A.M. Links: Democrats Finally Call for San Diego Mayor's Resignation, Chris Christie Says Libertarianism is Dangerous, Lincoln Memorial Vandalized


  • dangerous
    Stuck in Customs/Foter.com

    It took a total of seven women coming out to accuse San Diego's mayor of sexual harassment before local Democrats began calling for his resignation. Anthony Weiner, meanwhile, is hazy on just how many women he sent unsolicited pictures of his penis to. Pelosi opined that Weiner and San Diego's Bob Filner should both seek therapy.

  • Chris Christie said the libertarian "strain" in the Republican party is dangerous, because 9/11.
  • The Egyptian military now says it's holding the former president, Mohammed Morsi, on allegations of links to Hamas, also accusing him of plotting jailbreaks during the 2011 uprising.
  • The police chief in St. Louis has asked the FAA for approval for his department to use drones. He wants to use them for police chases and public surveillance.
  • The first 3D-printed rifle has been test fired.
  • A cop in Georgia who killed a 70-year-old man by ramming his squad car into the septuagenarian's won't be facing jail time. In Ohio, meanwhile, a cop is facing involuntary manslaughter charges for allegedly beating an elderly man to death.
  • The Lincoln Memorial was splashed with green paint yesterday, and will be closed until the National Park Service cleans it.
  • A firearms group in Ohio has raised $12,000 to buy George Zimmerman  gun and a home security system. 

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here. Have a news tip? Send it to us!

NEXT: UN 'Troubled' by Shift in Australia's Asylum Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck you Christie, you fat swine.

    1. As a political matter why in the world would he pick a fight with a major wing of his party?

      1. Not sure. Maybe he has decided he’s not running for president.

        Boy, was I dead wrong about this guy. What a total piece of crap he turned out to be.

        1. I haven’t heard a peep out of the NJEA since the pension reform went through. If he does nothing else but show that it can be good politics to take on the teachers union then he has done more for this state than I could have hoped.

          1. So I suppose as a NJ politician, he’s pretty good, but that’s not saying much.

        2. Christie is what happens when people want to make someone a hero just because he was an asshole to the Democrats once.

          Then they want to be shocked when he later demonstrates he’s just as good at being an asshole to libertarians.

          1. He was never a hero, but was useful.

            He is no longer useful.

      2. He’s a New Jersey republican, which is essentially a democrat anywhere sane.

      3. The socialist media will talk about how this is his Sista Soldier moment, a centrist bravely standing up to extremists in his party.

        Fuck that fat fascist fuck and his media sycophants.

        1. It doesn’t make sense if he really hoped to run for President as a Republican.

          1. It does in the beltway-manhattan bubble.
            And it helps make him the press’s favorite republican, which is a win for Christie in any case.

            1. That strategy worked out so well for McCain….

          2. Sure it does. The establishment/country club/”moderate” Repubs still control the Presidential nomination. Look at the last several nominees, after all.

            Those types purely hate the TP and the libertarians. They hate ’em worse than they do the Dems.

            The smart move if you want to be the Republican Presidential nominee is to kiss up to the moderate establishment, and try to avoid pissing off the fundy socons too much.

            Kicking the libertarians isn’t sabotaging the route to the nomination, its paving it.

            1. Especially in this contest, where he was never going to siphon many votes away from Paul by playing the libertarian.

            2. @Dean

              Agree. Last night some posters were arguing that the republican base was a bunch of TP’ers and libertarians, but they just didn’t have any good options to vote for. I argued that most republicans are of the McCain or Romney variation and the small government wing of the party is a small minority.

              My evidence was the last 40 years of republican nominees.

    2. Libertarianism is dangerous — to big government and the parasites who live off it.

  2. Obama Bars College Republicans from Speech, Labels Them Security Threat


    1. I wonder if they even got the ticket price refunded?

    2. this is Obama in a nutshell – no other viewpoint is considered legitimate.

      1. Well to be fair, only a racist extremist could disagree with the most powerful elected official in the world, because he’s just so damn black and reasonable.

    3. And, now we’ve established the precedent that opposing political views can be considered a security threat.

      I’m sure this won’t turn out badly.

      1. You know who else called political opponents a security threat?

        1. Hillary Clinton?

    4. I’m sure the DOJ will be all over this blatant violation of civil rights.

      As a matter of fact, it’s all over right now.

    5. Why won’t those nasty Republicans work with me? I mean, do what I say? Why?

  3. The Lincoln Memorial was splashed with green paint

    Photos, or it didn’t happen.

    1. There is a lot of outrage floating around facebook about this.

      1. It was teabaggers, right?

        1. The outrage is from the more conservative state worshipers.

          1. Conservative statue worshipers?

            FALSE IDOLS!!!!

        2. Was the perp wearing a Confederate flag luchador mask?

          1. Thank god nobody is blaming me, plus I have an airtight alibi – I was at home, reading The Real Lincoln.

    2. Wasn’t me, I was at Dealey Plaza at the time holding an umbrella.

  4. Funeral for an officers best friend: Decorated K-9 laid to rest with full ceremonial honors as his emotional handler proudly looks on

    But there’s no double standard.

    1. Yes, but who were his pallbearers?

      1. Not the Browns. they were booked.

        1. See?! The Browns never fail to let you down.

        2. What about the Dawg pound? Hey get it? Haha…

    2. And apparently this city/town has enough money in the coffers to splurge on a full honors funeral for a fucking dog. I love dogs. I’ve had dogs for my entire life. But when they die, they go in a shallow grave in the back yard.

      1. exactly. Just be sure to do a line locate before you dig!

      2. Do you have a permit for that?!?

        1. I buried my shepherd in the backyard, but I went down five feet. Shallow graves are not a good idea.

          1. Because they might arise from the grave like in Stephen King’s *Pet Sematary*?

    3. These guys are parodies of themselves.

    4. Some animals are more equal than others.

      1. Well we know pigs certainly are.

        1. Very very excellent.

  5. No, the GOP is not going to defund Obamacare

    The far bigger portions of the program, including the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would have to change Obamacare.

    In the Senate, that would take 67 votes — the amount needed to overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to persuade 21 Democrats to go along.


    1. Republicans pen Obamacare letter to John Boehner

      More than 60 Republicans have signed a letter urging Speaker John Boehner to defund Obamacare when Congress funds the government in September.
      The letter, being circulated by the office of freshman Rep. Mark Meadows, doesn’t explicitly say that supporters will vote against a government funding bill if it does not strip funding for Obamacare. But it says that signers of the letter are “urging [Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.)] to defund the implementation and enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in any relevant appropriations bill brought to the House floor in the 113th Congress, including any continuing appropriations bill.”


    2. The Tea Party Caucus certainly seems to think the House alone could do more to defund at least parts of Obamacare.

      It seems to undermine the constitutional system the Founders set up to allow for ‘automatic appropriations’ as described in the article. The power of the purse was placed in a body that stood for election every two years for a reason.

      1. The Tea Party Caucus certainly seems to think the House alone could do more to defund at least parts of Obamacare.

        Already been done:

        Burgess told WND, “In the last continuing resolution, there was a billion dollars cut out of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was well over $300 million cut out of the Treasury Department budget for implementation of activities regarding the Affordable Care Act. So, those were some serious sideswipes.”

        The doctor-turned-lawmaker said GOP efforts to limit the implementation of Obamacare are already seeing results.

        “In fact, you heard the administration complain,” he observed. “We heard (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen) Sebelius come into the Energy and Commerce Committee and complain they don’t have the funds to implement the Affordable Care Act.”


        1. I’m not sure “some serious sideswipes” means that everything that could be done has been, as evidenced by the recent Tea Party Caucus letter asking that more be done.

          1. I’m not sure “some serious sideswipes” means that everything that could be done has been, as evidenced by the recent Tea Party Caucus letter asking that more be done.

            Can’t help but think maybe you’re just a little slow or something. Just yesterday, you said “Congress could totally defund Obamacare today”. They can not. It would have to be defunded in the next CR, which occurs in the future.

            1. It’s coming up mighty soon, and there have been some since Boehner promised to defund and since several of their ‘repeal’ votes.

        2. This all strikes me as quite counterproductive. Now every single problem that comes up with the act’s implementation can just be blamed on those bastard Republicans who didn’t give them the endless money they wanted.

          Though I guess they were going to do that whether there were cuts or not, huh?

          1. “Though I guess they were going to do that whether there were cuts or not, huh?”

            You already knew the answer to this question and it was a facetious one, right?

      2. It seems to undermine the constitutional system the Founders set up to allow for ‘automatic appropriations’ as described in the article. The power of the purse was placed in a body that stood for election every two years for a reason.

        Exactly. HOWEVER, this clause in section 8

        To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

        implies to me that non-army appropriation can be for terms longer than 2 years.

        So, I dont think that part is unconstitutional. Of course, I cant find anywhere in Article 1, Section 8 the power to pass ACA at all.

        1. I always thought that clause meant you couldn’t have a standing army that was around for more than two years.

          1. That was the reason for it…the next congress would have to reappropriate to keep them around.

            If the people want them gone, vote in an entirely new congress who will take care of that.

            1. I keep trying.

        2. implies to me that non-army appropriation can be for terms longer than 2 years.

          or it could mean that non-army appropriations must be reappropriated every year…as part of an annual budget, no?

          1. One could argue that the clause merely gives permission to allow military appropriations to extend past an annual appropriations process. But that would not be explicit in the text of the constitution.

          2. No. Context was about fear of standing armies, so its the other way.

            1. thanks

            2. That makes sense…unfortunately 😉

  6. And the bride wore camo! Newlywed Avril Lavigne wears fishnet suspenders and decorates herself in bullets to transform into Tank Girl for latest video

    What the…? Well, she is Canadian.

    1. Well, she is Canadian a human-raccoon hybrid.


      1. what immortal hand or eye could frame that fearful symmetry?

        1. One that had access to half a metric ton of eye shadow?

      2. she appears to have found an old pair of Gene SImmons shoes at the local thrift shop.

    2. Looks like she needs a new workout routine. Or any workout routine, for that matter.

      1. If I had Lavigne money, I’d have a home gym, personal trainer and live-in nutritionist and I’d have a body like Alyssa Milano or Rebecca Romijn (both born the same year as I was).

  7. Chris Christie said the libertarian “strain” in the Republican party is dangerous, because 9/11.

    There was an entire thread about this last night, and Ed links to 24/7??

    1. The editorial decision to link everything to 24/7 is a really shitty one. You hear that Welch?

      24/7 sucks. Stop making me go there. I actively AVOID clicking on links in the AM/PM links because I don’t want to have to deal with your bullshit scheme to make more money. Why do you hate your readers attaining new knowledge?

      1. …scheme to make money…

        You answered your own question.

      2. Seconded – that really pisses me off, too. Just link to the fucking article.

      3. I thought we weren’t supposed to go to the links. I just go straight to the comments.

    2. Thee Krayewski kiddie is the editor of 24/7, so of course he links to that, if only to justify his own existence

      1. I thought 2 Chilly was the editor of 24/7.

        1. my mistake – Eddie is the associate editor, whatever the fuck that means when you’re talking about a news aggregator with pretensions above its station in life

          1. Every writer employed by Reason seems to get to be an editor of some sort.

  8. The NYT on manliness

    The fact that the writer feels the need to define a plumb bob is my favorite bit.

    1. Mr. Hill, you have no ass.

    2. ‘If women have enhancement products, why don’t men?’

      “Do you have any artificial plates or limbs?”

      1. I got a tail extension for ‘better balance’

      2. Because women don’t value a mans looks, they value his status.

    3. Is that where the writer finally puts his foot down, to his wife over her selection of curtains, at their house in New Rochelle?

    4. Mr. Vickers, the contractor, said that even when he was in peak shape when he boxed competitively, getting pants to stay up without a belt was hopeless.

      As for the expense of his buttocks surgery, Mr. Vickers pointed out that it was less than his Lamborghini.

      “I went out and spent almost 200 grand on a car,” he said. “To spend $10,000 to make you feel better and look better is worth it.”

      How’s that engineering/computer science degree working out for you, boys?

      1. Almost as well. Its the art history guys who should feel bad.

  9. Family catch incredibly rare six-tentacled octopus during Greek vacation? then bash it to death and serve it up with a slice of lemon before discovering it is only the second ever seen


    1. What else were they supposed to do with it?

    2. ‘When we caught it, there was nothing to suggest it was any different or had been damaged. I thought it had just been born with six tentacles. We go to Greece every year and when we catch an octopus we do the same thing so we just did not think about it.’

      Emphasis added. Octopus basher!

      1. On a somewhat-related note, I took the kid to the movies yesterday to see “Epic.” I had a thought during the movie that we’re possibly raising a generation of kids too scared to kill anything, because it might kill us all (b/c the movie inferred an impact on the world from the smallest act, yadda yadda).

        1. On another somewhat related note, I have it on good authority Warty has six tentacles… or was it testicles?

          1. I figured if we had nothing to say to each other he would get bored, go away. But instead he uses it as an excuse to put his testicles all over me.

            1. Did he offer to give you language lessons?

    3. If it’s only got six tentacles, isn’t it a hexapus?

      1. Band Name Stolen!

        1. Now introducing The Hexapus Five!

      2. No, it’s hexapussy.

    4. six-tentacled octopus

      This is what happens when you stop teaching Latin in schools.

      1. why would you think Octopus meant 8 tentacles?

        1. Those are what star in Japanese tentacle rape.

      2. No, it’s what happens when you stop teaching Greek in schools, you philistine!

        1. Yes, of course. I should’ve called that out. That’s why “octopi” is wrong and “octopodes” is right.

          1. Octopuses is good too because we are speaking English and not Greek or Latin.

            1. Bah, I bet you don’t even speak Latin.

      3. They were named before people figured out that some of them had different numbers of tentacles.

        1. All members of the Octopuses genus have 8 tentacles. Squids and other such creatures belong to a different genus.

          They all cook up real nice though.

  10. Scientists can implant false memories into mice


    1. I hope they have this up and running, because after 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Obama, I could use some implanted memories.

      1. You mean, about how Bush ruled us with the One Ring and Obama stole it from him and gave us each a free unicorn?

        1. I want the memories of where a young Sharon Stone is my wife, but without the whole “pulling the giant red ball from my nose” part.

    2. It it ready for humans yet? I want to remember that time I singlehandedly defeated the Apelords of the Amazon and their armies of monkey minions.

    3. “Get your tail to Mahs!”

  11. Meet Ippo the ‘Zonkey’: Rare foal was born after a zebra climbed a fence to mate with an endangered donkey

    A zonkey is the foal of a zebra sire and a donkey and are very rare
    Ippo is one of only a few of her type in the world
    She was born after her father clambered over a fence to reach her mother


    1. You know who else climbed over a fence to mate?

      1. Charles Robert Jenkins?

      2. I would say Anthony Weiner, but I think he just sent some sexy pics to the animals.

        1. They were calling him a serial internet flasher on MSNBC yesterday. The guy is toast.

      3. STEVE SMITH?

      4. Romeo?

      5. Probably Archer, I mean, duh and/or hello.

      6. My rabbit before he was neutered? Dude jumped six feet in the air to get at the old lady rabbit we had at the time.

      7. I usually have to climb a tree

      8. The correct answer is Andrew Mendoza:

        When I walked up to the fence the neighbor’s brown horse came up to me. I then got into the pen with the horse…

        He was also trying to make a hybrid.

        1. Centaur?

    2. It’s a love story for the ages. I smell a Disney movie.

      1. Donkey Rape?

        1. You’re right, that was Dreamworks.

    3. Omigod is it cuter even than an okapi? I CAN’T DECIDE!!!

    4. A donkey has 62 chromosomes; the zebra has between 32 and 46 (depending on species).

      From wikipedia.

      Wow, didnt expect that big a difference.

      My knowledge of biology isnt up there with the other sciences.

    5. Meet Ippo the ‘Zonkey’

      What an ass.

      1. Why isn’t it called a Debra?

          1. clearly I need to refresh more often.

        1. Naming convention dictates sire comes first because patriarchy.

          Thanks to Michael Crichton I know that if a man knocks up a chimp it’s a “humanzee” and if a chimp knocks up a human the offspring is a chuman.

    6. Looks like a quagga

  12. Pelosi opined that Weiner and San Diego’s Bob Filner should both seek therapy.

    … expressing concern over how metadata is collected. “The Administration is the custodian of the information. The ownership belongs to the American people,” she said.

    I see she voted against Amash and privately and aggressively lobbied wayward Democrats to torpedo the amendment. Therapy, Nancy?

    1. “The Administration is the custodian of the information. The ownership belongs to the American people,” she said.

      See, the government can’t spy on us, because we are the government, and we can’t spy on ourselves!

    2. If we owned it, it would not be kept secret from us.


    Police say the apparent vandalism was discovered around 1:30 a.m. Friday on the statue, the pedestal and the floor. No words, letters or symbols were visible in the paint.

    Capt. Steven Booker says the paint spill “appears intentional based off of the splatter.”

    Maybe Rachel Jeantel trying to vandalize in cursive?

    1. the paint spill “appears intentional based off of the splatter.”

      “The Inspector’s been murdered. And someone’s *responsible*.”

      1. “Major Strasser has been shot…. round up the usual suspects”

        1. “What do we know?”

          “First, that Professor Fastbender has been kidnapped.”

          “Second, that someone has kidnapp-ed him”

          “Third, that my hand is on fire.”

  14. Alcoholic makes dry run from NT lock-up

    He said health and legal experts told the government the policy wouldn’t work, but were told by Chief Minister Adam Giles “to piss off”.

    “And as soon as someone’s been picked up they’ve done just that and pissed off,” Mr Gunner said.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breakin…..z2a9lcJnZn

    1. Can we lock up Chief Minister Giles for being consistently drunk on power?

    2. “The man was being held in a locked room in a locked compound and was checked on by a staff member every 15 minutes.”

      “”This is a health intervention, this is not a prison”

      Wait, what?

    3. “It seems absurd to claim that people running away before undergoing any rehabilitation is proof that this policy works, said Michael Gunner, shadow minister for alcohol policy and police.

      So they fully admit to having a shadow government? I don’t think they understand how that’s supposed to work.

      1. That’s a common error. They meant SHADO minister. That’s the guy Straker reports to.

        1. “Get me something from my office booze dispenser, will you?”

      2. In a parliamentary system “shadow government” is the leadership of the opposition.

        1. I prefer my explanation.

  15. The boy with two heads: Doctors say they WILL be able to save conjoined twins with incredibly rare condition

    The twins are only the second case of Dicephalic Parapagus in India
    Doctors in Jaipur are battling to save their lives
    The heads and nervous systems are separate, but backbone is joined


    1. Is it just me or does it seem like a majority of the bizarre medical stories come from India?

      1. no no, you and the stories do both seem to come from India

      2. Shouldn’t it be about 1 in 4? India has 1/5 of the people in the world, and China, which also has 1/5 of the people in the world, just kills off their duds.

    2. Ouch, 2 heads, am I right, ladies?

      1. “Don’t try to understand me, just be grateful that you felt the warmth of Zaphod Beeblebrox’s aura on your wonderstruck face.”

    3. Was one of them Matt Damon?

      1. MATT DAMON!

  16. -Halliburton to plead guilty to destroying evidence in BP spill

    -Halliburton, which has repeatedly denied responsibility and pointed fingers at BP, will be placed on probation for three years. It also agreed to pay $55 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation


    1. It also agreed to pay $55 million to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

      Great. More money down the government memory hole. How about they pay it to the businesses and residents of the affected areas?

      1. The article says this admission is going to open the way for civil suits against them. I can imagine the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation expended some money and effort in redressing the impact of the spill so I’m not so upset about them getting money.

        I do think it is odd that they essentially got a $200,000 fine, the payment to the NFWF and ‘three years probation’ for destroying evidence in a case in which people died. If a ‘non-corporate person’ would they get off so light?

        1. I can imagine the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation expended some money and effort in redressing the impact of the spill so I’m not so upset about them getting money.

          I am furious. Why the #$%& is the government forcing money to some foundation?! If it is for restitution of the area, then pay a remediation firm, if it is for those impacted, have restitution paid to them directly. Nope, we get to fund “Since our creation by Congress in 1984, NFWF has become one of the world’s largest conservation grant-makers. We work with both the public and private sectors to protect and restore our nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and habitats.” They will skim off some and then make “grants” to those that jump through their hoops.

          1. I imagine the idea is that the NFWF worked and plans to continue working addressing the damage to fish and wildlife that resulted from the spill. It might be to simply remediate their efforts on this issue.

            1. Then have Halliburton pay for the clean up directly. How does giving money to a “grant making foundation” help clean the place up – at the very best, they will skim off a few dollars and eventually get around to making grants to those that employ the best grant writers.

              1. It’s likely Haliburton either doesn’t have the expertise in the area or isn’t trusted to do it themselves.

        2. If a ‘non-corporate person’ would they get off so light?

          Is this “non-corporate person” a cop?

          1. Must not be, because they were forced to plead guilty to destruction of evidence. That wouldn’t happen if they were a cop.

      2. How about they pay it to the businesses and residents of the affected areas?

        You mean like fisherman instead of a group of bureaucrats that hinder their fishing? Sounds like a catastrophe!

        1. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (a private organization), not to be confused with US Fish and Wildlife Service (an agency of the US Department of the Interior).

          1. Yes, but:

            -The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was created by the U.S. Congress in 1984 to protect and restore fish and wildlife and their habitats. NFWF directs public dollars to critical environmental needs and matches those investments with private contributions.


            1. Didn’t know that. My research was very cursory.

              1. You’re absolutely correct though that the two are different agencies and the likelihood of them being confused is likely pretty high.

      3. BP already payed them all very well. I know a 28-year-old layabout son of a charter boat captain who got a check.

        1. I’ve read of inland businesses a couple of hundred miles from the gulf that are extorting money from BP.

          1. I could see an inland business that might deserve compensation from BP. For instance, a restaurant that ordered all its seafood from the area impacted.

            1. The award money was for some property damage from a storm or some such.

              1. That’s pretty far fetched indeed.

        2. Don’t care. The money’s already been “awarded”. Better it go to individuals than some quasi-government bureaucracy.

        3. Yeah, I was going to say… my brother lives in New Orleans, works as a PI, and is still telling tales about the fraud that has occurred from the Oil spill funds.

          This also gives some idea

          With that story about Halliburton, sounds like the extortion continues…

    2. wait a minute….I thought Halliburton only worked for Repub administrations. The Obamabots told me so.

      1. I don’t understand this comment. They were working with BP here, right? This story is about a plea deal with the current administration.

        1. it’s not that hard to understand. During the Bush years, the left pretended that Halliburton was a virtual Cabinet agency of that administration. But it’s still on the payroll, is it not, mostly becuase it does certain things almost no one else does.

    3. It also agreed to pay $55 million

      “Smithers, my wallet’s in my right front pocket.”

  17. The Lincoln Memorial was splashed with green paint yesterday, and will be closed until the National Park Service cleans it.

    Good. Fewer tourists around here today.

    I did not see that Oathkeepers ad in the Pentagon station this morning or yesterday afternoon. I’ll keep looking.

    1. I’m mildly surprised that no one is trying to figure out who did it, based on the green paint. It would be too obvious to say someone from the green movement, especially since there’s no obvious connection between Lincoln and environmental issues.

      Could it be a Hulk fan? A delayed Green Lantern promo? The descendent of a president green with envy because he didn’t get a monument on the Mall?

      1. It’s obviously crazed Paulite Goldbugs and their hatred of paper money!

        1. Could be. Or it could be Krugman, figuring he’d stimulate the economy by messing up something. Green reflects his belief that the government can print and spend infinite amounts of money, all for the greater good.

      2. A currently serving president who is green with envy because he doesn’t have a monument?

        1. Ah, Watson, today you do observe! The game is afoot!

        2. A currently serving president who is green with envy because he doesn’t have a monument?

          Make no mistake. The First Black President in History? will absolutely get a monument.

  18. Holy crap, the feds now say all your passwords belong to us. This is totally out of control.

    1. Don’t you understand, Mike? If the feds have your password then it can’t fall into the wrong hands. You’ll be safer.

      1. Is “FuckYouG-Man” a strong password or do I need to put numbers in it too?

      2. If the feds have my password, it’s already in the wrong hands. Anyone’s hands but mine are the wrong hands.

        1. Since the federal government now has my password, can I download extremely inaappropriate materials and blame it on them?

    2. Anyone storing unencrypted password files is already doing it wrong, but having the file does make it pretty easy for anyone to break the passwords, especially for people who use poor passwords.

      John the Ripper can handle that, assuming they dont have any better tools (and I would assume the NSA, at least, has better tools than John).

      1. Anyone storing unencrypted password files is already doing it wrong

        Yeah, like the morons at Sony. After that idiocy, I resolved to buy the Xbox One instead of the PS4, but then Microsoft completely fucked it up. Sigh.

      2. You should read Schneier’s article on how easy it is to crack the average password.

        Passwords that were cracked included: Qbesancon321 and qeadzcwrsfxv1331

        1. Pretty much anything by Schneier is worth reading.

    3. If the government is able to determine a person’s password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user.

      What could possibly go wrong?

    4. Wasn’t there just a court ruling saying that a person cannot be compelled to decrypt their communications?

      1. There was a recent court order compelling a guy to decrypt his hard drive.

        1. Therefore, if one is arrested, one is to proclaim that they forgot their password.

  19. Jesus, there’s a Canadian lizard that can squirt blood out of its eyeballs.

    1. they’ve only seen it once, partly because it is hard to spot due to its camouflaging armour.

      Uh, huh.

    2. Fess up, ifh….that lizard is an Australian emigre lizard.

      1. I admit, my first thought was an outraged cry of “how dare Canadians muscle in on our racket of fucked-up freaky animals!”

        1. Of 15 species of horned lizards in North America, eight are native to the United States.

          Im living on wikipedia this morning, it seems.

          Horned lizards are morphologically similar to the Australian thorny devil (Moloch horridus), but are only distantly related. They also have other similarities, such as being sit-and-wait predators and preying upon ants, so the two species are considered a great example of convergent evolution.

        2. What, never heard of a horned toad? They are all over the Americas


          1. Yes, rob but you didn’t include the link!

          2. Toads are amphibians, lizards are reptiles. There is a huge difference.

            1. The horned frog/horned toad is actually a lizard.

              Its misnamed.

        3. Australia is like Salusa Secundus. Everyone knows Australians are being bred to fight our space wars.

          1. Will the Australiosardukar ride “the Australian thorny devil (Moloch horridus)”?

            1. On land, yes. Great white sharks in the sea.

              1. They’ll get wtfpwned by the orca riders.

        4. I admit, my first thought was an outraged cry of “how dare Canadians muscle in on our racket of fucked-up freaky animals!”

          To do that, it would also have to be so venemous that the blood it squirted on you would absorb through your skin and kill you in minutes.

    3. Ditto for Texas.

      The Texas Horned Lizard, aka Horned Frog.

    4. The Le Chiffre Lizard?

  20. -In his remarks in Varginha, the pope criticized the “culture of selfishness and individualism,” spoke of how the wealthy need to do more to end social injustice and told residents to “never yield to discouragement” because of corruption.


    1. So, I take it that the Vatican will be divulging itself of most of its wealth today and giving it to the poor?

      1. That was my thought when I heard that. The guy lives amongst opulence that most robber barons could only dream of and he’s preaching redistribution?

        1. Other People’s Money.

          That’s the problem.

        2. To be somewhat fair, he is eschewing the standard living quarters and living in a small Vatican apartment instead.

          1. The room with Raphael’s “The School of Athens?”

          2. Money talks. Bullshit walks.

            FWIW, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I just found Pope Psycho’s attitude a bit self-serving.

            1. Ear worm.

              Money talks. Bullshit walks. But they can’t touch my three-lock box.

              1. Yep, the Red Rocker was in my head, too.

      2. The Church already shares a bunch of its resources with the poor. And of course this particular Pope eschews many of the perks of his office.

        It’s like dismissing Andrew Carnegie’s charitable endeavors because he doesn’t give up *all* his money. He still gave away a whole shitload of it.

        Do we hold the Church to higher standards to Andrew &^%$ing Carnegie?

        1. Did Andrew Fucking Carnegie behave like tiresome scold and berate the wealthy for being selfish and not doing more to grant special rights to people?

          In his remarks in Varginha, the pope criticized the “culture of selfishness and individualism,” spoke of how the wealthy need to do more to end social injustice

          Maybe Carnegie did, but I’m guessing he didn’t.

          1. Carnegie spoke of the responsibilities of the wealthy, yes.

            “This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community–the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”


            1. I learned something new today. Still…

              after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community

              differs quite a bit from the Pope’s message, be it that it went through the journalistic meat grinder translator, so who knows what he really said.

              I’ll still hold Carnegie in higher regard than any Pope: Carnegie actually produced something of value in his lifetime.

    2. I can’t find a single fiber in my body that gives a fuck what the pope thinks about anything at all.

      1. This.

        Unfortunately for us, there are millions of dupes people that do.

      2. You know what would be cool? If the pope was the secret identity of a superhero.

        1. I think one of his British underlings might have that going.

      3. I care, but only because he has a large following who he uses to further his anti-freedom agenda.

        1. What we need is a libertarian pope.

          1. Pope Warty I

            1. That’s too fucking libertarian.

    3. I don’t see anything wrong with suggesting you should help those less fortunate than yourself, as long as compliance is not being compelled.

  21. I am sure that there have been more than a few San Diego voters who tell themselves, at least if they had elected the GOP candidate they wouldn’t have needed to worry about women accusing him of sexual harassment.

    There doesn’t seem much downside for a Democratic politician to cut Filner adrift, as isn’t it more than even money that the voters would elect another Democrat?

    1. No,

      San Diego isn’t as overwhelming democrat as most major cities in the US and local in elections in CA are non partisan.

      1. Yes the point about local non-partisan elections is taken, so perhaps “democrat” and “republican”?

        And I didnt necessarily mean that San Diego has experienced a total electoral shift to the Democrats (after all Filner is the first “democrat” elected since ’92) but that the electorate might be in a “lets give the Democrats a chance” mood.

        And isnt the local GOP in a “infighting” stage?

        1. I’m not in SD and not that familiar with their local politics, but I know that they are the only sane large city left in CA.

          Although, the mid size cities are getting pretty large populations now. Santa Ana and Anaheim both have larger populations than Pittsburg, for example.

  22. OK, so what if it wasn’t a man like Weiner sending penis pics. What if (strangely enough) it were a woman sending cleavage & other shots to men of a younger age group? What do you imagine the response would be?

    1. It depends whether or not she is attractive, and whether or not she is a Democrat.

      1. It depends on whether or not she sent them to me.

    2. Send them and we’ll tell you what we think.

    3. Like Nancy Pelosi sending nude selfies?

      (just wanted to put that pic in everyone’s head)


      2. You monster.

      3. i googled that, and frankly was disappointed.

      4. Gaaah! Now I want to contact those memory-altering scientists and forget what you said.

    4. to men of a younger age group? What do you imagine the response would be?

      Well, I’m sure that teacher would face a disciplinary hearing.

    5. What do you imagine the response would be?

      A lot of “I’ll be in my bunk?”

    6. I think a lot of it would depend on who she was, what she looked like, and what her politics are but ultimately people would reject her for much the same reason why they rejected Weiner, not the pics themselves, not the infidelity, but they poor judgement it showed, especially the second time around.

      That said I could see how a younger liberal congreswoman from a liberal district could get away with posing for playboy and still get reelected if she wanted to.

      1. Natalia Juarez can send pictures to my Twitter feed any day:


        And she’s a philosophy professor/political candidate who opposes the drug war!

        “Now, Sr. Rodriguez, describe for us Kant’s categorical imperative and and explain how it influenced subsequent philosophers.”


        “I’m waiting, Sr. Rodriguez.”

        “I am sorry, Senorita Juarez, I was just contemplating your two…philosophical premises.”

    1. “Do you think I put up with all of this degradation and humiliation to end up the wife of the comptroller?”

      1. That’s undoubtedly her exact line of thinking.

        1. Yup. A quiet life living on a large divorce settlement sounds a whole lot better than that shit.

    2. Wait, which one is Weiner’s wife, Silda or Huma?

  23. Flipped on Morning Joke just in time to see a replay of Whining-Bitch-in-Chief’s petulant foot-stamping tirade about obstructionist meanie republicans; he did just about everything a three year old would do, except throw himself on the floor and kick his little feet. Those guys are a bunch of Negative Nancys; always complaining about his incredibly smart ideas, but NEVER, EVER! offering any substantive ideas of their own.

    Mika looked like she wanted to give the poor little fella a hug.

  24. A cop in Georgia who killed a 70-year-old man by ramming his squad car into the septuagenarian’s won’t be facing jail time. In Ohio, meanwhile, a cop is facing involuntary manslaughter charges for allegedly beating an elderly man to death.

    And, no doubt, Al Sharpton is using federal grants to organize peaceful protests across the country while the Justice department considers civil rights charges against the murdering cops.

  25. James Taranto via Instapundit:

    The problem with the story that Obama and his press sycophants tell is that it is so boring and stupid. It reduces the president and his supporters to stick-figure caricatures of good and evil. (We almost said comic-book characters, but that would be unfair to comic books.) We could fill a column with examples every day, but here are a few that have come across our desk just in the past 24 hours:

    National Journal’s Norm Ornstein published a column yesterday titled “The Unprecedented?and Contemptible?Attempts to Sabotage Obamacare.” Although allowing that opposition to ObamaCare is “not treasonous”?a good thing, as a substantial majority of Americans would be traitors if it were?it is “sharply beneath any reasonable standards of elected officials.” (What does “sharply beneath” even mean?)

    The second paragraph of Ornstein’s column is comedy gold: “I am not the only one who has written about House and Senate Republicans’ monomaniacal focus on sabotaging the implementation of Obamacare?Greg Sargent, Steve Benen, Jon Chait, Jon Bernstein, Ezra Klein, and many others have written powerful pieces. But it is now spinning out of control.”

    1. I wonder if he’s ever used the term ‘unprecedented and contemptible attempts to sabotage’ welfare reform by the Obama administration or NCLB (both via granting of waivers) or current immigration law (with Obama’s deferred action for those under 30 orders)?

    2. I read that. And he is so right. It is not that the press is partisan. It always been partisan. It is that they are so boring and tiresome.

    3. “Greg Sargent, Steve Benen, Jon Chait, Jon Bernstein, Ezra Klein”

      that’s quite the circle jerk.

      1. Skating is getting better. Learning how to do C-cuts and starting to learn to cross my feet against the wall. I have gone from “I can’t skate” to I think I can legitimately say I suck. And that is an accomplishment.

        1. Glad to hear you stuck with it. I think eventually it will just click for you and become second nature.

          1. I think I am about a year away from picking up a stick. I want to be able to stop, turn and comfortably do crossovers. And that is a ways away. I don’t know how I will like hockey. But I love skating. Such a challenge. Very addictive.

            1. you’ll love it. if you can skate, you’ll be better than 80% of the guys in a novice league. if you can go backwards, 95%

                1. Thanks. I need to buy some pads. If I am going to get much better at skating, I have to get over my fear of falling. I get the feeling crossovers involve just not worrying about falling and busting your ass multiple times every time you skate for a few months until you get it.

                  1. Learn to tuck and roll.

                  2. Buy decent shin pads, the rest of the stuff is fine from resale. Buy short cuff gloves or you’ll hate yourself later on. Don’t bother with shoulder pads.

              1. if you can go backwards, 95%

                This. When I first started playing as a kid I was thrust into defense despite being the smallest guy on the team because I was the only one who could do so competently. Strangely, the trend held as I got older; even after I started playing with high schoolers most of the forwards couldn’t go backwards without looking like they were about to spill.

                I haven’t played ice hockey in 15 years. I really should try to get back into it, but I’ll be so pissed off at how terrible I’ve gotten if I tried.

                1. This happened to me to.

                  “OMG you can skate BACKWARDZZZ?!?!?”

                  1. looks like we need get a reason team together.

                    1. We could enter the pond hockey tourney in Canada.

                    2. Will there be drinking?

                    3. yes. there might even be hockey

                    4. And fighting and fucking…

                      But don’t get dressed up, it’ll just be the two of you.

                2. Try anyway.

                  You’ll feel like a pregnant cow on stilts for the first few times and then it will come back to you pretty quickly.

                  Once you get over that hump, it’s awesome.

                  1. I’m not worried about being able to skate and play, I’m sure I can handle that just fine. It’s the erosion of my skills and instincts that worries me. I used to be legitimately good at hockey and no longer being so will be hugely frustrating.

                    1. Being the youngest guy in the older leagues does wonders for confidence…

    4. And Taranto is right. Obama is an interesting tragic figure. But to tell that story requires acknowledging his flaws and doing that requires admitting the limits of his ideology and the valid points of his opposition. Obama’s greatest flaw is his total inability to understand or learn from his opposition. That is the root of most of his problems and what more than anything makes him such a tragic figure. But to write that story would require a reporter who doesn’t suffer from the same flaw. And those don’t seem to exist.

      1. Puh lease,

        Obama’s a con man that never believed the progressive bullshit either. Look at what he’s actually done in office, it’s all about dividing and distracting the public so that he can funnel cash to his supporters without scrutiny.

        No doubt that there’s a lot of true believing socialists in his administration, but only because they were the first ones that he conned, not because he’s one of them.

        1. Being tragic doesn’t mean you are a good person. It just means you have certain abilities that allow you to accomplish things but are ultimately brought down by character flaws.

          I think Obama is a true believer. I think he actually thought he could transform America. He is hubris incarnate.

          1. Look at what he’s actually done in office, it’s all about the graft. He’s also a toxic narcissist, everything’s all about him personally, not advancing any ideology. We all joke about how he’s just a continuation of the Bush administration in so many areas – but it’s true, he is.

            Frankly, an honest socialist would be better than the creepy fascism that’s been advancing on auto pilot under him.

            1. e’s also a toxic narcissist, everything’s all about him personally, not advancing any ideology

              HE is such a toxic narcissist he thinks that is advancing his ideology.

              1. My prediction is that a few years after leaving office Obama will the the first billionaire ex-president.

                And his toadies will no doubt jizz all over themselves and claim that proves his awesomeness.

            2. Look at what he’s actually done in office, it’s all about the graft.”

              Graft is part and parcel of the collectivist ideology. It’s fundamental to the premise government should be picking the winners and losers. And it does that by funneling the money to its friends while burdening all others with regulation that would cripple anyone not friendly to the cause. When you are one of those top-men, you are entitled to skim some of the fat off the top too, after all, without your wise leadership, the fucking sheep would all die a gruesome death

          2. Yeah, being a true believer doesn’t necessarily mean he’s above corruption. Once someone gets into that mindset, justifying all sorts of behavior as necessary “for the cause” becomes easy.

            That said, I’d agree with Zaytsev that he really isn’t all that interesting. ‘Right time, right place’ explains 95% of BO’s success.

            1. He is an amazingly effective demagogue. A master of race baiting and other politics of division.

              The problem that the proggies can’t acknowledge is that divisiveness is all they have left at this point, their ideology is completely bankrupt; and I just don’t see any national politician after O being able to succeed with those tactics.

            2. Yes. In fact being a true believer often facilitates corruption. Belief in the ideology is how someone rationalizes their own corruption. Obama thinks it is okay for him to steal because he is out working so hard to change the world for the better. Therefore, the normal rules of morality shouldn’t apply to him.

              1. Additionally, when wealth redistribution is already someone’s stated goal, I think they would tend to have a more *flexible* view of corruption.

  26. -Two weeks after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the only person on the jury who is a member of an ethnic minority said in an ABC News interview that Zimmerman “got away with murder.’


    What in the world?

    1. ::runs her statement through translation machine::

      “Please, don’t come after me. I thought he was guilty! It was just the stupid law!”

      1. That was my thinking 100%.

    2. She also said that the case shouldn’t have gone to trial and that it was “a publicity stunt.”

      She’s either trying to stay out of the way of the death threats or she chooses her words very poorly.

      1. Or she “felt” like it was a murder but was intellectually honest enough to vote based on the actual evidence. Who the hell knows.

        1. I would hope my ‘feelings’ would be informed by the evidence presented, but yes, who knows what this is about.

          1. If that were generally the case, though, we wouldn’t be having these conversations. There wasn’t a preponderance of the evidence that Zimmerman was guilty yet millions of people “feel” he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, I guess, that reasonable doubt is now too high of a standard).

      2. Actually, that sentence is entirely accurate. The case should not have gone to trial and only did because of political theater.

        1. It is entirely accurate. It’s also hard to reconcile with the comment that he “got away with murder.”

          1. She’s typical of the average modern brain-dead American who mostly wants to go along to get along and please everybody.

            1. That and she’s a typical public school victim that can’t think clearly.

              Replace the word murder, with killing and the contradiction vanishes. Zimmerman did get away with killing Martin. And it’s entirely reasonable for her to not believe all of Zimmerman’s story and at the same time say that the state did not have enough evidence for to convince her beyond a reasonable doubt.

              There are parts of Zimmerman’s story that seem like embellishment to me, but the preponderance of evidence nonetheless convinces me that he was justified in killing Martin. It’s reasonable that someone else zeros in on the embellishments, discounts other parts of his story but still says that the state didn’t have enough evidence.

          2. You can honestly believe any killing is murder, including self defense, and still think they did not have enough evidence to convict legally.

            1. I suppose that’s possible, but that’s wholly different from honestly believing both that it is both murder and that the case shouldn’t have gone to trial and that it was a publicity stunt.

              If there’s not even enough evidence to make you think that the trial should even have happened, it seems pretty hard to get to the point where you also have any kind of belief it was murder.

              1. Except Zimmerman always admitted killing trayvon. That was known from the beginning. But also there was no evidence to prove it wasn’t self defense. So she could respect the rule of law while simultaneously believing it is a bad law to allow self defense.

                1. Except killing != murder.

                  1. I know this but some people believe soldiers fighting for their life on a battlefield are no different from murders. you should die yourself before killing. These are people who have never faced true violence in their lives..

          3. You could think Zimmerman should have avoided an unecessary confrontation and thus bears moral responsibility for the death even if it was not one he should be legally responsible for.

    3. She’s changing her story to please the people she wants to please.

      I doubt she would have made a similar statement fresh from walking out of the courthouse.

      I doubt it even has anything to do with personal safety. She’s just re-framed her narrative to fit in with the larger narrative being pushed by the media.

    4. Excerpts of the interview will air on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer” and on “Nightline” Thursday night.

      There’s just no way that they would edit the fuck out of this in order to fit their narrative, is there?

    5. I think it’s to her credit that she had prejudices against Z but overcame these prejudices to vote in accordance with the law and the evidence.

      That should be construed as a real blow to the Justice 4 Trayvon narrative, in that even a prejudiced juror, faced with the actual evidence, voted to acquit.

      But that won’t be the spin from the enlightened ones. They’ll say that The System prevented this righteous sister from giving an emotionally-valid verdict.

  27. The Chicago Police Department helps the taxpayers put their money to use. And by that, I mean they pay out $10M of it to a guy they knowingly put behind bars for 25 years for a crime he didn’t commit.

    But wait, there’s more! Looks like the tab is gonna end up being significantly higher than that. They’ve got a whole gaggle of cases coming up for review where falsified evidence, faked or coerced confessions and beatings of suspects to get them to confess were the order of the day.

    Don’t worry, though. There’s a cop that got a whole 4 1/2 years for it all…in federal court because the state did not prosecute him when their internal investigation (which is due process for a cop apparently) found no wrongdoing.

    1. If an internal investigation said he did nothing wrong, he did nothing wrong. Dunphy told me so.

      1. Due process, totality of the circs, no double standard

    2. How long before Chicago goes bankrupt? I read the other day that muggings are now a real problem in tourist and rich areas like the Miracle Mile and Division street. You can raise taxes and fuck the poor and working class and the rich and tourists won’t give a shit provided things are safe in the areas they go to. But once a city stops being able to protect its richest citizens and visitors, it dies.

      1. In the wake of recent muggings on Michigan Ave, the Guardian Angels started making noise about patrolling the Miracle Mile and telling people to beware. Rahm suggested they should go patrol around his safe passage areas to schools because there is no problem in Tourist ville.

        1. Tiny Dancer assured us everything was fine. Well, that settles it then.

          1. Tiny Dancer, that’s funny!

      2. I saw an editorial on the local news last night (NYC) where the idiot talking head opined that Stop and Frisk was why NYC was so much safer than Chicago, so it was foolish to get rid of it because Kelly assures us it’s constitutional and we don’t want to lose tourists.

        Thank God I didn’t have my gun nearby or I might have shot the TV.

        1. NYC does have a lower murder rate, that’s undeniable. But as far as other violent crimes go, hasn’t the NYPD been called on the carpet by the DoJ for gaming the crime stats?

          I know there have been grumblings about it.

          1. Sure, NYC has a lower murder rate, but it’s due to a number of factors, not just because of stop and frisk. Anyway, the part about the editorial that enraged me so much was the idea that if something ‘works’ it is therefore justified, civil rights be damned.

          2. A year or two ago the FBI decided Chicago’s self-reported crime stats were such garbage they didn’t publish them.

    3. But, see, that was the old professionalism. Nothing like that is going on now, no sir.

    4. Look, sloopy, if Jon Burge hadn’t tortured hundreds of people over a period of decades, we’d still have the death penalty so, uh…silver lining?

  28. Unnamed Seattle cop held on cyberstalking and identity theft charges.

    There was no mention of whether his busy jail schedule would effect his entry into the World Big Wave Championships or the Mr. Universe competition, so I doubt we know him personally…not that it would matter as his name is not being released for some off reason.

    1. How do you withhold the name and still look at yourself in the mirror as a reporter? How many crime stories has that reporter written? How many names of people who were later proven to be innocent has he put in the public eye as criminals? But then when it is a cop, you all of the sudden respect his privacy and presumption of innocence.

      1. Does the reporter actually know the name, or is it that the police haven’t released the name?

        I’d think it was the latter.

        1. Maybe so. He should be raising hell. And my guess is that it wouldn’t be hard to figure out the name.

      2. How do you withhold the name and still look at yourself in the mirror as a reporter?

        The reporter is just making sure his/her access journalism pass gets renewed.

        1. The reporter is just making sure his/her access journalism pass gets renewed.


          Journalists have figured out that their access is what pays the bills. The rest takes a back seat.

  29. Bored with police work, North Carolina cop decides that he wants to do something more challenging. What does he do? Why, he sets up a child porn business, what else.

  30. Obama is an interesting tragic figure.


    1. No. The interesting tragedy is the United States. The not-very-funny comedy is Obama.

      1. A really black comedy. He is a lot like the Black Adder, except that he is a really bad guy and you hate his guts rather than sympathizing with him.

        1. From the first series. Blackadder was often portrayed as the least idiotic in the later ones, and not quite as evil. Usually.

          1. Yeah in the first he was the idiot. I think it got better every season which is pretty rare.

            1. It’s hard to pick an absolute favorite, because I like all of the original run, but I think I lean towards the second.

              1. It is hard to pick since the characters are all different each season with their own flavors. I still think the 1st season is a step below the other three.

                1. I agree, though it had some great moments. Including the great Brian Blessed.

  31. http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/…..-abortion/

    Rubio shocked to learn that limiting federal power under the commerce clause limits his ability to get a pony too. I don’t see how the feds have the authority to regulate abortion under the commerce clause. Maybe, they could enact laws intended to make sure states don’t interfere with a federal right. But no way could they get into the nuts and bolts of what abortions and when abortions should be legal.

    1. -Rubio said “certainly” the Constitution would allow a federal law banning abortions after 20 weeks ? it’s just a question of which portion of the document.

      Wow. Essentially ‘I don’t know, it must be in there somewhere.’

      1. Yeah. The only way you could say the feds have that power is if you say as a matter of law life begins at 20 weeks. But even then, it amounts to a federal murder statute, which last I looked the feds couldn’t do. The feds don’t have general police powers. If California legalized murder, what could the feds do about it? it is a tough question without taking the easy way out of just saying the commerce clause means it can do whatever the fuck it wants.

        1. Performance of any abortion under the statute would subject the performer and recipient to a tax penalty of not less than $500,000. Johnnyrob says a penaltax is perfectly constitutional under the taxing power.

        2. Legal abortion isn’t generally legalizing murder though, it discriminates against those who are disabled due to gestation and there is a disparate impact that results in de facto age discrimination, therefore it’s a civil rights issue.

      2. it’s just a question of which portion of the document.

        Probably the part that guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this, one nation under God.

        1. I think you’ve got your documents confused. That’s the Declaration, Rubio was asked about the Constitution.

          1. It’s the declaration and the pledge of allegiance. That was kind of the joke…

    2. Just declare it a tax and it’s constitutional.

      1. I’m surprised that the SoCons haven’t thought of putting an excise tax on abortions. Which would be legal.

        1. Probably not legal since it would only apply to women.

          1. What if the tax is levied on the abortionist instead of the patient?

          2. Make the doctor pay it.

      2. A post-penaltax? I like it.

    3. The commerce clause could literally be used for anything. If I recall, Roberts chose the penaltax justification not because he couldn’t apply the commerce clause, but because he was scared at what it implied if he did

      Local Amish hair cutting feud became a federal hate crime through the commerce clause: https://reason.com/blog/2013/02…..-beard-cut

      Local Hemingway Museum cats became federally regulated under the commerce clause: http://randazza.wordpress.com/…..ce-clause/

      Obscenity is also regulated under the commerce clause. Again, you don’t have to distribute it across state lines as long as the instruments involved or articles used in the subject or information about the subject involved are interstate. (instrumentality)

      The War on Drugs is also justified by the commerce clause.

      And on and on.

      1. Wickard killed the republic.

      2. Planned Parenthood is a national organization, so the Feds could easily shut them down with the commerce clause.

    4. So *now* the choicers are suddenly concerned about federalism?

  32. -N.C. lawmakers approve GOP-backed election changes
    -The measure given final approval late Thursday night in a party-line vote in the GOP-dominated state House requires voters to present government-issued photo IDs at the polls and shortens early voting by a week, from 17 days to 10. The measure also ends same-day registration, requiring voters to register, update their address or make any other needed changes at least 25 days ahead of the election. A popular high school civics program that registers tens of thousands of students to vote each year in advance of their 18th birthdays will be eliminated.


    1. A popular high school civics program that registers tens of thousands of students to vote each year in advance of their 18th birthdays will be eliminated.

      Not sure that sounds like a good idea.

      1. It is just an invitation to fraud. How many of those kids are going to actually vote? The way to do real fraud that produces enough votes to tip a close election is to have your people show up to vote for large numbers of people who don’t vote. To do that, you need a list of voters unlikely to show up at the polls. And boy does that give you one.

        Where that really works is in local elections like school board or city council or state rep. It is hard to do in a Presidential or state wide election. But in a local election with 15% turnout, that list of teenagers and 30 or 40 motivated people can make a big difference.

        1. I think that’s the real point of knocking on doors during campaigns. It’s not to convince people to vote for your guy but to figure out who’s likely to not vote so that your guy can have someone do it for them.

          1. That seems far to conspiracy minded for me. There’s just too much chance in the aggregate that a significant number of people who tell the canvasser they are not likely to vote will end up turning up at the polls and voting, and then finding out someone already voted in their name. We’d have far, far more validated instances of such voter fraud if that was anywhere close to a common practice.

            1. It’s not… After the Scott Brown victory over Martha Coakley, for the next 4 elections, the local dem machine called my mom asking if she needed a ride to the polls.

              My mom is registered as an R.

              I suspect that had she said yes, nobody would have shown up to give her a ride, but someone would show up to cast a vote in her name…

              I figure after four elections they decided she was too likely to vote and started ignoring her, because they abruptly stopped bothering her.

        2. It registers kids that are eligible to vote by the time the election comes around. I’m not sure how that facilitates fraud more than anything else. I also bet that the number of teens that actually will vote would be higher if it was the culmination of some kind of class like this than otherwise. Lots of kids get excited about their first time voting, especially if it comes at the end of something like this.

          1. It facilitates fraud because we know teens are so unlikely to vote. That list of registered voters who are unlikely to vote is a gold mine for fraud. When you go out and register people who would normally not bother to register or vote, what you are doing is creating a reservoir of registered non voters to be exploited.

            1. Let’s say only 15% of them vote. That means if you voted in their names those 15% go to the polls and someone has voted in their name already. That would be a marked increase in verifiable voter fraud, practically unheard of.

              Besides, I’m uncomfortable with the collectivist thinking behind making it harder for some entire groups to vote because of a guess about how many in that group will vote and then some other party trying to use their votes.

              1. having one standard and saying you have to get your ass down to an office and register is not making it “harder” for any group to vote. To say otherwise is to engage in the worst sort of collectivist thinking. Since when is having a single standard that everyone has to live by making it hard on a particular group?

                1. “Since when is having a single standard that everyone has to live by making it hard on a particular group?”

                  When different standards are harder for some people to meet? Libertarianism has long recognized in other contexts (such as business regulation) that every layer of red tape and bureaucracy makes it harder on certain groups to do things than others (the less connected, the less experienced in dealing with bureaucracy, the less well off).

                  Lets look at it another libertarian way: why do you want to allow governments to make it harder for people to give or deny their consent to those governments?

                  1. “Since when is having a single standard that everyone has to live by making it hard on a particular group?”

                    When different standards are harder for some people to meet?

                    This is where liberalism went off the rails in the mid 20th century.

                    You’re basically saying that the government should have no standards if they lead to inequality of outcome which is just a short step away from saying that the government should have different standards for differetn groups to advance equality of outcome.

                    1. So you deny all the libertarian work on how bureaucracy and regulation fall heavier on small businesspersons and poor people?

                      And there is no need to take a step to different standard. The libertarian way is to have very minimal standards for all.

              2. No, the typical vote fraud comes after the polls have closed and the ruling party officials get to cast votes for those who didn’t show up. This works particularly well where there is essentially no minority party – like in some 50 precincts in Phila. where McCain did not get even 1 vote by accident.

                1. If it happens after the polls close then that totally undercuts John’s argument regarding this program. It would be just as likely to happen to anyone who didn’t vote.

                  1. I agree – ID is good for stopping “retail” vote fraud, but not “wholesale” fraud and that’s where the real impact is on elections.
                    That’s not an argument for not having IDs to vote. I’d go even farther and require some sort of simple(ton)test that screens out those who are basically uninformed on the constitution.

                  2. Yes, but the more people who are registered non-voters, the more material fraudsters have to work with.

                    It would make more sense to photograph each person who signs in under a name, do an automated search for multi-voters, and then mail the picture and notice of the vote to the voter to so they can report any fraud. It would also make it harder to completely fake votes.

            2. It facilitates fraud because we know teens are so unlikely to vote. That list of registered voters who are unlikely to vote is a gold mine for fraud.

              The simple solution is same day registration. This guarantees the voter being registered is the voter casting the ballot.

              Having come from a same day registration state, I’ve always thought the requirement to pre-register to enjoy a Constitutionally guaranteed right was a little bit strange.

              1. Good point. Of course, this bill gets rid of same day registration!

              2. Thom,

                The only problem with same day registration, is how do you make sure that the person registering actually lives in the district? An ID card goes some of the way there. But what if I move and haven’t changed my address yet?

                1. If I recall correctly, in the state where I’m from, you could have two registered voters in your district vouch for you under oath. A lot of kids I knew actually had to do this, as it was still common back in the 90s for 18 year olds who didn’t drive to not have an identification card.

        3. How many of those kids are going to actually vote?

          How is that relevant? If those kids are being registered legitimately and in the correct districts then the problem isn’t the registration.

          To do that, you need a list of voters unlikely to show up at the polls. And boy does that give you one.

          So they’re going to forge ID documents to vote as these kids?

          1. You need to show ID where you vote, NEM? Who runs your state, the Klan?

          2. The scam only works if you don’t have to show an ID. This is why Dems hate voter ID laws so much. So yes, if you have an ID requirement, this is not a problem.

            1. An ID requirement was part of the package.

              1. As it should have been. But getting rid of the go out and register everyone programs is a good backup in case some court strikes down the ID requirement.

            2. I don’t think that is true. In non-voter ID districts you usually have to give a name and the election official present marks that name off the roles.

              1. Yes. And if you know Bo Cara isn’t going to show up, you go up and say “I am Bo Cara” and vote. Without an ID requirement, there is no way to tell if you are that person. That is how the scam works.

                1. But that would not work, at least a significant % of the time. Like I said, if only 5% of those 18 year olds show up at the polls, and their names are already crossed off as having voted, then you’ve got verifiable voter fraud in unheard of numbers. There’s no way to tell which of the young people will or won’t vote once registered, the scammer would have to randomly use some of their names, and then some of them would surely show up to vote, and you can’t cross the same name off twice.

                  1. And those people show up and find out someone has voted? Too late then.

      2. I don’t know, I remember such a program. I’d rather soon-to-be voters register after taking a civics class than have ACORN drop by their house and sign them up.

        I think the bill has some good things in it (some loosening of campaign finance restrictions) some neutral things (I can see both sides of same day registration) and some bad (barring straight ticket voting is pure nannyism and shortening early voting just comes off as voting discouragement). The strangest part of the bill I’ve read about elsewhere is a provision where if a college student votes somewhere other than their hometown (where their parents live) then the kids parents lose a tax break for dependency. Bizarre.

        1. Early voting is complete bullshit that enables fraud.

          Here’s a crazy idea.
          Fucking vote on election day.

          1. I would think early voting cuts against fraud. There’s more time to verify the registration and such.

            1. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

              Registrations are verified prior to voting, not after.

              Early voting and same day registration are begging for retail voter fraud, just bus the same group of people to different precincts every day and have them vote 10 or 20 times.

              1. They’re checked after too. How do you think they catch the few cases of fraud they do?

        2. I’m uncomfortable with the government doing anything to facilitate or interfere with voting. Because it’s almost always done to game the system, not for abstract ideals.

          1. Well, I think interfering is far worse than facilitating. At least with facilitating you can argue the government is trying to foster or live up to our founding principles of government legitimacy via consent of the people.

            1. Of course. But I’m still uncomfortable with the scales being tipped. People who don’t want to vote shouldn’t be pushed to do so. There may be great reasons for their abstention, after all. I mean, does anyone really want Episiarch to vote?

              1. I agree there should be no pushing. In some countries people are fined for not voting, and I see that as totalitarianism. But I don’t think making it really easy to vote is ‘pushing’ anyone.

                1. It’s not so much that I oppose making voting easy, but I do oppose making voter fraud (or manipulation) easy. So any improvements in access should be accompanied by improvements in fraud prevention.

                2. People that are too fucking lazy or uninterested to register and then go vote should not have a say in the operation of government. Of course, government should also mostly leave them alone.

                  1. Same response I made to John below: would you say in response to a bill adding layers of bureaucratic requirements to get a business license that “People that are too f*cking lazy or uninterested to fill out and then file the requisite paperwork should not get a business license?”

                    I think people have a basic right to make their living in the way they choose within certain very small limits and they have a right to give their consent or oppose the government that rules over them, and governments should put only the most minimal barriers in the way of both.

                    1. How hard is it to register to vote? Really? Compare that to the mess of trying to start a small business, especially if you actually try to comply with all of the laws, rather than ignore many of them, as many businesses do?

                    2. As I have both registered to vote and am trying to start a business, registering to vote is way fucking easier.

          2. I’d be more inclined to agree if this only happened at some schools and not others. If it applies universally it only games the system to the extent there might be more younger voters, but I’m not really sure that more votes is inherently a bad thing in this context.

        3. The strangest part of the bill I’ve read about elsewhere is a provision where if a college student votes somewhere other than their hometown (where their parents live) then the kids parents lose a tax break for dependency. Bizarre.

          That’s awesome. I always thought it was absurd that college students wanted to pretend to live in two places at once so blatantly.

          1. But they do live in two places at once. The laws of both places affect them. As long as they vote in only one who cares?

            1. How can the laws of two places affect them at the same time? It’s a farce. They’re not 12-year-olds at boarding school. Act like adults and stop fake-living with your parents.

              1. If they live in one place for several months of the year and another for several more then yes, the laws of both places effect them during that year. Sure, they effect them at different times, but you’re not asking that they be barred from voting anywhere are you? If not, who cares where they vote as long as its once and they have some tie to that place?

              2. Well, it seems like the flip side should be that once this is done the kids should be treated as independent for financial aid purposes. If they are going to be treated as adults and non fake-living with their parents, then their parents’ resources are irrelevant to financial aid decisions.

                1. Whether they are treated as independent for financial aid purposes should depend on whether they are independent or not.

                  Consider two kids: both voting age, one lives with his uncle part of the year but is financially taken care of, and lives the rest of the year, by his parents, the other lives on campus part of the year, paid for by his parents, and the rest at home. Why shouldn’t they both be allowed to vote either in the uncles or schools district or the parents district? They spend significant time at both, perhaps working and spending money at both, and they have to vote at one.

                  1. Whether they are treated as independent for financial aid purposes should depend on whether they are independent or not.

                    And disallowing the parents the deduction is prima facie evidence that they are independent.

                    They can’t have it both ways. If the kid is otherwise eligible to be claimed by the parent, taking away the deduction because he votes at school is tantamount to saying he’s independent. If you’re not going to treat him as independent for aid, you shouldn’t be allowed to treat him as independent for tax purposes.

              3. Not sure if the dorms can be used as legas residences. Off-campus housing – yes.

            2. Even if they do vote more than once, who cares? As long as they don’t vote twice in a state or federal election, I’d have no problem saying they should get to vote in both municipalities. Frankly, I think you should get to vote in any jursidiction that taxes you.

              If I’m resident enough to pay Lower Merion’s “employment oppurtunity tax” because I work there, then I should be resident enough to vote for the township board that decides how much that tax is.

      3. The right way to do it is to have a registrar where people go and actively register to vote. No motor voter. No register at school. No door-to-door registrations. If people want their franchise, they need to show up and do the work for it.

        That will cut down on voter fraud, because the number of people that are registered but have no intention of voting is astronomically high and subject to a great deal of abuse by a determined party.

        1. I think my view on this is colored by having spent time volunteering to get LP candidates on ballots. I’ve seen all the tricks local governments do to keep third parties off the ticket, so I don’t care much for laws that try to make people “work for” their right to vote. The government’s legitimacy only, and I mean only, exists to the extent that it has the consent of the people. When it makes rules to make the people “work for” the right to give that consent then things are backwards. The government should have to “work for” our consent.

          1. Keeping someone off the ballot is not the same as making sure that only registered voters vote and are who they say they are.

            You can’t equate the two things. Keeping candidates off the ballot doesn’t do anything to make elections more honest. Requiring an ID and making people register does.

            The bottom line is, when someone cheats and votes for someone else or votes when they don’t live in the district, they have effectively disenfranchised a legitimate voter by canceling his vote out. So if you are so interested in everyone having the vote, you should be especially interested in stopping fraud. If you are not willing to stop fraud, then you really don’t care about people having the franchise. The franchise is only good if the election is fair and free from fraud.

            1. Barriers to ballot access and voter access are about the same thing: protecting politicians. Barriers to ballot access limit the choices of the voters other than the incumbent, and barriers to voters makes it easier for the incumbent to continue making rules for people without seeking their full consent. We shouldn’t have to work to give your consent, they should have to work to get it.

              Additionally, ballot access is intertwined with voter access, since you have to get a certain number of signatures of registered voters, and usually you have to get the signatures in far ahead of the election. The less people registered far ahead of the election has a significant effect on ballot access drives. I’ve seen this.

              1. Allowing free ballot access doesn’t allow for fraud or disenfranchise anyone. Not enforcing voter standards does.

          2. Ballot access != voter access. You’re talking two very different issues here.

            As far as ballot access goes, all rules should be abolished and any person wishing to run should be placed on the ballot assuming they meet any age requirements. The two party system would be done in 5 years.

            1. But people might vote for someone other than the duopoly! That’s un-American!

        2. Exactly. If you don’t give a shit enough to bother to register and show up on election day, you really don’t give a shit enough to have a say in how the election turns out.

          1. Would you say in response to a bill adding layers of effort to get a business license that if ‘you don’t give a sh*t to bother to fill out the requisite paperwork to have a business license you don’t give a sh*t enough to have a business?’

            1. I wouldn’t support business licenses. But if I did, yes, I wouldn’t think it was the government’s job to hold your hand. All they are obligated to do is give everyone fair treatment and set reasonable standards.

      4. But if they’re required to show ID, then it doesn’t matter how many eligible but unlikely-to-vote people are on the rolls.

        We need voter ID to prevent fraud.

        Those other measures seem designed to, well, not make it more difficult to vote, but to roll-back some programs which definitely encouraged larger turnout which is generally favorable to democrats.

        1. Yes. An ID requirement is all that is necessary. And the rest is just partisan. At the same time, I don’t have a problem with making people put forth some effort to register and vote. That of course is not a popular position and not why they did this however.

        2. I agree that there should be some voter ID law in place. And if people complain of the cost, make the state issue them for free.*

          SLD applies since we shouldn’t even have a government-issued ID be a requirement to drive a car.

          1. Voting would be the one thing I required a standard issue ID for. I think issuing IDs is actually one of the few worthwhile government services. People having IDs that are on their face valid makes it much easier to do business. The problem with a private ID system is that there is no guarantee that one place will take my ID issued by another place. A government ID solves that problem and makes things more efficient.

            The problem with drivers’ licenses is not that they are a government ID. That is the one good thing about them. The problem is that it is a license to do something that everyone should be able to do without the government’s permission.

            1. I’m afraid I have the historical libertarian discomfort with standard issue government ID.

              1. Do you think the lack of an ID will prevent the government from doing you harm? That is not one of the more rational Libertarian fears.

        3. Do you really? Firstly, big fraud is done by election officials, and they could just use a database to fill in false voter ID information.

          It seems like having a system linked to an external database that is readable by the public (including watchdogs), in which each person that votes is photographed at sign in, would help with both types of fraud, and doesn’t require any form of ID. It would also allow for crowdsourcing of fraud detection efforts.

    2. This seems like a good law except for the abolition of straight-ticket voting.

      Since there are voters who vote for parties rather than individuals, why make it difficult for them? It’s either a civic idealism opposition to party politics – which I don’t believe for an instant – or it’s a device to make it more difficult for straight-ticket voters.

      I am totally for showing an ID at the polls, if only because the Dems scream bloody murder about it – says to me that they have something sinister to hide.

      I would say the governor should veto the bill and say he *would* sign a bill that kept straight-ticket voting.

  33. What happens when you put a bunch of cops together on a golf course with booze handy? Well, one of them is ultimately gonna do something stupid. Fortunately, the court let him enter a plea deal to a lesser charge even though they had plenty of witnesses, had blood results attesting to his BAC being well over the limit from the hospital and his admission to being drunk.

    Because, you know, they let civilians in slam-dunk cases plea down all the time.

    1. “McGreevy being a law enforcement officer had nothing to do with it,” he said.

      Haaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha!

      1. Yeah, cops routinely omit field-sobriety tests and leave it to the hospital to check for alcohol levels.

    2. Uh. No. The State’s Attorney in my neck of the woods never lets that go. Unless she’s the fiance of one of his prosecutors. Then she can get adjudication withheld 3 times in one year. (And, since a nolo contendre to DUI in FL is adjudicated guilty by statute, you shouldn’t be able to withhold adjudication.)

  34. http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3061#comic

    Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has an excellent take on MSM reaction to the NSA scandal.

    1. How is it a “pimping trial”? I don’t see how going to parties with hookers is worthy of prosecution. When I read the headline I thought he was actually a pimp instead of just some rich, ugly depraved guy.

  35. Pics of the newly painted Lincoln Memorial.

    1. Do we know where LibertyMike was last night?

      1. Hey, watch the accusations. I saw Mike at Home Depot last night–he couldn’t have done it, because he was buying paint for his house. Martha Stewart paint, I believe.

        1. I think he would have included “sic semper tyrannis” with the random splashing.

          1. Perhaps he did, but it was already cleaned up. Would explain why maybe a square foot of paint is making national news.

            1. Do you guys really think that I would drive 400 miles and back just to dump paint on this loser?

              Sheesh. I thought you guys would think that I would go in for something more dramatic.

              However, against the advice of counsel, I am publicly admitting that my favorite color is green. No it has nothing to do with money; rather, it is because I think its the best looking color and I wear some green, every, single day. Socks, shirts, sweat shirts, sweaters and suits.

    2. What, that’s national news? I thought the whole thing was green. Some splattered paint? A janitor could’ve removed it in about ten minutes with no mention of this mild vandalism to the world at large.

      1. Yes, but since this is federal property, the removal effort would have to be full OSHA. Gloves, masks, possibly fans or respirators to dispel fumes.

        1. You forgot: drawing up an impact study, putting a bid out for contractors to conduct the impact study, conducting the impact study, finding out the paint-remover purchased 10 years ago doesn’t meet environmental standards, putting out a bid for new paint remover that meets the 50-page list of requirements, reviewing the bids, finding a supplier, getting the supplies delivered, getting the supplies inventoried, drawing up paint-removal requirements, creating a project plan and schedule, testing, rescheduling, budgeting….

          (you think I’m joking)

          1. Think they’ll get it cleaned up before the end of the year?

          2. Oh, and increased security. DHS staff screening and fondling visitors.

          3. From the article:

            An oily liquid was poured on the wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 2007. It took weeks to remove.

            Weeks? For an “oily substance”?

            Geeze. Paint’ll take ’em a year.

    3. Also, there are no security cameras recording inside the Lincoln Memorial? I find that impossible to believe.

      1. There probably are, but they don’t want to have to admit that.

        1. Especially when they show a skinny, older black male in a suit with a blue tie slinking off.

    4. Oh god, that’s horrible. How can they show those awful pictures? It’s a good thing they shut down the memorial so no one will be traumatized by accidentally viewing a few drops of paint on Lincoln.

      An oily liquid was poured on the wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 2007. It took weeks to remove.

      This will obviously require a special commission and could take a decade and millions of dollars to clean up, not including the salaries of those on the commission.

      1. Has it been declared a Superfund site yet?

      2. Dangit, didn’t read this comment.

    5. That’s the lamest vandalism I ever saw. Where’s the wang painted on Abe’s pants? Where’s the “Booth was right” spray-painted in red paint? Just a few easily-washed-off splashes of green.

  36. Weiner Counts Up Post-Resignation Relationships: ‘I Don’t Believe More than Three’

    Former congressman and current New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner told reporters that he engaged in sexually explicit Internet exchanges with up to three women after his resignation from Congress. “I don’t believe I had any more than three,” the Democrat said at a campaign event in Brooklyn, after reporters asked how many of the relationships took place after his resignation.

    Was it two, or was it three… it’s so hard to keep track of sexting partners where there are so few. What a lying little weasel this guy is.

    From the comments:

    By happy coincidence the magic number for inciting feminist outrage is 4.

    1. One, two [loud cracking sound], three. Three.

  37. What happens when you put a bunch of cops together on a golf course with booze handy? Well, one of them is ultimately gonna do something stupid. Fortunately, the court let him enter a plea deal to a lesser charge even though they had plenty of witnesses, had blood results attesting to his BAC being well over the limit from the hospital and his admission to being drunk.

    Because, you know, they let civilians in slam-dunk cases plea down all the time. -Sloopy

    Except it WASN’T a slam dunk case, as you conveniently left out…

    Prosecutor Brian Staebell said Tuesday that his office agreed to reduce the DUI charge to a wet-reckless because there were “problems of proof” with the hospital blood sample and medical workers who were reluctant to testify in fear of violating federal health care privacy laws.

    “McGreevy being a law enforcement officer had nothing to do with it,” he said.

    Hospitals’ tests for alcohol are different than law enforcement’s and not always as accurate, he said

    hospital tests ARE different. For example, when we do a blood draw, it has to be with a NON alcohol based fluid vs. isopropyl alcohol at the injection site.

    The article clearly shows a reason why he was offered the plea deal. I am sure you believe the prosecutor is lying because of your prejudice, which allows you to discount stuff right in front of your face.

    Problems of proof are a common reason for offering a plea deal and you have evidence the prosecutor is lying.

    1. “Hospitals’ tests for alcohol are different than law enforcement’s and not always as accurate, he said”

      And there was no law-enforcement test for alcohol of the suspect at this law-enforcement event because…

      1. My edumacated guess is that since he was injured and taken to the hospital, they didn’t have an opportunity to do it (note that in my state portable breath tests are not admissble as evidence but can be used to help estalish PC)

        in my state, there would be no test in the field that would establish BAC. There is one at the station.

        I can’t speak for the jurisdictions procedures and rules of evidence and such, but when we have a suspected drunk driver, the ambulance and medical stuff takes precedence over the criminal investigation.

        We use grey top tubes for the blood draw and it is not clear why implied consent laws weren’t read to him at the hospital and grey top used.

        Simply put, there is no way of knowing from the article, as to why. That doesn’t mean I am going assume nefarious double standard on behalf of the officers w/o knowing the facts.

        Also, once they start administering IV drugs, in some jurisdictions, a blood test by law enforcement is no longer valid becaus it can taint the results

        But again, I’m just speculating here. What I am not doing is kneejerking and assuming that there was preferential treamtnet when there is no evidence of that, and when there is an explanatory statement by the prosecutor.

        1. OK, so if a “civilian” had crashed this law-enforcement event and had a drunk-driving accident, the cops wouldn’t have field-tested him because they were concerned about his health and the need for him to get prompt medical attention?

          1. Educate me – please give me some examples of “civilians” being spared a field sobriety test when he’s obviously drunk, because the cops are so concerned about getting him to the hospital right away?

            1. It happens all the time in vehicle collisions.

              Broadnax v. State, 995 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.?Austin 1999, no pet.).

              In this case there was a high speed wreck in which a passenger in the vehicle was seriously injured. After detecting alcohol on defendant’s breath and considering the circumstances of the wreck, the officer determined the defendant was intoxicated, put him in custody, and informed him a mandatory specimen would be taken. Defendant was read the mandatory blood warning and consented to the sample. The significance of the holding is that without FSTs and evidence other than the circumstances of the wreck observable at the scene, the Court held that a mandatory blood specimen could have been taken and that the defendant’s consent removed the need of the State to prove that statute applied.

              See: no FST’s because she was injured in the collision

              Here’s an excerpt from a DUI defense attorney website

              “Police training discourages attempting to administer field sobriety tests to someone suffering the effects of an accident,”



              1. When law enforcement investigates an auto accident, one thing that they may look for is whether a driver was under the influence of alcohol. However, if the driver was injured, officers may not be able to conduct any kind of field sobriety test. Without such evidence of intoxication, a person accused of a DUI may be able to successfully win a dismissal of the charge against them.


                1. “After responding to the crash, the police officer claims he smelled alcohol on the man’s breath and had reasonable suspicion to conduct field tests. This man was also visibly frustrated and needed medical, so a field sobriety test was not administered. ”


              2. OK, I believe I misspoke about field sobriety tests – I had meant to ask about any technique to detect alcohol on the scene of the accident (including blood tests), and here there was a blood test. With the cop in the golf story, they waited until he got the hospital.

  38. RKBA news.

    LEOSA has just been extended to military police, giving them the right to carry in all 50 states after they retire. Previously, this privilege (and it IS a privilege) was extended only to “civilian” LEO’s upon retirement.

    18 USC ? 926C

    1. And yet your dumb ass comes on here all the time to tell us how there’s no double standard at all for LEO.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.