if they have the object in question locked away in their evidence, or if they at least have some kind of general idea what it was. It's always possible they are keeping it secret for some reason but I seriously doubt that. They need to accede to some level of transparency here. Otherwise if this ever does go to trial, its going to be like a three ring circus-the part where the clowns pile out of the tiny little car.

UPDATE II-I covered the Southworth murder not long after it happened in June of last year. Owing to these latest developments, it might be worth your time to read A Murder On Meadowthorpe, in which I detailed the reasons why in my opinion it was unlikely-certainly not impossible, but unlikely-that Donald Southworth was the killer of his wife.

Trump Might Run For President As Independent If Republicans Nominate A "Stiff"

He made it pretty plain that he thinks the GOP is flirting with disaster, and blames first of all the Ryan Plan, pointing out the recent loss in the special election for the House seat of New York-26. That race saw a Democrat win a seat that has been a safe Republican seat for decades. The Republicans, according to Trump, have a death wish.

He further warned that if the GOP nominates a "stiff" he might run as an Independent. His meaning is clear enough. He plainly means Pawlenty or Romney, two of the biggest stiffs on the political landscape. Obviously New York Democrat Anthony Weiner doesn't count (sorry, couldn't resist).

At the same time, Trump seems to be impressed with Sarah Palin, who he says he likes, calling her a friend, and a patriot who loves America. It is starting to look as though the recent Pizza Summit between Palin and Trump in New York might have been a potential lead to a Palin endorsement by Trump. Trump stopped short of that last night on On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, but then again, he claims not to know whether Palin is running, saying he's pretty sure she hasn't yet decided.

It looks like Trump, if he does run, might well be the first person to openly run as a spoiler. Most people think that would hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, but I have to wonder about that. Most of Trumps votes would come from Independents, and maybe some moderate Democrats who are unsatisfied (if not outright disgusted) with how Obama has governed (for lack of a better word) thus far.

I just can't see conservative Republicans voting for Trump in any significant numbers should he mount an independent bid, even if the GOP does nominate a "stiff", or another RINO. What moderate Republicans might vote for him would probably be more than offset by Democrats, and by Independents who might ordinarily tend to vote Democrat if they are unsatisfied with the GOP nominee, or who already lean towards the Democrats regardless.

Ironically, since Palin has low approval ratings among Independents, a third-party Trump candidacy might actually help her if she received the nomination, unless she manages to improve her numbers.

The WHO Wants To Tax And Regulate Your Cell Phone Use

Otherwise, you might use it too much. Then you might end up with cancer. Cos, you see, there's just no available evidence to conclude that using cell phones will NOT give you cancer. Therefore, because there's an alleged link, we need more study. And that means money, and that means you need to fork over some more money to some bureaucrats so they can pretend to do something about it and stuff.