Patterico's Pontifications

2/16/2016

Get Back, Loretta! Go Home.

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:45 am

Big Media is starting to take note of Tom Goldstein’s prediction that Loretta Lynch is the most likely nominee for Scalia’s spot.

Goldstein’s post revolves primarily around his well-founded belief that Obama will pander to voters through naked identity politics:

Democrats have two political priorities: motivating turn-out by their own voters and persuading independents to vote for the Democratic nominee. Two Democratic constituencies in particular vote in disproportionately low numbers: young Democrats and minorities.

The youth vote makes little difference here because the age range for a serious nominee (roughly, forty-five to fifty-two) does not directly touch that constituency. There are specific potential nominees who would motivate young liberal voters – Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example. But those nominees are the ones who would give Republicans the opportunity to hold hearings and reject the appointment on an up-or-down vote without serious cost.

Minority voters are a different matter. Traditionally, black and Hispanic turn-out has trailed white turn-out. In the 2004 election, the percentages were white 67.2%, black 60.0%, and Hispanic 47.2%. In 2008, they were white 66.1%, black 64.7%, and Hispanic 49.9%. The 2012 election was the first in which the proportion of black turn-out exceeded that of whites. The percentages were white 64.1%, black 66.2%, and Hispanic 48.0%.

Overall, in 2012, the white proportion of the voting population decreased to 71.1% and the minority proportion increased to 28.9% (22.8% black and Hispanic). For that reason, many attribute President Obama’s reelection to minority turn-out.

The best candidate politically would probably be Hispanic. Hispanic voters both (a) are more politically independent than black voters and therefore more in play in the election, and (b) historically vote in low numbers. In that sense, the ideal nominee from the administration’s perspective in these circumstances is already on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina.

On the other hand, I think the President personally will be very tempted to appoint a black Justice to the Court, rather than a second Hispanic. His historical legacy rests materially on advancing black participation and success in American politics. The role Thurgood Marshall previously played in that effort is inescapable. The President likely sees value in providing a counterpoint to the Court’s only black Justice, the very conservative Clarence Thomas.

For those reasons, I think the President will pick a black nominee.

Goldstein says Kamala Harris probably wants to be a California Senator and then President, leaving Loretta Lynch as the most likely black nominee.

Leftists would howl with delight. Ha ha Republicans will have to reject the first black female nominee! Racists and sexists! But I think such a nomination might be a gift of sorts for Republicans, if they play their cards right. Can you imagine the fun they could have in the hearings, asking her about Hillary’s emails? or about her burning desire to throw people in jail for “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges towards violence” (despite the very different Constitutional standard that applies)?

I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

211 Responses to “Get Back, Loretta! Go Home.”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. probably but who is willing to be the matador, tillis, since he’s not up this year, doubtful,

    narciso (732bc0)

  3. Amen, Patrick. What a toady she has turned out to be!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  4. Re asking Ms. Lynch about the Hillarity! emails – I share the frisson of delight but she will just hide under the cover of “ongoing investigation, can’t pre-judge where the facts will take us, can’t respond to hypotheticals”.

    MAYBE there is some brilliant line of questioning that could crack that, but it beats me.

    Tom Maguire (41790c)

  5. “If Hillary Clinton is indicted and convicted and appeals, do you pledge to recuse yourself from the appeal?”

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  6. It’s an honor to see Tom Maguire commenting here, by the way…

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  7. madam secretary, how is it you have not been able to get convictions, not plea deals, out of any of the players in the subprime scandal,

    narciso (732bc0)

  8. The Democrats want to use this as a way to win back the Senate. I have no confidence in McConnell and the GOP Senators who are retiring or running for re-election. They care more about themselves than the people.

    DRJ (15874d)

  9. Does the Senate GOP have enough party discipline to allow an Obama nominee to come to the floor for the proverbial “Straight up or down vote” — and vote a nominee down along straight party lines?

    Pouncer (d90bef)

  10. yes, this is what it’s all about, and mcconnell doesn’t strike me as a gandalf type, if there was someone like sasse, doing the interrogation,

    narciso (732bc0)

  11. This presupposes that the sort of voter being targeted by this cynical scheme would pay one second’s worth of attention to the nomination hearings. They won’t, and the media will gleefully support the narrative that the nasty GOP won’t confirm a black woman so the low information voter can should “Racist!” Anyone who already plans to vote Dem despite all of Hillary’s shenanigans won’t be swayed by any revelations coming from the hearings.

    JVW (30a532)

  12. madam secretary, how is it you have not been able to get convictions, not plea deals, out of any of the players in the subprime scandal,

    And why isn’t Jon Corzine living in 10 x 10 accommodations furnished by the federal government?

    JVW (30a532)

  13. Barcky was a man who thought he was a genius
    Always thought he caught on fast
    Barcky got a wife tho he preferred teh penis
    And some of that Reggie’s sass
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged
    Get back Barcky… Go home
    Get back, get back
    Back to where you once belonged
    Get back, get back
    Back to where you once belonged
    Get back Barcky

    Sweet Loretta Lynch thought she was her own woman
    But she kowtowed to teh Prez
    All the girls around her said she’ll lay with no man
    But she’ll make it with a lez
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged
    Get back Loretta. Go home
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged
    Get back, get back
    Get back to where you once belonged

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  14. The questioning would be in the Judiciary Committee, wouldn’t they? Off tge top of my head, Cruz, Lee, Graham and Cornyn are Judiciary Committee members and lawyers, so they should be able to ask good questions. There could be more but the Chairman, Grassley, is not a lawyer. (Lee’s father was Reagan’s Solicitor General.) It seems to me that Cruz and Lee are the only ones who have the desire and discipline to ask effective questions.

    DRJ (15874d)

  15. “Loretta Lynch Confirmed as New Attorney General — Here Are the 10 Republicans Who voted for her.”

    The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch, approving her with help of Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    While Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in the Senate earlier in the day, he was the only member of the chamber not to vote. Cruz had opposed Lynch.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/23/loretta-lynch-confirmed-as-new-attorney-general-here-are-the-10-republicans-who-voted-for-her/

    sound awake (04e750)

  16. Given what is now known to the public, Madame Attorney General, how is it that you have not sought inditement of the former Secretary of State for violations of law and exposing our nation’s secrets to foreign powers? And given that you have not fulfilled your duty in your current position, how can you expect us to consent to your appointment to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land?

    Loren (66de82)

  17. “Paul Ryan: ‘We’re Not Going To Be Talking About Visa Caps”

    Ryan eventually admitted the he would not bring up legislation desired by the overwhelming majority of his Party: “We’re not going to be talking about visa caps in our agenda,” Ryan declared.

    As Breitbart News has previously documented, Ryan has devoted much of his career to preserving and expanding mass migration into the United States— a key part of the GOP establishment policy platform.

    Ryan’s admission is significant as it means that the leader of the Republican Party in Congress has all but announced that the will of GOP voters on the signature issue of 2016 will not be part of the Republican agenda.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/15/paul-ryan-were-not-going-to-be-talking-about-visa-caps/

    sound awake (04e750)

  18. While Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in the Senate earlier in the day, he was the only member of the chamber not to vote.

    And Donald Trump had been telling everyone NOT to let her become Attorney General because if Scalia were to die, she’d be appointed in his place. Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR!!!1!1!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. I’ve been waiting for Obama to nominate his wife.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  20. Hatch, Graham, and Flake — who voted for Lynch — are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think it only takes 2 Republican votes for a nominee to get out of Committee.

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. They will be skewered if they vote No. Senators like this have the most fragile egos. I doubt they will withstand the pressure to let the Senate vote.

    DRJ (15874d)

  22. Yes, the fact that the Judiciary Committee passed sweet Loretta not all that long ago is what makes her the safest bet.

    Is she Harvard/Yale trash, though?

    nk (dbc370)

  23. i have no respect for Loretta Lynch whatsoever so that’s a really bad pic

    haven’t heard a peep about this yet at work today btw

    it’s like nobody even knows he was murdered this weekend

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  24. Harvard undergrad and law. Dang it!

    nk (dbc370)

  25. *pick* i mean

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  26. She takes a pretty bad pic, too. Some people are just not photogenic.

    nk (dbc370)

  27. it’s like we learned nothing from the holder experience, the borg will only nominate like minded zampolit, guiliani was fooled as well,

    narciso (732bc0)

  28. that’s a requirement for this job i believe Mr. nk

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  29. madame secretary, why are you crushing a defenseless hamlet like ferguson, where crime has skyrocketed since your intervention,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. Black people are not all that gay friendly when they’re not trying to get Obama elected. Hmm. I wonder how she feels about black babies being the most that get killed in the womb by Margaret Sanger’s zombies.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. this is all so depressing

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  32. This is why it’s good McConnell pre-announced there would be no vote. Republicans don’t have to own the idea that they are denying any particular nominee/demographic.

    mayBee (b709ed)

  33. Can you imagine the fun they could have in the hearings, asking her about Hillary’s emails?

    As much fun as it would be, I can’t imagine anything useful coming out of it. I expect ABCNNBCBS would report it as “Republicans playing politics by asking about irrelevant issues” — and, loathe as I am to defend them, it’s not an obviously relevant issue.
    The question, “If Hillary Clinton is indicted and convicted and appeals, do you pledge to recuse yourself from the appeal?” makes the relevancy clearer, but I find it difficult to believe that they’ll open questioning like that.
    Of course, ABCNNPR will report it as “Republicans playing politics by asking about irrelevant issues” anyway, so I don’t predict too much difference.

    CayleyGraph (353727)

  34. I don’t think it’s a big deal that several Republicans voted for Loretta Lynch’s confirmation. Obama has to have “somebody” confirmed. Often times, it’s a case of the devil you know VS the devil you don’t know. There are consequences to elections. And the holier-than-thou conservatives who sat out the 2012 election due to Romney’s alleged lack of purity need to realize that.
    With a Supreme Court nomination, there’s an informal straw poll taken beforehand, and then GOP Senators (particularly ones in blue-ish or purple states, or in roles of leadership) may strategically vote “yea” in favor of someone they know was going to be confirmed anyway. It cuts both ways.

    If a Republican Senator voted for Lynch’s confirmation, it doesn’t suggest that they think she was going to be a great Attorney General.

    Let’s keep in mind, Scalia was confirmed 98-0. That means Democrats voted for him, even though he wasn’t their cup of tea.

    That being said, the GOP needs to stonewall and delay with this forthcoming nomination. Our country needs an acting Attorney General, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that demands we have a “ninth” Supreme Court justice.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  35. His historical legacy rests materially on advancing black participation and success in American politics.

    this is not true

    nominating a corrupt and pliable flunky who has no chance of being confirmed does not advance black participation and success in American politics

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  36. yes, but the devil they proffer is bad, take hagel for instance, who was inveighed against in these pages,

    narciso (732bc0)

  37. Will Lynch agree to stop using catalyst data?

    mg (31009b)

  38. or about her burning desire to throw people in jail for “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges towards violence” (despite the very different Constitutional standard that applies)?

    Patterico, I’m disappointed that you propagate this falsehood. Lynch never said that. The headline of the article you linked is a blatant lie, and is contradicted by the article itself.

    After touting the numbers of “investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred” and “bigoted actions” against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect “actions predicated on violent talk” and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

    That’s right, it doesn’t, and surely nobody has ever claimed that it does. And here you have the key quote, the only mention of prosecution in her speech:

    “I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America,” said Lynch. “They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

    Actions will be prosecuted, not speech. And I’m sure you agree that is exactly as it should be. Speech, no matter how violent, is protected, unless it’s calculated to cause its audience to immediately commit a crime, without first thinking about it; violent actions, however, are not protected at all.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  39. If a black racist Muslim apologist gets nominated, can we also put Trump in when Ginsburg retires?

    CrustyB (69f730)

  40. This presupposes that the sort of voter being targeted by this cynical scheme would pay one second’s worth of attention to the nomination hearings. They won’t, and the media will gleefully support the narrative that the nasty GOP won’t confirm a black woman so the low information voter can should “Racist!” Anyone who already plans to vote Dem despite all of Hillary’s shenanigans won’t be swayed by any revelations coming from the hearings.

    Even if this is true, how does not holding hearings help? Those who will ignore the hearings and cry “racism” will still do so without hearings, and they’ll have a better argument with which to sway those voters who are paying attention.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  41. Would like to see Lynch nominated and confronted with her insane and unconstitutional idea about criminalizing the 1st Amendment rights of those critical of Islam. I know, that means depending on the likes of Lindsay Graham and Orin Hatch growing testicles and brains but a guy can dream.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  42. #41 Bugg,

    You make a good point. If Barack wants a fight, let’s expose that his angelic little nominee (supposing its Lynch) is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And then the mushy moderate “independent” voters who generally determine the outcome of the Presidential election will see that she’s not even close to being the “best” nominee for the job.

    See, because what Obama wants to do is say, “Look, the Republicans won’t confirm her because she’s a black woman!!!” when in reality we won’t confirm her because she’s a left wing nut. We need the electorate to see the distinction.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  43. The Senate voted 56–43 in favor of Lynch, approving her with help of Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

    That was for AG. 0bama was entitled to have a Democrat AG, so her politics were no reason not to consent to her appointment. He’s not entitled to have a justice with his politics, so there’s no reason to suppose any of these 10 will support her.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  44. Would like to see Lynch nominated and confronted with her insane and unconstitutional idea about criminalizing the 1st Amendment rights of those critical of Islam.

    Small problem: she has no such idea. It’s a blatant lie, and you should be ashamed of repeating it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  45. http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett

    Millhouse-

    AG Lynch comes very close to saying speech critical of Islam not meeting her sense of nonviolent could be worthy of criminal prosecution. Unaware of her or any Obama Administration getting on their hind legs about speech critical of any other religion. But Obama himself has gone to the national prayer breakfast to badmouth Christians, said idiotic things about the wonders of Islam (even claiming ancient Egypt was somehow Islamic),selected as his chief adviser an Iranian Muslim, selected as his CIA chief a disgruntled Muslim convert, installed chiefs of DHS and NASA with direction they kowtow to Islam…I could go on.Nominate Lynch, and let’s have that discussion under oath. Enough with the PC nonsense. We need a government that doesn’t favor any religion over it’s citizens and their rights and safety.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  46. While Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was in the Senate earlier in the day, he was the only member of the chamber not to vote.

    And Donald Trump had been telling everyone NOT to let her become Attorney General because if Scalia were to die, she’d be appointed in his place. Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR!!!1!1!
    ………………………………………………………………………………………

    Can’t wait until Jan. 2017….EverythingTrump touches should turn to Gold. Magic pixie dust will flow through the air and America will suddenly be great again. I am sticking needled in my eyes to avoid watching day by day how stupid America is yet again in these quite simple elections….

    jrt for cruz (bc7456)

  47. http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett

    Patterico already linked that and I already commented on it. The headline is a damned lie, and is contradicted by the text of the article.

    AG Lynch comes very close to saying speech critical of Islam not meeting her sense of nonviolent could be worthy of criminal prosecution.

    No, she doesn’t come close to that, and she certainly doesn’t say it, which is what the headline claims, and what you and Patterico have repeated.

    Unaware of her or any Obama Administration getting on their hind legs about speech critical of any other religion.

    Irrelevant.

    selected as his chief adviser an Iranian Muslim,

    What on earth are you talking about? Jarrett is neither Iranian nor Moslem.

    selected as his CIA chief a disgruntled Muslim convert

    Again, what on earth are you talking about? Yes, Brennan loves the Moors, but he isn’t one himself. Making these wild accusations only discredits anything else you have to say.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  48. Elibiari is an advisor to the DHS. He is not an advisor to 0bama, let alone his chief advisor.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  49. lets put it another way, is there anyone in the top ranks of govt, who has any concerns about salafi proselytizing through the various front groups, the visits to al hijrah and the baltimore mosque suggest not,

    narciso (732bc0)

  50. lets put it another way, is there anyone in the top ranks of govt, who has any concerns about salafi proselytizing

    I doubt it. If they are concerned, they keep it quiet. But how does that justify the claim we are discussing? What has it even got to do with that claim?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  51. As I wrote above to Bugg, the fact that we are “Unaware of her or any Obama Administration getting on their hind legs about speech critical of any other religion” is true but irrelevant.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  52. oh my goodness huge ted cruz scandal breaking this is terrible

    can this day get any more depressing god bless america

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  53. he drank as a teenager in high school, stop the presses.

    narciso (732bc0)

  54. Elibiari is an advisor to the DHS. He is not an advisor to 0bama, let alone his chief advisor.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/16/2016 @ 10:36 am

    Who – in their infinite wisdom – appointed him?

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  55. I’m shocked and unspeakably appalled at the devastating, earth-shattering news that yet again we have confirmation that when Ted Cruz was a teenager, he, from time to time, acted like a teenager!

    Clearly, this (Ted Cruz, as a minor, caught in unlawful possession of alcohol) is a vastly more dire and disqualifying development than Hilary’s piffling little legal issues, such as over a thousand violations of the Espionage Act as an already-ancient adult.

    /leftymode

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  56. A-ha… Janet Napolitano… sheesh.

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  57. According the 538 election calculator, slight shifts in the black vote matter more than shifts in the hispanic vote. Probably because the hispanic voters reside much more in safe states than swing states compared to black voters. So pandering to black voters would have a greater influence on the 2016 Presidential election than pandering to hispanic voters.

    Brad (74d84e)

  58. If Barack was a member of “The Choom Gang” in high school, then it’s proof that he’s cool. But if Ted Cruz drank some Pabst beers while in high school, it’s proof that he shouldn’t be allowed to be President.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. OMG a 17-year-old drank alcohol. The world is about to end. As if anyone having vapors over this didn’t drink at 17. Oh, and once he got drunk at college. Please tell me who didn’t, and what exactly is supposed to be wrong with that. It wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t immoral, so it must have been fattening. And the old story about his bathrobe. Again, so ****ing what? What exactly are they insinuating?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  60. Colonel Haiku (bb3c31) — 2/16/2016 @ 8:14 am

    Nicely done, Herr Oberst. I could imagine McCartney on those lyrics.

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  61. And Donald Trump had been telling everyone NOT to let her become Attorney General because if Scalia were to die, she’d be appointed in his place. Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR!!!1!1!

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/16/2016 @ 8:31 am

    Trump doesn’t seem to grasp the rudimentary basics of 3-level chess. Monopoly seems more his speed.

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  62. Here’s another angle regarding a Lynch nomination to the SC: condemnation for her failure to indict Hillary Clinton can be spun as just Republican (Vast right-wing conspiracy!) attempts to derail her SC nomination.

    And here’s a nice bit of conflict of interest: if Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll probably, oh-so-coincidentally, stick with the person who didn’t indict her as the SC nominee.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  63. Arizona CJ,

    This is why it’s important to vote for the Republican nominee for President, even when the nominee is someone who isn’t half as conservative as you wish.
    Say what you want about McCain or Romney, but neither of them would be nominating Loretta Lynch.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  64. If nominated, I would schedule hearing with all deliberate speed, making sure that all subpoenaed documents had been delivered to the committee before any hearings began. then raking the poor girl over the coals before voting her down, sometime in July.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. And why isn’t Jon Corzine living in 10 x 10 accommodations furnished by the federal government?
    JVW

    Corzine, too, is my pet peeve. The SEC said, “Well, we can’t figure out how he did it,” so therefore there will be no indictment.

    He has been suffering terribly, though.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/07/embattled-jon-corzine-to-host-ready-for-hillary-hamptons-fundraiser/

    Patricia (5fc097)

  66. Say what you want about McCain or Romney, but neither of them would be nominating Loretta Lynch.

    I am sure there would be plenty I would not like about McCain — he is altogether too much of a statist — but he would not be putting a socialist race hustler on the court. I think.

    Romney had decades working in REAL private enterprise, living by his own wits instead of being repeatedly saved by the wits of others (like some I could name). He had perhaps too much trust of government, but it wasn’t ever his first choice when it came to solving problems.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  67. wrt hate speech. If you’re trying to fill out a sentence, you may reach for a phrase which you vaguely–because you’re hurried–think fits. So if that is why Lynch hauled in the “predicated on speech” piece then I guess that’s okay. Except that it was a go-to when under pressure. Got to mean something because it can’t mean nothing.
    OTOH, it could be a lawyerly way of warning about speech without…warning about speech.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  68. The drinking age was moved to 21 to appease the feds-under Reagan, no less, by tying it to federal highway funds. It’s done more to foster stupid behavior than anyone could imagine. And created 2 generations who now view the law as a stupid game rather than sensible regulation. people still drink before getting to 21, we simply have made them scofflaws. In one instance of too many now Fox spokesmouth Jeanine Pirro as Westchester County, NY DA basically criminalized a whole bunch of otherwise normal kids for cheap headlines.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  69. Imagine this test. Give a person 10 $5 bills and drop him in the middle of a Sao Paulo slum, dressed in a crappy t-shirt and jeans. Assume no one recognizes them. Which ones make it to civilization?

    Mitt Romney
    John McCain
    Barack Obama
    Donald Trump

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  70. Since Lynch has so recently been confirmed as AG, and by such a comfortable margin (56/43 in April 2015), the Dems can make maximum use of the “hypocrisy” charge. That’s the second biggest thing she has going for her (after, of course, her race).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  71. In the last GOP debate, two candidates — Kasich and Bush — indicated that they might support someone who’s a “consensus” choice even if that person were nominated by Obama.

    They obviously believe there are such people out there.

    I don’t, and the fact that they do is another reason they’re far below Cruz and Rubio on my ranking of favorite GOP candidates.

    If the choice were between either of them and Donald Trump, though, I’d crawl over ground glass on my belly to get to the polls to vote against Trump.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  72. oh my goodness you’ll get scritchered up

    if i had to pick between Mr. The Donald and Hillary

    well, we’ll just have to cross that bridge when we come to it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  73. Mr. Feet, if you’re going to engage in ridiculous conspiracy theories about Justice Scalia’s death, you should read up on the Marfa Lights. Obama is conspiring with the UFOs and little green men!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  74. Beldar,
    Vis a vis the past confirmation of Lynch, I think we can make the argument that there’s a distinction between confirmation of an explicitly political appointment (US AG) VS the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  75. #70… Mitt Romney… He’s under the direct protection of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  76. And thanks a bunch, Bill H!

    Colonel Haiku (bb3c31)

  77. yes yes i been there!

    there’s a plaque there that says how clayton and modesta williams donated the fancy visitor center

    here are some others i ran into once

    my favorite though is going to the marfa prada

    also when you there you have to try a marfa burrito – i’ve yet to try one myself but it’s on my list for sure – you can get them at several different places but you have way better luck on the weekend and i was there in mid-week

    now when you go this is the place to stay – there’s a sister hotel to it in Van Horn that I got to stay at once

    driving from carlsbad to van horn late at night on 54 was the spookiest drive I’ve ever taken – there’s so many chupacabras dancing in the mists as you drive through all you can do is pray and pray

    i’m kinda pining for a road trip can you tell

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  78. happyfeet, you have to check out the fake Prada storefront on a desert highway outside Marfa. It’s kind of famous. That’s what the Google thing is for!

    Also, the 1956 George Stevens film “Giant” was filmed there.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  79. i did get to go Mr. Supporter you really have to be paying attention i think i passed it more than once

    in back of the store there’s pretty horses

    on one of the other highways going into marfa there’s these concrete art installations – i was a little underwhelmed but it was a fun drive

    the giant house is on private land i didn’t make an effort to get out there

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  80. happyfeet, Marfa is kind of an artsy little outpost. I think that for artsy types who feel that Santa Fe and Albuquerque are too “metro,” they end up making the move to Marfa. Something about Marfa having some nice lights, or whatever. (LOL)
    New Mexico has nice landscapes and you can visit a boutique and find a nice southwestern style throw rug for your bungalow, but I don’t think that Domino’s or Subway has made it out there yet. Most people driving on I-10 must just figure, “Hey, honey, another eight hours of driving and we can be in Flagstaff!”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  81. “Speaker Paul Ryan is the Tea Party’s greatest triumph”

    People of all political convictions should be excited about Paul Ryan’s assumption of the House speaker’s gavel. Even if you disagree with Ryan’s fiscally conservative politics, you have to admit that the Wisconsin congressman is smart, focused on policy, and generally an honest broker. Regardless of your political affiliation, we should all be happy when the political process puts someone of this caliber in such an important job.

    http://theweek.com/articles/585385/speaker-paul-ryan-tea-partys-greatest-triumph

    Tea Party Declares WAR on Speaker Paul Ryan

    The $1.1 trillion Obama-Ryan budget will result in another deficit of over $400 billion dollars, with expenditures and grant programs for every special interest group lined up at the federal trough.

    Paul Ryan has made his intentions clear: he represents his own self-absorbed interests, not the interests of We the People.

    – See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/push-fire-speaker-paul-ryan-surges-last-24-hours-135651/#sthash.D6OUP0Ds.dpuf

    sound awake (04e750)

  82. “Senator Marco Rubio – Tea Party Choice for Vice-President”

    Washington, DC –Tea Party Express Chairman Amy Kremer announced today the results of the nationwide survey of Tea Party Express supporters that showed Florida U.S. Senator Marco Rubio the favorite vice-presidential candidate.

    http://www.teapartyexpress.org/4852/senator-marco-rubio-tea-party-choice-for-vice-president

    “Florida Tea Party Activists: Marco Rubio Never Trustworthy on Immigration, American Sovereignty”

    On the day of the New Hampshire primaries, Martin County tea party coordinator Cindy Lucas tells Breitbart News Executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon she’s fed up with Rush Limbaugh defending Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) even after he tried to pass an extreme immigration bill.

    “I’m just done with it. You’re either with us or without us,” Lucas said. “This is all about immigration. This is all about getting our sovereignty back.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/09/florida-tea-party-activists-marco-rubio-never-trustworthy-on-immigration-american-sovereignty/

    sound awake (04e750)

  83. The most fundamental rule on the topic of political assassinations: if there’s any doubt, there is no doubt.

    Way too many unresolved questions surround the sudden death of Justice Scalia. Any sudden death of a high ranking government official should be investigated as a homicide until the death is conclusively demonstrated to be otherwise. This nation has an unfortunate history of political assassinations, strange deaths, botched autopsies, missing evidence, and cover-ups under color of authority.

    Pronouncing a Justice of the SC dead of natural causes over the telephone and embalming the body at 3am are not acts which encourage confidence things are on the up and up.

    ropelight (004224)

  84. yes yes Mr. ropelight

    someone did that man dirty

    this is obvious to anyone who is willing to do the analysis

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  85. Baseball trade-
    trump/rubio/ with a guarantee Cruz becomes a supreme.

    mg (31009b)

  86. OT: Federal Marshalls are now providing the muscle to enforce debt payment judgments due lawyers and debt collection agencies that have purchased delinquent student loans. One such scofflaw in Houston was confronted by seven Federal Marshalls, all suitably armed, and dragged from his home down to the court house where he was required to sign a repayment plan. The loan dated back to 1987 and was said to amount to $1500. Let us hope this total includes penalties, and is not just the initial balance due! A “reliable” source in the US Marshall’s office said that they’re planning on arresting as many as 1500 more ex-students who aren’t paying enough attention to their mail. And this is just in Houston! My guess is that most of the people they’re targeting are probably unemployed, and the repayment will come out of social security disability, unemployment benefits, and whatever Texas might throw into the kitty.

    Bernie’s promise of free tuition will look better and better to the all those psych and gender studies majors who are faced with an impossible repayment problem, even at $15/hr. The problem is that their debts have probably already been turned over to an agency, and once the court rules, the Federal SWAT Team won’t be far behind. Bernie can only “help” the current cohort of foolish freshmen.

    On the plus side, with SWAT Teams of Federal Marshalls now free to hunt down student loan delinquents, using massive force to discourage disobedience, we must have the domestic terrorism problem well in hand. The seven thugs civil servants who grabbed Mr. Aker probably each collected pay for three hours of “work” on this mission, suggesting that about 20 hours plus court time were spent on this arrest by our Federal workers. With 1500 more scofflaws to go in Houston, we can see that the US Marshall Service is dedicating about 15 man-years to directly benefitting the collection agencies of that benighted city. This is the kind of community outreach that will definitely pay big dividends in the coming the years.

    Indentured servitude for massive numbers of people can’t be far off.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  87. I’m not a yuge fan of Trump, but I like that he is concerned for the safety of trying to get at the truth.

    What he does with it….I guess we will see as he is supposedly doing well in SC.

    jrt for cruz (bc7456)

  88. “It’s a horrible topic,” said Trump, “but they say they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.

    Idiot. And this is whom people want to entrust with the nuclear codes?!

    Milhouse (87c499)

  89. Idiot. And this is whom people want to entrust with the nuclear codes?!
    ……………………………………………………………….
    After nearly a decade of Obama a pineapple would be better. I worry that the left has gotten so dark and desperate that Cruz will need a food taster. When you look at what the Clintons and the Obama’s have gotten away with…. no wonder Trump doesn’t even sweat needing to be qualified…..

    fear no man, fear God.

    Welcome to Sodom.

    jrt for cruz (bc7456)

  90. …Marfa is kind of an artsy little outpost. I think that for artsy types who feel that Santa Fe and Albuquerque are too “metro,” they end up making the move to Marfa. Something about Marfa having some nice lights, or whatever.

    Yannow something? That sounds like an OK place to retire to. I’ve been thinking about Texas once dad passes on. I wonder what house prices there are like. Certainly can’t be any worse than SoCal.

    Bill H (dcdd7b)

  91. @ Cruz Supporter (#75): I agree with you about the distinction between the two positions.

    I also think the GOP senators who voted to confirm Lynch as AG were wrong, as evidenced by, among other things, the fact that Hillary Clinton isn’t under indictment.

    I was just predicting what the Dems are bound to argue, regardless, and that their faithful will find adequately convincing — because they ignore both logical distinctions and any crime committed by a Clinton.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  92. Ranch owner John Poindexter initially reported Scalia was found with a pillow over his head. Reporters and pundits took liberties with Poindexter’s description and used the more sinister over his face but quickly backtracked. Now, Poindexter has clarified his description to a pillow was touching the headboard above his head, nothing out of the ordinary.

    The question is of course is if the pillow was in an ordinary position all along why draw attention to it in the first place by indicating it was over his head?

    ropelight (004224)

  93. Mr. Feet, do you think a chupacabra smothered Mr. Justice Scalia with his pillow? 😉

    I guess that would explain why the “murderer” was smart enough to get into the room undetected and leave no traces, but why the “murderer” was stupid enough to leave the pillow over Mr. Justice Scalia’s head.

    Me, I sleep with my head under a pillow about half the time, especially when I’m away from home. Keeps out the noise. Have I been murdered, and I missed it?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  94. Because that’s where it was. He didn’t draw any attention to it; idiots like Trump made stuff up and drew attention to themselves.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  95. The fact that some GOP senators vote to confirm her as AG has no bearing on whether they should confirm her for the Supreme Court. Leaving aside the lifetime appointment thing, they now have more information and can cite their extreme disappointment that she has proven as much a party flack as Holder was. Had she shown independence and gone after ANY of her target-rich opportunities in the administration’s many scandals maybe she’d have a case. But no. Same stuff, different face.

    As for black women getting a fair hearing, I call Janice Rogers Brown to the stand.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  96. The thing with Scalia and the pillow is a prime example of “naïve cynicism” where people have a default assumption that if they don’t understand something, it means someone is getting over on them.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  97. i think the simplest most logical explanation is the best one

    i call this idea happyfeet’s cutting tool for explaining stuff

    and the idea that someone like Mr. Scalia with awesome health cares going caput in the middle of nowhere all peaceful and idyllic-like right when he is most needed to thwart the dark designs of fascism

    it is unpossible!

    this is not right this is not good

    is not chupacabras

    it’s something far more banal than chupacabras i fear

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  98. Levin is ripping into Rubio’s support of the Gang of 8 amnesty bill. Levin had Sessions on and said Rubio is lying about Cruz and if NOT for Cruz the amnesty bill would have passed. Ted Cruz stopped the bill. The bill was designed by BO and Cruz stopped it in the senate. Also, Trump was not there supporting Cruz who had the help from Levin to stop the bill.

    Levin also had Marco’s Spanish interpreted exposing Rubio’s message about amnesty.

    jrt for Cruz (bc7456)

  99. Bottom line – if McConnell and the GOPe crumble and allow scumbag Obama to replace someone of Scalia’s integrity and scholarship with another hacktivist leftwing incompetent like Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg or Lynch, then the GOP will no longer exist as a party. The grassroots conservatives will leave the GOP and a new party will form.

    The left can shove their false sanctimony and their sudden devotion to the Constitution right up their collectivist fourth-points-of-contact.

    Pete (8f91c0)

  100. Scalia’s son was supposed to accompny his father on the hunt but had pressing business and couldn’t make it. Scalia brought along a friend in place of his son. Who was that friend? Did that friend visit Scalia that evening in his room?

    There were 35 guests at the ranch, who were they?

    Did anyone collect the sheets and pillowcases from Scalia’s room for examination for skin, hair, and DNA evidence?

    Have the ranch employees been questioned, have their backgrounds been investigated?

    Does John Poindexter have a track record of financial support for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

    Have all the chupacabras and rugurus in the immediate neighborhood accounted for their activities on the night in question?

    ropelight (004224)

  101. “Mark Krikorian makes a good point. Ideally, we’d like Republicans to say stuff like “we’ll of course consider Obama’s nominees.” But that ideal situation assumes that we trust them to ultimately make the right call. Because we have no trust at all in them — and that mistrust is wel-earned — they’re forced to make impolitic statements about not even considering his nominees.

    And that’s just because any sort of ambiguous statement will be construed as selling us out. Because… that is what they’ve taught us these past several years.”

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=361564

    sound awake (04e750)

  102. “Arizona CJ,

    This is why it’s important to vote for the Republican nominee for President, even when the nominee is someone who isn’t half as conservative as you wish.
    Say what you want about McCain or Romney, but neither of them would be nominating Loretta Lynch.

    Cruz Supporter, first off, I’m far from a doctrinaire conservative. I’m libertarian on many issues (abortion and gay marriage to name two). There never has been, and surely never will be, a candidate I fully agree with on all issues, so I’m used to settling.

    Secondly, I *did* vote for Mitt Romney (even though he was far from my preference in the primaries). I also donated to him in the general, and did volunteer GOTV work. I have no regrets there (well, other than the fact he lost).

    I even held my nose and voted for McCain, whom I have long detested (though I swore “never again”, and unlike him, I mean what I say.)

    And this year, as I’ve said since last spring, I will support with my vote, my money, and my time, the Republican nominee so long as it’s not Rubio or Bush. I’ll even support Kasich, who I flat out don’t like at all.

    It won’t matter anyway; if Bush or Rubio is the nominee, they’ll lose via lower turnout on the Republican side, because you can bet good money that the Democrats will keep reminding people (the way Obama did on Romneycare) about their past record. To give just one example, most Republican voters don’t know that Rubio publicly supported and agitated for (and did so as a member of the Senate foreign relations committee) two of the worst Hillary/Obama foreign policy moves that Republicans so decry: Egypt (Arab spring) and Libya. However, they’ll certainly be finding out come the fall if they nominate him, especially seeing as a core competency claim of his campaign is foreign policy! There’s also the little issue of a significant percentage of the Republican electorate being royally furious with the GOPe, which absolutely will knock a few percent off R turnout if a GOPe candidate is the nominee. Therefor, publicizing their records, all of it (not just immigration) to make sure they aren’t the nominee is the thing to do if the SC issue is important (and I think it is). Clinging to the false premise that they are electable, on the other hand, isn’t.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  103. How do you spell “ghoulish”?

    nk (dbc370)

  104. Arizona CJ,

    Well, this is what primaries are for, right? To have intramural debates and contests. But regardless of who’s on the ballot in November, the “winner” gets to make decisions which will have consequences for our lives. And they’ll have the power of law enforcement to back them up. There’s no getting around that.
    If you don’t like what’s on TV tonight, you can turn it off, and there’s no harm, no foul. But that’s not how it works in politics. President Clinton will not only be on our TV sets for 4 years, but she’ll also be in our pocketbooks and in charge of foreign policy. I imagine Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaderick, et al, will all be audited by the IRS. We can’t have a crook like that as President.

    As you say, we’re never going to have a perfect candidate. Call it voting for the lesser of two evils, or the person who’s only driving the car 20 MPH toward the cliff rather than 90 MPH. But those of us right-of-center should still get out and vote in November for the guy whose name isn’t “Clinton” or “Sanders.” Whereas people left-of-center should definitely stay home that day. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  105. Cruz Supporter, when it comes to the issue of who I won’t be voting for in November if they are the nominee, I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree, because I won’t be changing my mind: I won’t be voting for a GOPe hack with an extensive record of deceit, deception, and awful judgement. Period. (and unlike Obama, I know what that word means).

    If it makes you feel any better, bear in mind that my vote and GOTV work won’s matter at all (though my not donating might): If Arizona is close, the R’s have lost anyway. It’s not as if I live in a swing state.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  106. James Scalia, Justice Scalia’s son, will be on Megyn Kelly’s show on FOX NEWS tonight.

    ropelight (004224)

  107. Getting back on topic, if the point of the exercise is to get maximum GOTV mileage out of nominee, if I were Obama I’d nominate RuPaul.

    Think of all the core Democratic constituencies you’d cover with that one.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  108. Not James, Eugene Scalia.

    ropelight (004224)

  109. Not a word about the circumstances surrounding the strange death of Justice Scalia. Mostly the interview consisted of an appropriate encomium to the great man.

    ropelight (004224)

  110. Why would you find it strange that an elderly man with a history of heart problems dies in his sleep, ropelight?

    If his family shared your suspicions — andif there were any basis for them, why wouldn’t they? — wouldn’t you expect them to be at front of the line demanding a big investigation?

    None of us get out alive. Few of us live lives as meaningful as his, but all lives end.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  111. I’ve caught up with you on my DVR’d version of Ms. Kelly’s show tonight — and thank you, by the way, ropelight, for pointing out that it was going to be on (although I always record the Kelly File anyway) — and I thought Justice Scalia’s son was a very articulate and impressive man. He’s apparently a lawyer of considerable reputation himself. There is a widow and eight other adult children. And none of them want an autopsy, nor an investigation.

    We know his financial position, approximately, from judicial disclosures. His fortune wasn’t worth his family killing him to get it, and — again — he’s an elderly man. Can you think of any other reason why his family would not want an investigation if they thought there were anything hinky going on here? I can’t.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  112. 112.Why would you find it strange that an elderly man with a history of heart problems dies in his sleep, ropelight?

    It’s not strange at all which is convenient if you want to kill him and not be detected. The man had a lot of enemies who are glad that he is dead. I don’t think it is likely that one them killed him but it is possible. I think an autopsy, even absent any evidence of foul play, is a reasonable precaution when a high government official dies unexpectedly. Even if it doesn’t find anything unexpected such a policy would have a certain deterrent effect.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  113. It’s not quite like the JFK assassination, is it, Mr. Shearer?

    Answer my questions to ropelight about his family, please — if you can.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  114. If he was not an influential person, there would be little second guessing about an autopsy.
    Most honorable people, and I reckon the Scalia family is comprised mainly of such, do not think the thoughts that evil people do and just find it unthinkable someone would actually murder their father for political expediency.
    Others of us know dam* well there are people who would if they thought it would work and they would get away with it.
    So…
    I do not find it strange that they did not do an autopsy,
    but I would have done one, if it was up to me,
    at the very least taken blood/urine for a tox screen.

    But then again, just like no clarification about WMD’s in Iraq and the non-secrecy of Valerie Plame, would “they” even want us to know how messed up the political system is? People might start really getting angry and serious.

    MD in Philly (still not in Philly, etc.) (deca84)

  115. I’m with Arizona CJ. It’s quite true that democrats nominate more left leaning judges than republicans. But it’s a difference of degree, not of type. Bush’s Souter vs Obama’s Sotomayor is simply not sufficient motivation. Much like all other issues, the GOP focuses entirely on the dire boogeyman of a democrat winning, and it’s that severe tactic that gives them the idea they can just be slightly less than awful and still demand my support.

    Cruz Supporter calls his argument “the person who’s only driving the car 20 MPH toward the cliff rather than 90 MPH.” The democrats are so scary under this metaphor. Driving over a cliff, to our death, at 90! So that means we are deranged if we don’t go over the cliff at 20.

    Fiscally we’re already in contact with the guardrails, it’s now or never, thanks to the long term demographic and cultural trends. We cannot hope that in ten years the political power turns towards the right. So I vote for stopping short of this cliff or I withhold my vote because that is pressure on the party to fix itself.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  116. 115.It’s not quite like the JFK assassination, is it, Mr. Shearer?

    The JFK assassination wasn’t very subtle.

    Answer my questions to ropelight about his family, please — if you can.

    I don’t really think it should be on the family to request an autopsy. An autopsy as a routine matter in an unexpected death is easier on the family than making them specially request one at a time when they may not be thinking clearly. I don’t see the big downside in always performing autopsies in cases like this. Perhaps some have religious objections but in the case of high government officials I think the public interest in making sure they aren’t being assassinated should control.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  117. Something I wrote in 2006 might be relevant here, too:

    On May 29, 1979, as I was concluding my second year of law school, I had the good fortune to be an invitee in the chambers of one of the “Unlikely Heroes” and most legendary judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Irving L. Goldberg. I’d submitted an application to be among his law clerks for 1980-1981, and he’d graciously invited me to come in for an interview. As we were getting acquainted, he received a phone call — something urgent, I knew, because he’d told his receptionist to hold his calls while we were meeting — and I quickly gathered from hearing one side of his phone conversation that something exceptional, and exceptionally bad, had just happened. In short succession he got a half-dozen more calls, each very brief, and by the time he’d finished I had figured out what had happened.

    I’d just observed the Fifth Circuit grapevine in action, and what had set it abuzz was that for the first time during the Twentieth Century, a federal judge had been assassinated outside his home — specifically U.S. District Judge John H. Wood, Jr. Judge Wood sat in San Antonio, part of the Western District of Texas, and appeals from his court went to the Fifth Circuit. The obvious concern sweeping the chambers of the judges of the Fifth Circuit was that the likely assassin had been provoked by one of Judge Wood’s rulings or sentencings, most likely from a criminal case — and the odds seemed pretty high that a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit had also passed upon that litigant’s appeal as well, perhaps making them targets too.

    Federal judges look out for each other. It’s a very insulated job, and they gossip like magpies. If there were any “there there” to these speculations, they wouldn’t sit quietly and watch a crime committed against Justice Scalia buried in a cover-up.

    We’re not all actors in “The West Wing” or “House of Cards.” In either of those works of fiction, there’d be a villain and intrigue and secret passwords and someone having an affair with a Marfa chambermaid who looks like Penelope Cruz. If it were Aaron Sorkin writing the script, the evil villain would in fact probably turn out to be a thinly disguised Donald Cruz, eh?

    In real life, old men with heart trouble die in their sleep on bird hunting trips — even when their day job since 1986 has been at the SCOTUS.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  118. Bah. “Donald Trump,” I mean. I’m not sure if I have Ted Cruz or Penelope Cruz on the brain right now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  119. Decisions about autopsies, in my experience, first come from the medical people, then through the legal system. The coroner will ask the person’s MD whether it was a “reasonably expected” death and if they are willing to sign a death certificate or not. If the doc is willing to sign their name to the cause, that is usually the end of the matter.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  120. I don’t understand mocking those who say an autopsy should be performed. It is common sense to perform one. As Shearer notes, this at minimum provides notice that autopsies are performed, which is a deterrent in itself. It causes no harm. What is the argument against it? That this benign thought is the same as an hysterical conspiracy theory? Well that argument is stupid.

    I suspect Scalia didn’t spend a lot of time talking about any health problems he had, due to the nature of his appointment, and that he passed away naturally and perhaps more unexpectedly than we are privy to. So what?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  121. perhaps more unexpectedly than we are privy to

    That’s the opposite of what I meant.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  122. Mr. Shearer, you’re either ducking my point or you missed it.

    If there’s evidence of foul play, why wouldn’t the family be making a fuss? It’s not just that they don’t want an autopsy. It’s that they — who’d have the most motivation to share your concerns, if they’re valid — obviously don’t share your concerns. What’s your response to that? They’re satisfied, so why aren’t you?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  123. Dustin, you start from a premise that’s hotly disputed — that there’s no harm to an autopsy.

    Yes, you can’t kill a dead man. You can certainly inflict emotional distress on his family, though, if they regard the prospect of their dead relative being cut up and examined under a microscope, invaded as comprehensively as medical science permits.

    If there’s any reason besides rampant paranoia to justify inflicting that distress on them, things might be otherwise.

    But this is rampant paranoia. Don’t dismiss, don’t value at zero, the family’s wishes, whether you think they’re rational or not, please.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  124. Obama, Hillary, and others seem to be quite content to let people die for little reason other than political expediency.
    I was going to say that maybe it is different when you actually know someone, rather than unnamed soldiers,
    But then Hillary did know Stevens, didn’t she, or was that more theatre as well.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  125. I also disagree with calling the concern “rampant paranoia”,
    Overwrought, perhaps , over the top some, maybe,
    Not rampant paranoia
    There are evil people out there who routinely destroy lives, even if not literally,
    But then sometimes they do,
    Like refuse to send aid to a fire fight under their watch

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  126. But yes, the idea of an autopsy can be distressing to many.
    Personally, I think once there is a dead body, what made that person an eternal being with personality, relationships, etc., is no longer there, so show some respect, but an autopsy is no big deal,
    But I do understand that not everyone feels that way at all.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  127. Well I was thinking more pelican brief, and cui bono if he didn’t write a decision.

    narciso (732bc0)

  128. Okay, let’s be very specific here:

    The county authorities have the authority to order an autopsy whether the family consents or not. If any of the coordinating agencies, including the Marshals and the FBI, asked them to do so, the county officials would surely order an autopsy. They haven’t.

    Regardless of that: The family could have ordered a private autopsy if they had any reason to believe one was warranted. They didn’t.

    So to insist that there ought to be an autopsy now, you have to disregard both public and private decision-makers to whom responsibility for this decision has been awarded by law, tradition, and basic human decency.

    If there were any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support some theory of foul play, then we could indeed have an argument about whether both the public and private decision-makers were wrong.

    Here, there’s no such evidence.

    Of course, anyone can discuss what he or she wants. I don’t find any discussion over the hypothetical autopsy to be worth further discussion, no more than I really want to spend much more time arguing with 9/11 Truthers (like Trump).

    But hey, knock yourself out. Do I get a second on my nomination for little green men from the Marfa Lights flying saucers? Or should we blame this on the Trilateral Commission and the UN’s black helicopters?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  129. There were a lot of people who rejoiced to see him dead and gleefully thought of him meeting the devil, for all of the “evil” “he had done to them”.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  130. Yes. But that’s not exactly causation. It’s just ugliness.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. Beldar,
    I’m not screaming for an autopsy
    And I think it reasonable one was not done, from a distance
    But the idea that someone would want to kill a Justice for political purposes is orders of magnitude more plausible than flying saucers.
    I know that the heart of man is desperately wicked,
    I don’t know about UFO’s

    I am not going to say I thought he was murdered and there is some conspiracy,
    But I wouldn’t mind seeing a tox screen run,
    Not at all.

    MD not exactly in Philly (deca84)

  132. 124 If there’s evidence of foul play, why wouldn’t the family be making a fuss? It’s not just that they don’t want an autopsy. It’s that they — who’d have the most motivation to share your concerns, if they’re valid — obviously don’t share your concerns. What’s your response to that? They’re satisfied, so why aren’t you?

    I don’t think the death of a Supreme Court Justice is a purely private affair. Supreme Court Justices have a lot of privileges, it is not unreasonable for them to suffer some minor hardships as well, such as a more intrusive investigation of an unexpected death than an ordinary person would receive.

    And I don’t think his family (or fellow judges) are particularly well placed to determine whether there were any suspicious circumstances (as I understand it neither were on the scene). And the family might understandably prefer that his death be from natural causes and be reluctant to believe otherwise.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  133. No were not talking Roswell just some more mundane interests.

    narciso (732bc0)

  134. 130 So to insist that there ought to be an autopsy now, you have to disregard both public and private decision-makers to whom responsibility for this decision has been awarded by law, tradition, and basic human decency.

    I am not insisting on an autopsy, I just think it might a good idea to change the default rules in the future.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  135. Re “chang[ing] the default rules in the future,” I can’t imagine that Mr. Justice Scalia himself would have agreed with you, Mr. Shearer, on this proposed expansion of government intrusion into the lives of every such public servant, regardless of whether there’s evidence in any given case to warrant it.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  136. Not a word about the circumstances surrounding the strange death of Justice Scalia. Mostly the interview consisted of an appropriate encomium to the great man.

    Trump supporter.

    I note Trump is on the conspiracy train too.

    There is a correlation.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  137. It is common sense to perform one. As Shearer notes, this at minimum provides notice that autopsies are performed, which is a deterrent in itself. It causes no harm. What is the argument against it?

    All I can tell you is that if he were my father I would go all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent it. If I could I’d steal him and bury him secretly rather than submit him to an autopsy. That’s how strongly my people feel about it. Whether his family feels the same way I can’t say.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  138. 137.Re “chang[ing] the default rules in the future,” I can’t imagine that Mr. Justice Scalia himself would have agreed with you, Mr. Shearer, on this proposed expansion of government intrusion into the lives of every such public servant, regardless of whether there’s evidence in any given case to warrant it.

    Who knows? Personally I would have found the many restrictions on what a Supreme Court Justice can do while in office much more obnoxious.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  139. All I can tell you is that if he were my father I would go all the way to the Supreme Court to prevent it. If I could I’d steal him and bury him secretly rather than submit him to an autopsy. That’s how strongly my people feel about it. Whether his family feels the same way I can’t say.

    Even if that meant his murderer went free?

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  140. In response to my statement in the post regarding Lynch’s

    burning desire to throw people in jail for “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges towards violence”

    Milhouse said:

    Patterico, I’m disappointed that you propagate this falsehood. Lynch never said that. The headline of the article you linked is a blatant lie, and is contradicted by the article itself.

    Then Milhouse goes on to quote and analyze parts of the article that do not strongly support my statement. Curiously, Milhouse does not quote the part of the article that does support my statement. From the article linked in the post:

    Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action,” said Lynch.

    The import of this is clear. The nation’s top federal prosecutor warns that when “free speech” “edges towards violence” than “we will take action.”

    Now. I know that Milhouse never, ever admits error or backs down from an assertion, so I hereby announce that I am not going to get into a lengthy back-and-forth with Milhouse, where he twists himself in a pretzel to argue that I am clearly, obviously wrong — so wrong that I am perpetuating a lie, blah blah blah.

    I’ll simply note that I won’t call his criticism a lie, but a less charitable person — confronted with such a furious denunciation, coupled with a very studied refusal to acknowledge the very passage that clearly supports what I said — might easily call it a lie.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  141. oh my goodness huge ted cruz scandal breaking this is terrible

    How many times is the Internet going to report this same story and pretend it’s news?

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  142. I’d hope the family would consider a toxicology test (“tox screen”), as MD in Philly suggested above. But if not, then it’s totally their call, and obviously no reason to promote conspiracy theories.

    Andrew (b12b60)

  143. Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama? So enthused the eminent and eminently silly legal talking head, the Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, in the WaPo way back in 2010, when he hypothesized that a future President Hillary might appoint Obama (albeit not to Scalia’s seat):

    Obama’s detached and judicious disposition would equip him to challenge the conservative hothead, Scalia, without descending to his name-calling.

    Yes, well, I suppose we’ll never know whether Obama is sufficiently smooth-tongued and brilliant to “challenge” Scalia with both of them sitting behind the SCOTUS’ bench. But Obama certainly didn’t fare very well with Mr. Justice Scalia from the other side of the bench, did he?

    Trigger warning: There’s an artist’s sketch there that briefly reignited my own paranoia, the theory that Obama might resign, so Biden could appoint Obama to Scalia’s vacancy and Biden could then run for POTUS as the incumbent, saving the Dems from the Bernie/Hillary death spiral.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  144. #142
    Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/16/2016 @ 9:09 pm

    Oh snap. That deserves a who let the dogs out.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  145. Has any REPUBLICAN alive, EVER been in a FIST FIGHT??? Seriously. The COMMIE/LIBTARD/DEMOTARDS, don’t even have to kick the GOP in the balls. The GOP surrenders!!!!

    Gus (a084f0)

  146. Patterico @ 142. We can pretend to have a discourse. Patterico. You are correct. Our opponents DO NOT RESPECT the TRUTH. Why are we “playing” with these DISGUSTING BASTARDS?????
    At what point, do we “GET IT”. These MOTHER F@#KERS” are not…….”PLAYING”. Yet…we …..ARE.

    Gus (a084f0)

  147. “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action,” said Lynch.

    Read that again: “take action”. Not “prosecute”. When discussing those who engage in violence, she said “they will be prosecuted”; but when speech merely edges towards violence, “we will take action”. The distinction couldn’t be clearer than that.

    I am completely comfortable with the government taking action in response to speech that seems like it might lead to violence; are you not? Don’t you agree that the government should do something in response to such speech, such as keep an eye out for any violence that might result, increase security for likely targets of such violence, and put surveillance on likely perpetrators? Can there be any legal or moral objection to such action? So long as nobody is arrested or otherwise deprived of their rights, it’s just common sense.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  148. Obama’s detached and judicious disposition

    Bwahahahaha.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  149. Read that again: “take action”. Not “prosecute”. When discussing those who engage in violence, she said “they will be prosecuted”; but when speech merely edges towards violence, “we will take action”. The distinction couldn’t be clearer than that.

    When a prosecutor tells me, speaking in her official capacity regarding actions of her prosecuting agency, that she will “take action” when she sees something she doesn’t like, you’ll forgive me if I understand that to mean prosecution. Especially when, in the same sentence, the “action” she promises to take is in response to speech edging towards violence or to “violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims.”

    That was a shot across the bow. It was irresponsible. And it was intended to tell people that they could be prosecuted for speech that “edges towards violence.”

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  150. I am completely comfortable with the government taking action in response to speech that seems like it might lead to violence; are you not? Don’t you agree that the government should do something in response to such speech

    Nope.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  151. When a prosecutor tells me, speaking in her official capacity regarding actions of her prosecuting agency, that she will “take action” when she sees something she doesn’t like, you’ll forgive me if I understand that to mean prosecution.

    I will not. Especially when in the same speech she emphasizes the difference between speech and action, and says that violent actions “will be prosecuted”. That means the “action” promised for speech is not prosecution.

    That was a shot across the bow. It was irresponsible. And it was intended to tell people that they could be prosecuted for speech that “edges towards violence.”

    That is an conclusion unsupported by the evidence.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  152. Don’t you agree that the government should do something in response to such speech

    Nope.

    I doubt you’d say that if you were the likely victim of this potential violence. E.g. if Kimberlin said something that made you uneasy but fell short of a threat, I think you’d ask for and welcome some sort of government action to forestall any violence.

    Don’t you think the NYPD was right to keep mosques under surveillance, and de Blasio was wrong to stop this? How is that different from what you’re now decrying?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  153. I see my early retirement last night was a mistake. I agreed to drive a friend to the airport very early this morning and now I’m on my to the lab for blood work. I’ll have quite a bit to say about the circumstances surrounding Scalia’s untimely passing later this afternoon.

    ropelight (b67c9a)

  154. Lynch acknowledged that to “take action” could be viewed as prosecuting speech, which is why she walked it back (or, in Politico-speak when a Democrat says something stupid, she “recalibrated”).

    DRJ (15874d)

  155. The good thing about having an autopsy is that it could satisfy the conspiracy theorists … but it probably wouldn’t. That’s the nature of conspiracy theorists, isn’t it? They are never satisfied.

    DRJ (15874d)

  156. “Run” Jo Jo Gunne

    Doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo
    Run run run
    Run run run
    Doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo
    Run run run
    Run run run
    Oh, pack it up Milhouse
    You better ride off into teh sun
    Run
    Run
    Run
    Oh
    Run
    Doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo
    Run run run
    Run run run
    Doo doo doo
    Doo doo doo doo
    Run run run
    Run run run
    Oh listen to teh Milhouse
    He’s all just hot wind in teh sails
    Run
    Run

    Colonel Haiku (e3be5c)

  157. #157, DRJ, no one is satisfied by phony autopsies, like the one JFK got, or the one Ron Brown got. Crooked autopsies don’t put controversies to rest, crooked autopsies, or the lack of an autopsy when one is reasonably called for, only serve to confirm speculation a conspiracy may be behind the suspicious death.

    See my comments at #s 84 and 102.

    ropelight (b67c9a)

  158. “It’s a horrible topic,” said Trump, “but they say they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.

    Idiot. And this is whom people want to entrust with the nuclear codes?!

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/16/2016 @ 3:43 pm

    Trump doesn’t believe that. He said it on Michael Savage’s show. He says whatever he thinks a particular audience wants to hear.

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  159. How would you know it was a good autopsy, ropelight? It would have been conducted by the El Paso County, Texas, medical examiner. El Paso is a Democratic city in a Democratic county that is plagued with corruption because of the influence of cartels and others. It’s been that way for over a decade. Don’t you think people might use that as a basis to question any autopsy?

    DRJ (15874d)

  160. I have no reason to doubt the medical examiner’s office specifically, but I generally doubt everything that happens in El Paso. It is basically a third world town.

    DRJ (15874d)

  161. When McConnell & al were tripping over themselves to say they would not confirm anyone, I thought they were at best being impolitic and at worst committing an unforced error. Whether they gamed this out or not, they actually did the right thing. Had they said they would carefully consider any nominee, they would have been pilloried as evil racists unless they confirm someone like Lynch. (Of course they would be called racists either way, but they do not seem to have learned that lesson.)

    Ken in NH (8e269c)

  162. 162. How would you know it was a good autopsy, ropelight? …

    DRJ (15874d) — 2/17/2016 @ 8:03 am

    That’s always the problem, isn’t it?

    It’s what I worry about concerning the Hillary! email investigation. It could be entirely corrupt and give her a clean bill of health. I know Comey is supposed to be a boy scout whose reputation is beyond reproach but he isn’t personally conducting the investigation. What about the career Washington bureaucrats in the layers below him though?

    Which is why if I were a congresscritter I wouldn’t be joining in the full-throated hosannas to the integrity of the FBI investigation, as if it is a slam dunk if the WH is going to put the fix in, it has to do it at the DoJ when it decides to indict or not.

    It’s similar to how the Benghazi cover-up played out. At CIA, Obama’s man wasn’t Petreaus his appointee. His man was Morrell the 27 year careerist.

    Not to hijack the thread. I’m just pointing out that investigations (and an autopsy is an investigation) aren’t always fact-finding expeditions. Sometimes they’re quite the opposite.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  163. But this is rampant paranoia. Don’t dismiss, don’t value at zero, the family’s wishes, whether you think they’re rational or not, please.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 2/16/2016 @ 7:52 pm

    In all honesty this is a pretty fair summary of the value I gave the family’s wishes, and I’m glad that was pointed out as I didn’t realize it (and was wrong). So there is that degree of harm to performing an automatic autopsy. I personally think it would have been justified anyway, but it would be good to express how regrettable it is.

    I haven’t seen any real evidence anything foul occurred. Elderly people do pass way. An autopsy may not satisfy those who see conspiracy everywhere, but why should they get a nut’s veto over a reasonable precaution that would inform the rest of us?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  164. just pray that the killers aren’t emboldened by their success

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  165. #162, DRJ, if the issues in an autopsy are technical then I’m not qualified to offer an opinion, but if the issues are such that any reasonably well educated individual is alarmed by obvious problems or inconsistencies then my opinion is as relevant as any other layman’s.

    Take for instance the circumstances surrounding JFK’s autopsy (without straying into the bailiwick of coroners and medical examiners). Here are a few examples:

    * His body was forcibly removed from the jurisdiction in which his death occurred, in direct violation of Texas law, and against the physical attempts of the local medical examiner to prevent Secret Service agents from removing the dead president’s body. The ME was shoved aside, along with a Dallas policeman, as he stood blocking the doorway as Secret Service agents under the direction of Roy Kellerman threatened to pull their guns.

    * Kennedy’s body arrived at Bethesda Hospital in a zippered body bag, but it left Parkland Hospital wrapped in sheets and towels.

    * X-rays and photographs taken during the autopsy have disappeared.

    * An individual at Bethesda who had contemporaneous recordings of the actual autopsy was murdered.

    * President Kennedy’s coffin (the one he left Parkland Hospital in was dumped into the Atlantic ocean, never to be recovered.

    All this and so much more are the sort of things that ordinary Americans can look at and judge for themselves that JFK’s autopsy is a powerful indicator that a conspiracy was operating to conceal the facts of his murder.

    So, DRJ, there are autopsies designed to establish the cause of death, and there are autopsies that are designed to conceal the cause of death. Reasonable people can tell the difference by looking carefully to see if normal and prudent practices are followed or if somehow and for some reason a competent and thorough autopsy gets overlooked at the apparent behest of the family in this case.

    ropelight (b67c9a)

  166. From an article today:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cryptic-911-caller-didn-t-identify-scalia-texas-sheriff-says-n519691?cid=par-sy-windstream-gen4
    Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara told the AP this week that she performed an inquest over the phone, which is permitted under state law, because she was the only justice of the peace available in the area and was 65 miles away.
    She certified his death at 1:52 p.m. Saturday, concluding that he died of natural causes.
    Guevara told the AP she made the determination after consulting with Scalia’s personal physician and with Dominguez and a U.S. marshal, who said there were no signs of foul play. The physician told her Scalia had a history of heart trouble, high blood pressure and had been considered too weak to undergo surgery on an injured shoulder, Guevara said.
    She also said she heard Scalia had mentioned to some people at the ranch that he was not feeling well.

    As DRJ mentioned previously, if he was judged to be in too poor of health to be cleared for (an elective) surgery that says something, assuming that word from his primary doc is correct.
    They do hip surgeries in people in their 80’s, for example.

    As I said before, it was treated appropriately, it seems, if it had been “an average person”. The issue is how much weight does one put on the fact that he was “not an average person”.
    Had he been scheduled to be the key witness in a major mob trial the next day, perhaps they would have defaulted to doing more of an autopsy. As it was, the situation was somewhere between the two.

    FWIW, “Natural causes” means not an accident and not a deliberate act, and that box would be checked whether the proximal cause of death was a heart attack or bleeding from an ulcer or dying of pneumonia.

    MD in Philly (still not in Philly, etc.) (deca84)

  167. the suspicions are probably groundless, but you know it happened on the other foot, like say n arafat, we would never hear the end of it,

    narciso (732bc0)

  168. Doc, our glorious leader is adding fuel to the fire. He will not attend the funeral on Saturday, but he will swing by on Friday to “view” the body, traffic permitting. Something about a conflict with a tee time perhaps? And needing a bit of privacy for the very special “viewing” he intends.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  169. yes, as classless as frank underwood, frankly,

    narciso (732bc0)

  170. Two ways to look at that,
    one is that it is consistent with his behavior for at least the last 8 years, and why would one expect different now;
    and two, I wouldn’t want him at my funeral, unless it was to give someone an opportunity to confront his deceitful and wicked self.

    MD in Philly (still not in Philly, etc.) (deca84)

  171. Lynch acknowledged that to “take action” could be viewed as prosecuting speech, which is why she walked it back (or, in Politico-speak when a Democrat says something stupid, she “recalibrated”).

    She did no such thing. There is nothing in the article you linked to support the writer’s conclusion that she modified her previous statement in any way. On the contrary, her two statements are completely compatible with each other; the difference exists only in the writer’s mind. Only if you’ve already decided that the first statement meant she would prosecute speech would a subsequent statement that she wouldn’t seem like a “recablibration” or a “walk-back”, or whatever you want to call it. Using that “recalibration” to prove your original assumption is the classical definition of begging the question.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  172. Politico sees it differently, Milhouse. I realize its not the best source for much, but it might be a good judge of how to interpret liberal speech.

    DRJ (15874d)

  173. Oops. Dam unclosed tags.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  174. Politico sees it differently, Milhouse.

    Of course they do. It turns a non-story into a story. But where in her words do you see anything to support the story?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  175. The following excerpt is from Law Newz by Dan Abrams article by Beth Karas:

    Death Investigater: Scalia’s Death Probe ‘Very Troubling to Me’

    Former death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan is troubled that, at least according to what is publicly known, a limited examination did not occur. Morgan, who spent more than 20 years investigating deaths in Louisiana and Georgia, and authored a memoir about his career, believes that, at a minimum, a thorough external examination should have been done, together with collection of bodily fluids for testing. If nothing else, that would put to rest conspiracy theorists.

    “Cases like this show you need a solid system. He was found dead; it was not a witnessed death. That is very troubling to me,” he told LawNewz.com.

    Once Judge Guevara determined that an autopsy wasn’t required, it became a discretionary decision of Justice Scalia’s family. They could have asked for a private autopsy but chose not to, and were completely within their rights in doing so.

    ropelight (b67c9a)

  176. Selling books. Ghoul. Shame on him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  177. I see it, you don’t. Fine with me.

    DRJ (15874d)

  178. DRJ – shockingly, I agree with you. Shockingly, Milhouse is being hyper literal and ignoring the context, connotation, and how the SJW politicos view those that disagree with their chosen Narrative.

    JD (34f761)

  179. 162.How would you know it was a good autopsy, ropelight? It would have been conducted by the El Paso County, Texas, medical examiner. El Paso is a Democratic city in a Democratic county that is plagued with corruption because of the influence of cartels and others. It’s been that way for over a decade. Don’t you think people might use that as a basis to question any autopsy?

    This would be an even bigger problem if the death had been suspicious. Which suggests to me that it might be sensible to figure out in advance what should be done when a high government official dies unexpectedly. Of course no protocol will satisfy all the nut cases but that doesn’t mean you don’t need one.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  180. You’re reasoning in a circle. You decide that she “must have” made such a threat, and then scour her words to find something you can imagine to be a hint at such a threat, and then when on a completely different occasion she clearly says the opposite you call it a “walk-back”. If a journalist on the other side made a leap like that, about a Republican, would you let them get away with it? Would you let a student get away with it, or a lawyer appearing before or against you?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  181. 169 * His body was forcibly removed from the jurisdiction in which his death occurred, in direct violation of Texas law, and against the physical attempts of the local medical examiner to prevent Secret Service agents from removing the dead president’s body. The ME was shoved aside, along with a Dallas policeman, as he stood blocking the doorway as Secret Service agents under the direction of Roy Kellerman threatened to pull their guns.

    This is the sort of confusion which arises when you haven’t made plans in advance.

    James B. Shearer (0f56fb)

  182. Shockingly, Milhouse is being hyper literal and ignoring the context,

    WHat context? On the contrary, you are ignoring the context, which is that it was addressed not to the potential speakers but to the potential victims of violence that the speech might inspire. As I wrote earlier, if Kimberlin said something that wasn’t a true threat but that gave Patterico reasonable concern for his safety, he’d want the police to do something about it. Perhaps have a car drive by his house every so often.

    connotation, and how the SJW politicos view those that disagree with their chosen Narrative.

    On the contrary, you are the one forcing the story into your already-built Narrative. I am merely taking it on its merits, despite having no love for Lynch or this administration. Just because someone is a villain doesn’t mean everything he says or does is villainy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  183. you gotta collect them fluids

    happyfeet (831175)

  184. That has long been explained. JFK’s body was taken aboard his flying saucer where the Aldebaran funeral rites could be duly performed by his cloning-vat brothers, and all remaining traces of his brain control implant that had not been destroyed by the self-destruct mechanism could be removed.

    nk (dbc370)

  185. you may have better hair than JFK but i tell you what

    happyfeet (831175)

  186. All I’m saying is that you need to read a story about an opponent the same way you would read one about an ally; the reporting is just as likely to be incorrect, and the reporter’s logical abilities are just as likely to be impaired. Look at what someone said, not what a reporter says they said, and ask yourself how you’d read it if you liked the person saying it.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  187. An individual at Bethesda who had contemporaneous recordings of the actual autopsy was murdered.

    ropelight (b67c9a) — 2/17/2016 @ 11:48 am

    What is the source of this?

    Gerald A (7c7ffb)

  188. I think he’s referring to Pitzer who wasn’t there and wasn’t murdered.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  189. Crazy James pitzer, lileks wrote a bleat about him.

    narciso (732bc0)

  190. 191. All I’m saying is that you need to read a story about an opponent the same way you would read one about an ally; the reporting is just as likely to be incorrect, and the reporter’s logical abilities are just as likely to be impaired. Look at what someone said, not what a reporter says they said, and ask yourself how you’d read it if you liked the person saying it.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/17/2016 @ 5:39 pm

    No, that isn’t all you’re saying. Take responsibility for what you are saying.

    149. “Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…when we see that we will take action,” said Lynch.

    Read that again: “take action”. Not “prosecute”. When discussing those who engage in violence, she said “they will be prosecuted”; but when speech merely edges towards violence, “we will take action”. The distinction couldn’t be clearer than that.

    I am completely comfortable with the government taking action in response to speech that seems like it might lead to violence; are you not?

    I have no allies that advocate “taking action” in response to speech that “edges toward violence.” Only my opponents speak that way.

    What is speech that “edges toward violance?” I’ll tell you what it means in this context. It means speech that the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation would object to in their own sharia states where blasphemy is a crime.

    http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/04/un-resolution-16-18

    U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Resolution 16/18 was purportedly a compromise between advocates of a resolution condemning “defamation of religions” and those who were concerned that such a resolution would threaten freedoms of expression and religion. The Council adopted Resolution 16/18 in March 2011.

    The Obama administration has notched up a number of firsts. This is one you no doubt haven’t heard of; it is the first US administration to side with Muslim countries seeking to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws on an international basis, and against it’s own Constitution.

    Recall how Obama and Clinton blamed some obscure internet video for the violence that led to the storming of our embassies in Cairo and the assault of our dipfac in Benghazi, and subsequent murder of four Americans? It wasn’t an ad hoc choice; they had been working on this anti-First Amendment project with OIC for years prior to that.

    Every other administration has pulled out all the stops to block it, because it is expressly intended to chill free speech. But, then the Obama administration came along.

    If you have been paying attention at all for the past decade or so, which I’m sure you haven’t, to the ongoing efforts of the OIC to get its Islamic blasphemy laws adopted by the UN, it continued to modify the language so it would seem more acceptable to Western nations. But the neutral-appearing language the OIC has been using not neutral at all. There is only one religion as far as the OIC is concerned, and that is Islam.

    Islam gives religious sanction to deceit. Various forms of lying. Colloquially Muslims call akk approved forms of lying “outwittings. ” For instance, many have heard of Taqqiya, which is lying to protect Islam, the ummah, or individual Muslims. It is based upon and authorized by this verse in the Quran.

    Surah 3:28 Ali ‘Imran (Family of Imran)

    Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.

    Allah has nothing to do with Muslims who are friends with disbelievers; since that is the case that means any Muslim who does so is an apostate. But Muslims are allowed to pretend to friends with disbelievers when living in the Dar al Harb to ensure their safety. Muslims will tell you there’s no such thing as Taqqiyah.

    But ccording to the Tafsir (exegesis) of Ibn Kathir:

    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=551&Itemid=46#1

    (28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.) Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.

    Allah warned against such behavior when He said, (And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said, (O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them), until, (And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) ﴿60:1﴾.

    Allah said, (O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) ﴿4:144﴾, and, (O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.) ﴿5:51﴾.

    Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins, (And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.) ﴿8:73﴾.

    Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”

    Sahih Al Buhhari along with Sahih Muslim were the two most reliable collectors of ahadith and their collections are a close second to the Quran as a source of religious authority for Sunni Muslims; Abu Ad-Darda and Al-Hasan were two of Muhammad’s closest companions.

    A Muslim who tells you there’s no such thing as taqqiyah probably isn’t lying as most western Muslims don’t know much about their religion. This is encouraged by Muslim religious leaders in the west for much the same reason that militaries only share the details of the OPLAN with the commanders who have a need to know. But if a learned Muslim is telling you there is no such thing as Taqqiyah, that Muslim is practicing taqqiyah.

    But here we are talking about a different and less well known form of deceit called tauriyah. That is using a word or term so that the audience you intend to dupe takes your meaning one way, but you mean something entirely different.

    Legend attributes it to King Negus of Ethiopia. Ethiopia was and is Christian, and naturally King Negus was, too. During Muhammad’s Meccan period some of his followers as was their habit had succeeded at provoking members of Muhammad’s own tribe the Quraysh, who remained almost entirely pagan as Muhammad wasn’t a very compelling preacher (Muslims are the original crybullies; “Islamophobia” isn’t a new thing, when in the minority they do things to insult or aggravate their hosts, and when they provoke an angry response they claim to be the victims). It was really serious, so Muhammad sent them to Ethiopia with a letter to King Negus asking him to protect them.

    King Negus read the letter and interviewed the Muslims ad was supposedly so impressed with them he converted to Islam. His subjects caught wind of this and came in droves to the royal abode to find out if it were true. King Negus knew he’d be deposed if his subjects found out the truth, so he wrote “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger and Jesus is but a slave of Allah” on a piece of paper and pinned it to the inside of his tunic over his heart. He went out to meet the crowd. There was an exchange of words, and finally the king asked, “What do you believe, Ethiopians?” They responded, “Jesus Christ is the Lord our God.” King Negus put his hand over his heart, and the very different profession of faith he had written, and said, “I believe this.” The Ethiopians left, mislead that the king was still a Christian.

    The OIC resolution is a masterpiece of tauriyah. It’s language is not neutral at all. But then, we aren’t supposed to see through it. The OIC, and other Muslim organizations define their terms as Shariah defines them. Religion means Islam and only Islam, terrorism means killing a Muslim without right and therefore terrorism can only be committed by Muslims and can never be committed by Muslims against non-Muslims (a Muslim can only be rightfully killed for adultery, apostasy, illegally killing another Muslim, and slandering the prophet [which could be considered a form of apostasy but it gets its own chapter in the hadith collections]), and justice means Shariah.

    Obama unwittingly practiced tauriyah at his 25 September 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly when he said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The Muslim members listening must have got a good chuckle out of that. Slander is another term that has a different meaning according to Shariah than it has for us. Under Shariah slander includes telling a truth about someone that they don’t want known.

    I am slandering the prophet of Islam, and Islam itself, right now per that definition. A Muslim could get as outraged by what I’m posting as they could by any cartoon of Muhammad or Charlie Hebdo cover. Thus, my speech “edges toward violence” per UN Resolution 16/18 and frankly Loretta Lynch. She is not speaking in a vacuum; She is a team player.

    Milhouse went on:

    Don’t you agree that the government should do something in response to such speech, such as keep an eye out for any violence that might result, increase security for likely targets of such violence, and put surveillance on likely perpetrators? Can there be any legal or moral objection to such action? So long as nobody is arrested or otherwise deprived of their rights, it’s just common sense.

    Milhouse (87c499) — 2/16/2016 @ 10:05 pm

    Quit playing the idiot, as if you just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. Lynch was speaking to a Muslim organization. She was talking about taking action against the speaker, enforcing the hecklers veto. Specifically, when the heckler is Muslim as I will demonstrate. (Cont.)

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  191. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text

    This is the resolution by which the Democrats intend to incorporate, as far as possible, UN8 resolution 16/18 into US law. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent. They hate free speech as much as Sharia hates free speech.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/democrats-struggle-with-how-to-ban-free-speech.php

    But I digress:

    H.Res.569 – Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

    RESOLUTION

    Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

    Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

    Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

    Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

    Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

    Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

    Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

    Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

    Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

    (1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

    (2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

    (3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

    (4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

    (5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

    (6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

    (7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

    It sort of appears to be neutral, but why does it single out Muslims for special protection? Do Muslims need special protection? No, in fact if you look at religiously motivated hate crime statistics for 2014, the last year before the democrats introduced this resolution, the vast majority of the 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the US were against Jews-56.4%. Anti-Muslim crimes only accounted for 16.1%

    So why a special law for Muslims. Because of political pressure. Obama wants to fundamentally transform America, and Muslims do also. One of the ways Muslims want to transform America is to be treated better than the filthy Kuffar. As CAIR founder Omar Ahmed said to a Muslim audience in 1998, as recorded by San Ramon Valley Herald reporter Lisa Gardiner:

    “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,”…

    (I can provide the link if you wish, and hold that thought about the scripture.)

    Rosa Parks only wanted a seat on the bus. Muslims want their own bus. This would be obvious if you look at the demands Muslim Brother front groups like the Muslim Student Association place direct toward their targets. They start reasonably enough, at least if you’re a mush-brained college administrator thinking it’s still the ’60s and you’re dealing with an oppressed group still reeling from Jim Crow. But then the demands increase to Muslim-only this and Muslim-that, such as Muslim-only hours at the gym or campus pool.

    The Kuffar are unclean; you don’t expect a Muslim to use the same piece of gym equipment some filthy Kuffar has sweated all over, or swim in the same pool the filthy Kuffar have fouled, do you?

    And it is now official US policy that the Kuffar are unclean, and we must respect Muslim sensitities in this regard. You think I’m joking, right? (Cont.)

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  192. I have no allies that advocate “taking action” in response to speech that “edges toward violence.” Only my opponents speak that way.

    Really? When someone advocates violence you think the authorities should take no note of it, and just sit back and wait for someone to act on that advocacy, and then pretend there was nothing they could have done to prevent it?! So you agree with CAIR and de Blasio that the NYPD was wrong to snoop on the mosques, wrong to take note of what was said there, wrong to keep an eye on those who seemed likely to act, wrong to assign officers to guard likely victims?! I don’t think so. That is all action taken in response to speech, and it is appropriate action, and I don’t think you really disagree. And yet now you say you do. What am I to make of that? Or is it only Moslem speech that justifies taking action, and not anti-Moslem speech?

    What is speech that “edges toward violance?” I’ll tell you what it means in this context. It means speech that the members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation would object to in their own sharia states where blasphemy is a crime.

    That is not at all what it means. Blasphemy does not edge toward violence at all. But there is plenty of speech that does. More of it is said by Moslems than by their enemies, but there’s plenty on both sides.

    U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Resolution 16/18 was purportedly a compromise between advocates of a resolution condemning “defamation of religions” and those who were concerned that such a resolution would threaten freedoms of expression and religion. The Council adopted Resolution 16/18 in March 2011.

    The Obama administration has notched up a number of firsts. This is one you no doubt haven’t heard of; it is the first US administration to side with Muslim countries seeking to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws on an international basis, and against it’s own Constitution.

    What are you talking about? As your own quote says, the administration took the opposite side, and negotiated with that side to produce a resolution that expressly recognizes the importance of open debate, preserves freedom of expression, and does not call for anti-blasphemy laws. This is a good thing the administration did, one that provides evidence against your claim.

    Recall how Obama and Clinton blamed some obscure internet video for the violence that led to the storming of our embassies in Cairo and the assault of our dipfac in Benghazi, and subsequent murder of four Americans?

    Indeed I do. I also note that they didn’t try to ban it (fat lot of good that would have done them), or call for it to be banned. They did investigate who did it, which was wrong of them, but there’s no connection betwen that any any UN resolution. Contrary to your claim, it was an ad hoc reaction, not part of any larger plan, which is why there has been no follow-up. The point wasn’t to suppress speech, it was to deflect blame from themselves. Any scapegoat would have done, and Nakoula Nakoula Nakoula did perfectly. The fact that he turned out to be a convicted criminal who was legally barred from using computers was even better.

    But the neutral-appearing language the OIC has been using not neutral at all. There is only one religion as far as the OIC is concerned, and that is Islam.

    How is it relevant how many religions OIC thinks exist, or how it understands the wording of resolutions? Its reading is not the controlling one. The language in an resolution means what it says, and neutral language is neutral, regardless of what OIC thinks.

    Islam gives religious sanction to deceit.

    So does practically every religion, in the same circumstances. But what if it does? Even if it sanctioned far more lying than any other religion does, what of it? How is that relevant to anything? What exactly rests on OIC’s dubious faith?

    The OIC resolution is a masterpiece of tauriyah. It’s language is not neutral at all.

    If you mean the UNHRC resolution, its language is very neutral. It contains lots of blather and useless hand-wringing, but nothing that is at all objectionable. The operative paragraphs have nothing that threatens freedom of expression.

    I am slandering the prophet of Islam, and Islam itself, right now per that definition. A Muslim could get as outraged by what I’m posting as they could by any cartoon of Muhammad or Charlie Hebdo cover.

    Indeed. What of it?

    Thus, my speech “edges toward violence”

    No, it doesn’t, not by any definition.

    per UN Resolution 16/18 and frankly Loretta Lynch.

    The resolution doesn’t say anything about edging toward violence. The only speech it calls on states to ban is “incitement to imminent violence”, which is already illegal in every country I’ve ever heard of, and certainly in every US state. But that crucial word “imminent” didn’t get in there by accident. Who do you think put it there? Who could have put it there if not the 0bama administration? Incredible as it seems, and whether we like it or not, there’s evidence of good faith on its part. (Yes, I know. It’s very hard to believe. But it’s a fact.)

    . Lynch was speaking to a Muslim organization. She was talking about taking action against the speaker, enforcing the hecklers veto.

    And you know this how? You don’t, you just want it to be so, because it fits your Narrative.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  193. This is the resolution by which the Democrats intend to incorporate, as far as possible, UN8 resolution 16/18 into US law.

    Into law?! It’s a resolution, not a bill. Nothing it says would be law. And note that it contains not a single word against the freedom of expression. It doesn’t call on anyone to suppress speech, even the “hate speech” that it condemns. The fact that it singles out Moslems is obvious pandering, and the impression it seeks to create that Moslems are under some special threat is nonsense, but how does that help your case?

    “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant.

    Of course. But so what? What have CAIR’s goals got to do with those of Lynch or the proposed resolution you quoted?

    The Kuffar are unclean; you don’t expect a Muslim to use the same piece of gym equipment some filthy Kuffar has sweated all over, or swim in the same pool the filthy Kuffar have fouled, do you?

    They’re certainly entitled to feel that way if they like, but that’s not how Kuffar such as Lynch and the House Democrats feel.

    And it is now official US policy that the Kuffar are unclean,

    That is not true.

    and we must respect Muslim sensitities in this regard.

    In appropriate circumstances, yes. Government is supposed to accommodate all religious requirements and sensitivities, however strange they may seem to others. Accomodating their feelings doesn’t mean we share them.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  194. OK, I am not going to stay up all night again, and kill my day, like I did a few days ago. I’m off to bed now. G’night all.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  195. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread145993/pg1

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO
    HEADQUARTERS, JOINT DETENTION OPERATION GROUP (JDOG)
    GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA APO AE 09360

    TF-GTMO-JDOG-CO
    MEMORANDUM FOR All personnel, JDOG
    SUBJECT: Camp Delta Interim SOP Modification: Inspecting/Handling Detainee Korans
    Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

    1. General. The purpose of this SOP is to provide guidance and set specific procedures for the handling and inspecting of detainee Korans.

    2. Intent. To ensure the safety of the detainees and MPs while respecting the cultural dignity of the Korans thereby reducing the friction over the searching the Korans.

    It is important to not that the procedures these personnel are required to follow aren’t really about respecting the cultural dignity of the Qurans. That’s what the MB/CAIR (same thing as CAIR is just Hamas’ main front group in the US, and Hamas is MB in Gaza; that’s right boys and girls our government is using terrorists to advise us on how to deal with terrorists) government advisers tell these idiots. And these idiots believe them.

    These procedures are not about dignity but degradation. These procedures require the Kuffar to demonstrate they understand and accept the fact they are far inferior in status to Muslims (non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” as it says in the Quran).

    JTF-GTMO personnel directly working with detainees will avoid handling or touching the detainee’s Koran whenever possible. When military necessity does require the Koran to be search, the subsequent
    procedures will be followed.

    3. Inspection.
    a. The MP informs the detainee that the Chaplain or a Muslim interpreter will inspect the Koran. If the detainee refuses the inspection at any time, the noncompliance is reported to the
    Detention Operations Center (DOC) and logged appropriately by the block NCO.

    b. The Koran will not be touched or handled by the MP.

    …SUBJECT: Camp Delta Interim SOP Modification: Inspecting/Handling Detainee Korans
    Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

    h. The detainee is instructed to show both ends of the Koran while the book is closed so that inspector can note the binding while closed paying attention to abnormal contours or protrusions associated with the binding. The intent is to deduce if anything may be in the binding without forcing the detainee to expose the binding, which may be construed as culturally insensitive or offensive given the significance of the Koran.

    i. How the detainee reacted, observation by other detainees, and other potentially relevant observations will be annotated appropriately on the block significant activities sheet as well as staff journal.

    4. Handling.
    a. Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.
    b. Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect
    and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate
    any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.
    c. Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or
    sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas.

    5. Removal.
    a. Korans should be left in the cell as a general rule (save in MSU), even when a detainee is moved to another cell or block. In principal, every cell (except MSU) will have a Koran “assigned” to it.

    b. If a Koran must be removed at the direction the CJDOG, the detainee library personnel or Chaplain will be contacted to retrieve and properly store the Koran in the detainee library. The request for the librarian/Chaplain, as well as the retrieval itself, will be logged appropriately.

    c. If the Chaplain, librarian, or Muslim interpreter, within the needs of the situation, cannot remove the Koran, then the MP may remove the Koran after approved by the DOC (who notes this in the MP Blotter) IAW the following procedures:

    1) Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling

    2) Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence.

    3) Place a clean, dry, detainee towel on the detainee bed and then place the Koran on top of the clean towel in a manner, which allows it to be wrapped without turning the Koran over at any time in a reverent manner. Ensure that the Koran is not placed in offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet area when doing this activity.

    As Omar Ahmed said earlier, the Muslim scripture is the highest authority in the land. It is official US policy that it be handled as such. In a manner signalling respect and reverence, as if it were a delicate piece of art.

    But more importantly, in a manner that demonstrates that we understand and accept our third class status under Sharia (Muslim women are actually the second class citizens). You see, Muslims don’t have to wear gloves and go through all that. Because Muslims are ritually clean, while the Kuffar are not, and never can be. So we are unfit to handle the Quran with our bare hands, just as we are unfit to swim in the same pools, or sweat on the same gym equipment. So it’s BS to say we are respecting the cultural dignity of the Quran anymore than we are respecting the cultural dignity of Muslim-only gym or pool hours. We are simply acknowledging our inferiority by accepting all these indignities.

    Having taken the long way around the barn, what is speech that “edges toward violence?” Why, similar to the Kuffar guards at GITMO, it is any speech that doesn’t treat Islam, Muhammad, and/or Muslims as delicate pieces of art. Speech that doesn’t signal reverence and respect.

    Anything short of that will provoke the Muslims. And if you provoke Muslims you deserve anything you get. Just ask the “Of course you have a right to free speech, but…” crowd about Pamela Geller, Charlie Hebdo, or Lars Vilks. Or ask the creators of South Park, who will mock even God (notice the Muslims don’t get upset if you mock God, but people must die if you mock Muhammad; and they think they’re monotheists) but not Muhammad.

    Loretta Lynch was saying exactly what everyone except Milhouse understands her to say. She, as a loyal soldier of the Obama administration has taken on as her mission to “take action” as far as possible to chill any speech Muslims find offensive. And with Scalia gone her options have gotten far larger.

    Look at the timing of this. On 2 December 2015 Syed and Tashfeen Malik go jihadi. On 3 December

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  196. Milhouse, you’re a troll. And deliberately obtuse.

    297. I have no allies that advocate “taking action” in response to speech that “edges toward violence.” Only my opponents speak that way.

    Really? When someone advocates violence you think the authorities should take no note of it, and just sit back and wait for someone to act on that advocacy, and then pretend there was nothing they could have done to prevent it?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/#3b6c22b047e9

    Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

    While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

    Whatever that means…

    It means speech to which Muslims respond violently.

    Again the timeline. The San Bernardino shooters go on the rampage 2 December 2015, Lynch makes her remarks to the organization “Muslim Advocates,” which on their website brags “powerful connections in Congress and the White House,” and the House Democrats introduce their “Muslims are the most special people on Earth” resolution on 17 December.

    Clearly demonstrating this administration’s priorities.

    This administration does in fact share with the OIC the same concept on who must be silenced. And it has nothing to do with advocating violence. Which is why Loretta Lynch did not use the term. Instead she used the term “edges toward violence.”

    Milhouse, pretend all you want that that my version isn’t the correct one.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  197. Following the Benghazi atrocity, Hillary! told the families that they’d find the video maker responsible and lock him up. Note, not the actual murderers who pulled the triggers and set the fires.

    That is what Loretta Lynch means by speech that “edges toward violence.”

    Nakoula Nakoula went to prison for a parole violation.

    But the administration made it appear to the world, particularly to the Muslim world, that he went to prison for makng a “hateful, anti-Muslim” video.

    Apparently there was some guy where Syed Farook who would engage him in “anti-Muslim” conversations. And that of course means truthful conversations.

    Truth. It’s the new hate speech. Therefore, truth that a Muslim would rather not hear is incitement. Just as a truth that a Muslim would rather not be told is slander. These are Sharia concepts. This administration shares them with the OIC. That’s why the embarked on this project together, resulting in UN Resolution 16/18.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  198. http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/2/#2312f325200b

    The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.

    … And The Deceptive

    And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.

    Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

    Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.

    Pace Milhouse, when Loretta Lynch was talking about speech that “edges toward violence” to the assembled “Muslim Advocates” she wasn’t talking about anyone who advocates committing violence against Muslims. Speech that “edges toward violence” is speech that compels Muslims to kill you for.

    Think of it as “clothing that edges toward rape.” I mean, look at how these German babes in Cologne dress when they go partying on New Years Eve. What did you expect those “Syrian refugees” to do, you little hussies?

    Next time, don’t wear “clothing that edges toward rape.” Just like you shouldn’t use speech that “edges toward violence.”

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  199. Girls shouldn’t do anything that “edges toward rape.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdSsJQ-fvOU

    Migrants sexually harass German School Girls – Mayor dismisses Grandfather: “Don’t provoke them”

    If they do, they deserve whatever they get. Just like someone who uses speech that edges toward violence.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  200. The magic of Milhouse.

    U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Egypt, a prominent member of the Saudi-championed Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Resolution 16/18 was purportedly a compromise between advocates of a resolution condemning “defamation of religions” and those who were concerned that such a resolution would threaten freedoms of expression and religion. The Council adopted Resolution 16/18 in March 2011.

    The Obama administration has notched up a number of firsts. This is one you no doubt haven’t heard of; it is the first US administration to side with Muslim countries seeking to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws on an international basis, and against it’s own Constitution.

    What are you talking about? As your own quote says, the administration took the opposite side, and negotiated with that side to produce a resolution that expressly recognizes the importance of open debate, preserves freedom of expression, and does not call for anti-blasphemy laws.

    Notice how my “purportedly” becomes “expressly” by the time Milhouse is done creating his straw man.

    Well, done creating this straw man. He’s got an army of them.

    Again, Milhouse is being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps even deceptive. The resolution provides the pretense of protection of freedom of expression. Milhouse would have you believe it actually does what it only pretends to do.

    Purportedly: allegedly, supposedly. And what would Milhouse have you believe?

    This is a good thing the administration did, one that provides evidence against your claim.

    Of course it does. Just as long as you massage my claim by replacing a word here and there until it’s no longer my claim.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  201. #192, Gerald, there are multiple sources. Lieutenant Commander William B Pitzer was a career Naval Medical Corps Officer with a background in the Educational TV Division at the Naval Medical School, he held a senior position at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.

    Autopsy physician Dr Joseph Humes acknowledged that Pitzer was not present in the autopsy room, however, he admitted that the Bethesda Naval Hospital was equipped with closed-circuit television, and that Pitzer used these facilities to make instructional movies. Pitzer secretly made a 16-mm movie film of JFK’s autopsy.

    Dennis D. David, a colleague at Bethesda claimed Pitzer showed him a 16-mm film, slides and black and white photos of the Kennedy autopsy only days after the assassination. David reported that Pitzer had images showing what appeared to be an entry wound in the right frontal area of JFK’s head with a corresponding exit wound in the lower rear of the skull.

    Jerrol F. Custer, an X-ray technician at the hospital confirmed David’s claims, Custe later stated that Pitzer had photographed the autopsy proceedings, including the military men who attended the Kennedy autopsy. Additionally, Pitzer had copies of Kennedy’s autopsy photographs.

    After serving for 28 years in the Navy, including action in WW-2 and Korea, Pitzer was ready to retire. He was offered a job working in network television and he intended to use his autopsy materials to make a TV docudrama about the Kennedy assassination.

    Shortly before his retirement (10/29/66) Pitzer was found dead at his desk at the Naval Medical School, Bethesda. The Naval Investigative Service and the FBI both concluded that a gunshot wound to the head had been self-inflicted.

    It wasn’t till 11 years later that FBI files released under the Freedom on Information Act (FOIA) revealed that paraffin tests on Pitzer’s hands, palms and backs, were negative for nitrates indicating no exposure to gunpowder. Moreover, FBI tests concluded the gun was more than 3 feet from Pitzer’s head when it discharged (when he was murdered). FBI files also revealed a mysterious third wound not related to the gunshot to the head. Pitzer didn’t leave a suicide note but a piece of paper found on the floor near Pitzer’s body bore a partial heel print that was not from the shoes Pitzer was wearing.

    In May 1995, ex-Special Forces Colonel Daniel Marvin claimed to have been solicited by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency to “terminate” William Pitzer. An interview with Marvin later appeared in the sixth episode of the television series The Men Who Killed Kennedy (November, 1995)

    ropelight (6b59d0)

  202. she lives on hate street
    she lingers long on hate street
    barry legacy

    Colonel Haiku (a28485)

  203. What are you talking about? As your own quote says, the administration took the opposite side, and negotiated with that side to produce a resolution that expressly recognizes the importance of open debate, preserves freedom of expression, and does not call for anti-blasphemy laws.

    Notice how my “purportedly” becomes “expressly” by the time Milhouse is done creating his straw man.

    Your “purportedly” didn’t become anything. Your quote says the administration negotiated with Egypt; that means it took the opposite side, and the resolution was the result of that negotiation. The resolution does expressly recognize the importance of open debate, it does preserve freedom of expression, and does not call for anti-blasphemy laws. That is a fact, not an opinion. It’s right there in the text.

    The resolution provides the pretense of protection of freedom of expression. Milhouse would have you believe it actually does what it only pretends to do.

    How can a resolution pretend to do anything? It does what its text says it does.

    The only speech it calls on states to ban is “incitement to imminent violence”. If Abigail Esman, whoever she is, doesn’t know that that means then she shouldn’t comment on first amendment issues, but surely you know what it means, and you know that it doesn’t mean anything like “speech to which Muslims respond violently”. That language can only have got into the resolution because 0bama’s people put it there, and they deserve credit for doing so.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  204. I just finished reading Abigail Esman’s article, and she is an idiot. incitement to imminent violence is not protected by the firts amendment, and is already illegal in every state in the union, and in every civilized country.

    She also seems to imagine that a resolution of the UN Human Rights Council can “criminalize” anything.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  205. Milhouse, again you are being deliberately obtuse. Esman understands what incitement to violence means to the OIC. And to the Obama administration.

    It means, don’t provoke the Muslims.

    As I tried to make clear in my discussion of tauriya you are thinking in the wrong terms.

    Please continue to call the people who grasp the contours of the new reality “idiots.”

    Loretta Lynch was threatening people whose speech offends Muslims. That is perfectly clear to everyone but the deliberately obtuse. In that, she was only following her bosses lead who announced during his 25 September 2012 speech at the UN that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” He was using the Sharia definition of slander, which means speaking a truth about someone that the “injured” party would rather remain hidden.

    Technically you still have the freedom of speech. But attract the attention of the feds for speech that “edges toward violence” (i.e. speech that does not advocate violence but may prompt a violent response) and they will “take action.” Meaning, make your free exercise of speech as painful and expensive as possible.

    It’s just a coincidence, this IRS audit.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  206. Contrary to Official reports JFK’s body arrived at the Bethesda Naval Hospital transported by an H-21 helicopter that landed in the Officer’s Club parking lot. A Black Cadillac mortuary ambulance was waiting as JFK’s body, wrapped in sheets and towels, was place in an ordinary shipping casket and taken to the morgue’s loading dock arriving at 1835 hours (6:35 pm) and was logged in by USMC Sergeant Boyajian.

    (Note JFK’s body arrived by helicopter 20 minutes before the motorcade from Andrews Air Force Base, with the red-bronze casket which contained JFK’s body as it left Parkland Hospital, accompanied by Jackie and Robert Kennedy.)

    As the nation watched on live TV we saw an empty bronze casket unloaded from Air Force One and loaded into a gunmetal gray Navy ambulance, however, if Sergeant Boyajian’s records are accurate, then JFK’s body had been removed from the bronze casket while on-board AF-1 prior to landing at Andrews AFB and taken by helicopter to Bethesda Naval Hospital arriving 20 minutes before the motorcade arrived.

    ropelight (6b59d0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9518 secs.