[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Instalink! Thanks. And thanks to Scott Jacobs for telling me about the link.

Google is now proposing something called Google Wallet:

Google’s announcement today was as everyone expected an official unveiling of its NFC-based Google Wallet payment system. The addition of Google Offers was somewhat less expected and probably not exactly welcomed by daily-deal competitors Groupon and LivingSocial.

The Internet giant appears to have thought of everything. This in-phone system will not only work with a select set of Citibank MasterCard credit cards, but with the use of the built-in, prepaid Google card, it’ll let you add funds from virtually any credit card (but you’ll use the Google Card to pay). Paying with an NFC-enabled phone (which Google optimistically says will account for 15% of the mobile phones on the market by the summer) is pretty much like paying with any of the tap-and-go credit cards and fobs you’ve used in the past.

Google, are you kidding me?  You want me to trust you guys with something as important as my money, after how you allowed Ann Althouse to be treated, as well as the people who criticized how she was treated, and then lied about what happened? Indeed, if you guys have disciplined Nitecruzr at all, I have seen no evidence of it.  Last we heard his status was under review.  How did that ever turn out?  And why haven’t you guys made the slightest effort to contact myself or Patrick to explain what happened and what you will do to prevent it from happening again?

As far as this blogger is concerned, you have some fences to mend before I even think of letting you into my wallet.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

This video clip is fun to watch for two different reasons.  First, it captures a candid moment between Bill Clinton and Paul Ryan, which is interesting because Clinton is admitting that Medicare is in trouble, his fears that Democrats will ignore the problem, and hear the siren song of temporary political gain by demagoguing the issue.  And that is interesting.

But it’s also fun because Fox News set up one of those debate segments.  In the left corner (literally and figuratively) was “former Bill Clinton campaign adviser Simon Rosenberg.”  In the right corner was “conservative talk-show host Ben Ferguson.”  And in the end Rosenberg literally takes off his mic and walks out in frustration.

Myself, I actually don’t think Rosenberg acquitted himself too badly.  The fact was Ferguson was rude.  Now the ideal reaction would have been to put him in his place, but the fact that Rosenberg didn’t rise to my ideal doesn’t make Ferguson suddenly right, just more like a successful bully.

On the other hand Rosenberg was telling some whoppers in the substance of his argument.  But that doesn’t mean that Ferguson had to interrupt him.  Seriously, did he think he would have no time to reply?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

Based on what I know about John Edwards and my track record so far in predicting the course of his case, I’m going to disagree with Aaron and say I think he’ll take a plea deal. Don’t get me wrong; Aaron has pegged Edwards’s ego exactly correctly…but even Edwards has limits.

Specifically, Edwards does what he has to do when he has no other possible choice. That’s why he confessed to the affair but not the baby initially. That’s why he eventually confessed to the baby. Absolutely no choice.

This seems like it’s going to turn into one of those moments.

– Lee Stranahan

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Okay, this is starting to seem a little strange.  Last time in the Fourth Circuit (my home circuit) it was two Obama Appointees and one Clinton appointee hearing the case.  This time in the Eleventh Circuit, it is two Clinton appointees and one Bush Sr. appointee.  Certainly lady luck is not smiling on the anti-Obamacare forces.  I’m not prepared to call it a stacked deck (not even close), but it is raising my eyebrow…

David Freddoso speculates that it might be good for the anti-Obamacare forces as follows:

a quick loss may be the best thing that can happen to the Obamacare challenge, since it’s bound to end up before the Supreme Court anyway.

Well, either that or these Circuit Courts as a whole might consider those panels to be so far out of step with their thinking that they might choose to rehear it en banc (by the entire court and not just a three judge panel), which will slow things down.  Further, in seeking Supreme Court review it helps to have a conflict in the Circuit Courts.  The Supreme Court naturally doesn’t like the idea of some states having one set of federal rules and other states having different rules.  You can get review otherwise, but it’s a tougher route.  The Supreme Court always gets many more petitions than it accepts.

He also notes that “Marcus was appointed to the district court by President Reagan before being bumped up by Clinton.”  So he might be more of a centrist.

Hat Tip: Ian Cormac.

————————

* Yes, I know technically Bush 41 shoudl not be referred to as Bush Sr. Nor should “W” be called Bush Jr.  Because their names are not technically identical the tradition holds that you do not refer to them as Sr. or Jr.   But I do it anyway.

So there.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

But it’s important to not that it is not THE immigration law we are all talking about.  I haven’t read the whole opinion, but even the Ninth Circuit found in Arizona’s favor.  You can read the decision, here.

I am going to circle back and read the decision and give analysis a little later, after I put up two other posts I planned to put up.  I will note that I did read enough to get the feeling that this was not a very difficult case.  The law in question punished businesses in their licenses if they knowingly hired illegal aliens.  The United States Chamber of Commerce (?!) argued that the law was preempted by federal law.  As you might know, states can often legislate in areas that the Federal Government can legislate in, but sometimes federal law pre-empts—that is, invalidates—state law because of the pre-eminence of federal power in a given area.  Immigration is considered to be one of those areas where federal power is strong.

But, well, here’s one of the opening paragraphs from Roberts’ opinion:

Federal immigration law expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ . . . unauthorized aliens.”  8 U. S. C.  §1324a(h)(2).   A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of  state employers that knowingly or  intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked.  The law also requires that  all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they  employ are legally authorized workers.  The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law.  Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the  federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict  with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted.

In other words, the statute actually seems pretty clearly designed not to contradict what they did.  And it suggests that they believe that unless there is express or implied statutory pre-emption, a state is free to pass these kinds of laws.  That could be an important signal going down the road when we talk about THE immigration law that was so controversial in Arizona right now.

But of course the best evidence that this case was a no-brainer is simply this: the Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona statute.

Anyway, I will read the case and add to my analysis as appropriate.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

As I pointed out in my original piece, Glenn Beck made a series of self-aggrandizing lies about his participation in the Shirley Sherrod story. I thought my article made this point abundantly clear though Beck’s own words and a clear timeline but I didn’t count on the fierce resistance to facts that would be demonstrated by some of Beck’s diehard supporters.

Those supporters brought to my attention something I was not aware of – a ‘4^th Hour’ of the show that’s apparently not broadcast except over the internet. One of them was kind enough to post it, in an attempt to clear this name.

Far from exonerating Beck, however, the ‘4^th Hour’ drives the stake in even deeper and proves conclusively my original article’s contention that Beck has made intentional misstatements of fact about the Sherrod story to the general public and his fans.

On at least two separate occasions, Glenn Beck takes sole personal credit for having realized something was wrong with the story “in his office.” He tells Bill O’Reilly that he knew this immediately…

Beck: I sat in my office and said “Something’s not right with this.”

Bill : Oh, really? Right from the jump?

Beck : Right from the jump. Something’s not right with this.

He tells a crowd of 1000 in Kansas City that he said to his entire team…

I stood in my office with my entire team, and I said, “something’s wrong, don’t do this story.”That’s what saved me: the Sword of the Spirit.

Here’s what the 4th Hour audio proves.

Beck’s Sidekicks, Not Beck, Discovered ‘Something Wrong’ From CNN, not God

The 4^th Hour makes it clear that Beck’s sidekicks are the ones who realized ‘something was wrong’ – not Beck himself. They are listening to CNN reports and make real time comments as the story unfolds publicly.

The reason they realized that ‘something was wrong’ wasn’t because Glenn Beck told them. It wasn’t because God told them. It was because they watched CNN.

They are discussing public knowledge. Everyone suspected there was ‘something wrong’ at that point.

This totally refutes Glenn Beck’s claim of standing in his office and telling ‘his entire team’ not to do the story right ‘from the jump.’ It means that his claims that he realized though paranoia, intuition or divine whispers in his ears that something was wrong with the Sherrod story are deliberate falsehoods.

Beck Later Repeats Claims By His Sidekicks

The sidekicks in the 4^th Hour make a number of statements that wend their way into Beck’s later statements on TV. They say Sherrod seems nice and they also say explicitly that Beck should go on TV and say Sherrod should get her job back, which he did.

This demolishes Beck’s claim of standing in his office and telling ‘his entire team’ not to do the story. In fact, it’s pretty clear that Beck’s team actually told him what to say.

So when Glenn Beck repeatedly took sole personal credit for being the person who figured out the ‘truth’ about the Sherrod story first, it’s a proven falsehood.

– Lee Stranahan

A Houston Chronicle blog says:

Conservative radio talk show host and best-selling author Laura Ingraham got tongues wagging in Texas today when she declared that Rick Perry is running for president in 2012.

Ingraham was doing an interview with conservative Indiana congressman Mike Pence when she let loose with her Perry “scoop.”

According to the conservative blog Ace of Spades HQ, Ingraham revealed that “she knows someone very connected to Perry, and that guy says he’s in.”

If a Houston Chronicle blog says that Ace of Spades says that Laura Ingraham says that some dude says that Rick Perry says he’s running . . . then brother, that’s good enough for me.

Because I want it to be so.