Zimmerman Says Trayvon Decked Him, Pummled Head

Don’t misunderstand, I’m not defending Zimmerman. Nor am I going to defend Trayvon. What we need are facts, rather than frontier justice ending with a lynch mob

(Orlando Sentinal) With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities have revealed to the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened, but that night, Feb. 26, and in later meetings he described and re-enacted for police what he says happened.

In his version of events, he had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

If the facts turn out that Zimmerman was the aggressor, and shot Trayvon in cold blood, he should be locked up for life. But, what if the facts turn out that Zimmerman was attacked? Shouldn’t we have all the facts before a rush to scalp collecting? We are a nation of law, not a nation of Men. Let the Grand Jury get the facts before putting out death threats.

Read: Zimmerman Says Trayvon Decked Him, Pummled Head »

Obama Asks Medvedev For “Space” On Missile Defense

Apparently, the Smartest President Evah! still doesn’t understand that those little sidebar conversations are often picked up by microphones, leading to this exchange with current Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday in Seoul, meant to be transmitted back to incoming President Putin

(ABC News) President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Exactly what kind of policy does Obama need the “space” for? Jake Tapper includes a couple of weaselly responses for the Obama administration as to what Obama meant, but, I think we can all figure out that Obama needs to win re-election in order to give the kitchen sink away to the Russians regarding missile defense, particularly in Eastern Europe, which is primarily aimed at stopping Iranian missiles. Remember, Obama threw Poland under his big, stake encrusted bus back in 2009, regarding missile defense.

As Powerline points out

The man has big plans for us — the kind of plans he won’t be sharing with the American people. Not yet.

The only reason not share with the American people is that we will really, really not like the plans.

Ed Morrissey

This, to quote our Vice President, is “a big f*****g deal.”  What solution does Obama envision that would pay off for Putin so much that the Russians would agree to the “space” necessary by keeping quiet about US plans for its deployment?  The only possible answer would be the dismantling of even the smaller missile-defense system to which Obama committed in 2009.  And it looks as though Obama has already tipped his hand to the Russians — against whom this particular defense system would be mainly ineffective anyway — in exchange for political assistance to influence the election.

Betsy’s Page

Oh, great. Now we have the President telling the Russians that he can do more of what they want on missile defense once he gets reelected and doesn’t have to worry about American voters disapproving of what he wants to do.

Isn’t wonderful how Obama is looking out for the best interests of the Russian people first?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Obama Asks Medvedev For “Space” On Missile Defense »

Politico: 5 Things To Watch In ObamaCare Hearing

That’s right, today is the day the oral arguments start over the constitutionality of Affordable Care Act. Perhaps they should start with the name, since the legislation is anything but affordable. Anyhow, the NY Times points out that day 1 will be excruciatingly boring, as it will be a discussion over whether the High Court can even hear arguments, or has to wait till people are actually taxed first.

(Politico) How will politics enter the chamber?

Overt politicking in front of the justices is unusual, but they can hardly ignore the political firestorm over the president’s health care law.

One of the liberal justices may say or at least hint early on that if the law is as bad as critics contend, surely the public will correct that by voting Obama out this fall. Indeed, Democrats’ midterm losses in Congress were due in no small part to passage of the law.

Would anyone be shocked that any of the liberal judges have already determined that they do not want to take a chance that the individual mandate is shot down, potentially killing the entire law, and want to put it back in the election realm? Republicans need to hold the House, and win the White House and Senate to repeal this intrusive and horrendous law.

At first glance, a ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional would appear to be a humiliating blow to the president. But Obama might perform political jiujitsu, turning a negative ruling to his advantage by firing up his base and campaigning against the court this fall.

Obama has already shown his willingness to drag the court into the political fray, as he did during his 2010 State of the Union address when he blasted the justices in person over their Citizens United campaign finance ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts later called the episode “very troubling.”

If memory serves, and Politico already mentioned, Democrats were smacked around in a “historic” manner, to use one of Obama’s favorite words, in 2010. Democrats mostly refused to even discuss ObamaCare then, and have mostly avoided it since. Don’t expect Democrats to want to discus it during this election cycle.

With polls showing Americans evenly divided on the law and the individual mandate deeply unpopular, many Republicans are counting on the “repeal Obamacare” banner to help carry them to victory in November. But if the court undoes the law, that rallying cry could be moot.

Actually, every poll shows many more want this travesty to be repealed that want to keep it. And most want it passionately repealed. Americans are certainly not evenly divided.

The other 5 include

  • Watch for the questions the Justices act for which way the wind blows
  • The “broccoli” question: if the Central Government can force people to purchase insurance, can they force people to buy other products?
  • What happens to the rest of the bill if the mandate is killed?
  • Will the court punt, as discussed in the NY Times article?

There are a few other questions that could be asked, such as “how many liberals will get arrested over the next few days during their protests, and will they literally poop on stuff around the Supreme Court area?” and “What idiotic thing will Obama say about the Supreme Court in the next few days, and how bad will he freak out when the Mandate is killed?”

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Politico: 5 Things To Watch In ObamaCare Hearing »

AGW Today: Queensland Labor Party Destroyed

Why is this important? It was Leftists and the Labor Party in Australia which pushed all the globull warming rules, laws, and regulations

(Brisbane Times) Voters have emphatically ended Labor’s rule in Queensland, effectively reducing the trounced government to the status of minor party.

So comprehensive was the LNP election victory under Campbell Newman that Labor has been virtually erased from the Queensland electoral map.

The ALP looks likely to be reduced to just seven of parliament’s 89 seats. This would be four fewer seats than that won by One Nation in 1998.

How bad is the defeat?

(The Telegraph) With only enough MPs to fill a small van after Saturday night, Labor even fell short of the 10 seats needed for official party status.

The Telegraph goes on to point out that Julie Gillard’s party is pretty much over. The People of Australia did not want all the cap and trade regulations, they do not want their cost of living artificially increased for a fake issue, and do not want their lives impacted due to legislation passed by people who never live the same “carbon neutral” lives they legislate. And certainly not when the “solutions” would have zero impact, even if anthropogenic global warming was real.

As Steven Milloy points out

Politicians globally are likely to take this bloodbath as a warning – voters will not tolerate enormous and entirely pointless energy taxes imposed to “address” a problem which does not exist.

This is the beginning of the political demise of global warming, carbon constraint and energy rationing. Moreover voters have severely thrashed the anti-development Greens and obstructive environmentalism.

Anna Bligh, the leader of Queensland Labor, quit over this utterly humiliating defeat. This should be a wake up call for all those “well meaning” politicians around the world, and especially here in the USA: do not push your junk science on the People by law and executive fiat.

Make sure to read all of the links over at Milloy’s blog.

 

Read: AGW Today: Queensland Labor Party Destroyed »

If All You See…

…is an evil golf course wasting water which is non-renewable, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! Another great day in the USA. I have no idea who did this pinup, found it around the web, added Patriotic Bunny. If anyone knows the artist, let me know. Anyhow, here’s wishing Dick Cheney a speeding recovery after his heart transplant. Sorry, Mr. Cheney, no looking at the pinup!

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Liberals are a wee bit upset with Dan Riehl for pointing out a photoshopped Tayvon Martin photo. Make sure to read Dan’s response.
  2. Teresamerica welcomes you to Obamaville
  3. American Power highlights the death threats against Zimmerman
  4. And So It Goes In Shreveport wonders if Santorum should quit the race
  5. Dr. Melissa Clouthier covers selective outrage
  6. Flopping Aces covers the unhinged liberals going unhinged over the Ryan budget
  7. Gay Patriot slaps around the Huffington Post
  8. Ed Morrissey finds Obama being classy. BFD
  9. Jammie Wearing Fools covers stupid Occupoers being, well, stupid
  10. Legal Insurrection wonders what’ll happen if Zimmerman is found “not guilty”
  11. Maggie’s Notebook wonders about an America without Obama
  12. I really didn’t expect Cheney Derangement Syndrome to show up at Outside The Beltway
  13. Patterico catches a Dem blaming Republicans for firebombing her office. Guess who really did it
  14. Public Secrets has a few kind words for Debbie Wasserman Schultz
  15. And last, but not least, Q&O has the on Obama quote of the day
  16. And one to grow on: Daley Gator tells us about the IRS and DHS monitoring the Tea Party
  17. And Doug Ross has 15 signs from the Rally For Religious Freedom the media won’t show you.
  18. Last one: Don Surber says Louisiana put a wooden stake in Newt’s campaign

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

The posts do take a long time, so, if you want to send me your links for Rule 5 babeage or links, use ye olde email in the header bar (remove the NOSPAM part). Preferably, create the html link so I can copy and paste how you want it to read.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

In Debunking Myths About Obamacare, Washington Post Forgets To Debunk Them

They’re just “challenging everything you know”, and essentially proving you, meaning those who understand Obamacare, rather than simply being cheerleaders for a bill you didn’t read, 100% correct

(WP) 1. The “individual mandate” forces everyone to buy health insurance.

The law states that, beginning in 2014, individuals must ensure that they and their dependents are covered by health insurance. Taxpayers who do not meet this requirement will have to pay a penalty that the law calls a “shared responsibility payment.” It begins at $95 for the first year and never exceeds 21 / 2 percent of anyone’s annual taxable income.

A large majority of Americans, of course, have health insurance through their employers, Medicare or Medicaid and are already in compliance with this requirement. Given the relatively modest payment required of those who choose not to maintain insurance, no one is being forced to buy a product they don’t want.

The challengers argue that the mandate is a binding requirement that makes anyone who goes without insurance a lawbreaker. The government has determined, however, that those who pay the penalty, like those who are exempt from the penalty, are not lawbreakers. As a practical matter, the so-called mandate is just a relatively modest financial incentive to have health insurance.

So, essentially, you either must purchase health insurance or face a fine/tax. Just like we have argued. The “myth” is positioned as “you must purchase it.” Period. Alas, that was never the argument, so, myth #1 shot down.

2. Only the individual mandate is at stake in the Supreme Court case.

The mandate is not a stand-alone provision that can be invalidated without affecting the rest of the law. In fact, it is merely an ancillary measure that makes two more-fundamental provisions of the law workable: “guaranteed issue” and “community rating.”

Not sure how that is a myth. Conservatives want the entire thing shot down.

3. If the court upholds the health-care law, it means Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase any product.

The mandate does not force people into commerce who would otherwise remain outside it. Instead, it regulates the consumption of health care, an activity in which virtually everyone will engage. Right now, people who go without insurance often shift the costs of their health care to other patients and taxpayers. That situation is different from what happens with any other type of purchase.

The WP says that government cannot force you to “buy broccoli”, but doesn’t understand a few points. First, broccoli is simply an allegory for the unfettered power of the central government, of which we already see too much. Second, the Commerce Clause doesn’t give the central government the power to dictate the purchase of a product to occur because commerce may occur, especially not when the commerce is not outside of the individual states.

4. The law is socialist.

Actually, the opposite is true. The principal reason the Affordable Care Act has been called unprecedented is that it declines to follow the New Deal approach of having a monolithic government agency be the single provider of a good or service. Instead, the law adopts a new approach, one conservatives have long supported, of using providers in the private market to deal with social and economic problems.

On this one, sort of. It is more fascistic than socialist. However, it does involve the government at all levels in health decisions, and the Exchanges are, for all purposes, run by government, which is a primary position of the Democratic Socialist political theory under the Economic Core. Much more could be said about this model among the three Democracy models (Socialist, Conservative, and Liberal), but, I won’t bore you with Political Theory.

5. The law is an extraordinary intrusion into liberty.

Nothing in the health-care law tells doctors what they must say to patients or how those patients are to be treated. It only requires people to either have insurance coverage or pay a modest tax penalty.

Actually, it does, and those of us who’ve read the bill know that bill dictates costs and treatments, and created that ‘Death Panel,” otherwise known as “The Independent Payment Advisory Board”.

Anyone else get the feeling that Obamacare supporters are getting really nervous about the Supreme Court hearing which starts Monday?

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: In Debunking Myths About Obamacare, Washington Post Forgets To Debunk Them »

ABC News Shocked At The Emotional Outpouring For Pope Visit

No, really, it’s like the can’t imagine the love Catholics have for the Pope

Pope’s Arrival in Mexico Sparks Surprising Emotion

It’d be surprising if they were mad, upset, angry, and so forth, but

So well before dawn Saturday, two dozen youths from a Guadalajara church group gathered near the school where the Pope Benedict XVI was staying.

“We sang with all our heart and all our force,” said Maria Fernanda de Luna, a member of the group. “It gave us goosebumps to sing ‘Las Mananitas’ for him.”

Songs, joyful throngs, church bells and confetti welcomed Benedict as he began his first trip to Mexico, a celebration that seemed to erupt spontaneously out of what had been a thin, sun-dazed crowd.

As Pope Benedict XVI’s plane appeared in the shimmering heat of Friday afternoon, people poured from their homes. They packed sidewalks five and six deep, screaming ecstatically as the pope passed, waving slowly. Some burst into tears.

And ABC News is somehow surprised. Typical lefties don’t understand religion.

Sunday update: as GT points out in the comments, the story has disappeared from ABC News. While the link goes to a much shortened Mobile version (I did the post on my ‘Droid), if you search Google for the headline, the link goes to a different story about the Pope at ABC News. But that same headline provides for many, many other stories. It looks like it was originally an AP story. Can see it at Yahoo News, among others.

Read: ABC News Shocked At The Emotional Outpouring For Pope Visit »

Do You Believe In Climate Change?

That’s what Warmist Vicky Pope, who is a senior scientist at the (discredited) Met Office Hadley Centre at the UK Guardian wants to know

Do you believe in climate change?

That’s not a question you should be asking – it’s a matter of empirical evidence, not belief

So you climate realists just need to STFU and GTFO. Even though “climate change” is an absurd and unscientific phrase used to blame everything that happens on mankinds release of greenhouse gases, such as from the energy used to publish the Guardian on the Internet.

This may seem like an odd question for a climate scientist to ask, but it is one I am constantly asked now. The typical discussion starts: “I know that the climate is changing, but hasn’t it always changed through natural cycles?” Then they will often give an example, such as the medieval warm period to prove their point.

And then Vicky forgets to actually address the climate changes, such as the MWP, Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, etc. That would be an inconvenient truth.

Which brings me on to the question, should you believe in climate change? The first point to make is that it’s not something you should believe or not believe in – this is a matter of science and therefore of evidence – and there’s lots of it out there. On an issue this important, I think people should look at that evidence and make their own mind up. We are often very influenced by our own personal experience. After a couple of cold winters in the UK, the common question was “has climate change stopped?” despite that fact that many other regions of the world were experiencing record warm temperatures. And 2010 was one of the warmest years on record. For real evidence of climate change, we have to look at the bigger picture.

Yeah, there is lots of evidence that the climate changes. Most of it points towards natural variation. Why did we get a cooling trend from the 1940’s through 1970’s, despite CO2 rising? Why has the climate, from a temperature standpoint, been stagnant for the last 15 years, despite rising CO2 levels? Why do the Warmists models fail so spectacularly?

You can see research by the Met Office that shows the evidence of man-made warming is even stronger than it was when the last IPCC report was published. A whole range of different datasets and independent analyses show the world is warming. There is a broad consensus that over the last half century warming has been rapid, and man-made greenhouse gas emissions are very likely to be the cause.

Check that Met Office link: nothing within shows anthropogenic causation, simply that the world has warmed. Yes, the world has warmed. That happens. And, do we even need to discuss that consensus is not science? And, if you are saying anthropogenic causes is the cause as “very likely”, that’s not science. Put a percentage to that. Is it or is it not? That’s science. BTW, that link for “fail so spectacularly” is about Vicky’s Met Office retroactively altering historical data to match their beliefs. Is that “sceince,” Vicky? Or advocacy?

Read: Do You Believe In Climate Change? »

If All You See…

…are evil cows killing Gaia, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is American Power.

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove