Who's at fault?

Stolen in its entirety from NRO's The Corner is this gem from Mark Steyn:

A mentally disturbed man is wandering through traffic outside New York’s Port Authority Bus Terminal. Naturally, the NYPD open fire. They miss the guy. However, the sidewalks being full of people, they manage to hit two female pedestrians, one of them already using a walker, which comes in handy when the coppers shoot you in the leg.

 So the DA charges the guy with assaulting the women:

“The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.

Ah, yes: the “situation” injured the innocent bystanders. If you outlaw guns, only situations will have guns.

The defendant is looking at 25 years in jail for the crime of provoking law enforcement into shooting random citizens. If this flies in New York, then there is no law.

This is just the latest in the even growing trend whereby just about anything you do can be construed as a crime.  The rush to criminalize ordinary behavior is one more example of the ever-expanding reach of The State to control and punish the citizenry.

Damager in Chief

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has a insightful piece on Obama's pandering to the Hispanic vote.  One takeaway:

The overriding damage is to our system of government and to respect for the law. In the topsy-turvy world created by Obama’s pandering, the president abdicates his responsibility to enforce the law, leaving states holding the bag. And when states that try to fill the breach, Obama not only punishes them as entities – by ending all meaningful federal cooperation – but also encourages attacks on state law enforcement personnel as individuals.

All of this because Obama needs the votes of Hispanics.

and

What additional benefits and exemptions from obligations would future Obamas confer on Hispanics if they become an even larger portion of the electorate? What new lawless decrees would future demagogues in the Obama tradition issue to satisfy this politically powerful underclass?

The answers should be sufficiently frightening to cause Republicans (and Democrats with a decent regard for our traditions and our system of government) to vow never to grant illegal aliens a path to citizenship.

The Democratic party ceased to be a party to represent the interests of American citizens.  What it has become is an ad-hoc amalgamation of special interests and voting blocs, with the goal of getting enough groups to make up 51% of the electorate.

Sad that it has come to this.

Are we a nation of laws?

That simple question used to be routinely answered with "Of course. That's what makes America America".  But more and more, our laws are being eroded.  From the Washington Times comes this report:

A federal department ruled last week that the Forest Service violated a Spanish-speaking woman’s civil rights by calling the Border Patrol to help translate during a routine stop, saying it was “humiliating” to Hispanics and an illicit backdoor way to capture more illegal immigrants.

The ruling by the Agriculture Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights could change policies nationwide as law enforcement agencies grapple with how far they can go in trying to help the Border Patrol while not running afoul of racial profiling standards.

You have go to be kidding me.  Has someone failed to note that one important word in the first paragraph - "illegal"?  When laws are ignored by those who are sworn to uphold them, the whole system becomes a rigged game.  Whoever can prove the greatest grievance gets the most protected place at the table.

You know, if the whole government other than the courts and military disappeared, it might just be a better day.  That is, unless you are one who's protected by the government.  Like an "illegal".

Why now?

That's one of the questions I have regarding this release of information in the Zimmerman-Martin affair.

MIAMI –  Court records show George Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

The medical records were part of evidence released Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman. He has entered a plea of not guilty and claims self-defense in the Feb. 26 shooting. A message left Tuesday evening with Zimmerman's attorney was not immediately returned.

Did the special prosecutor have this at the time charges were filed?  Did police have knowledge of these records?  Why is this being released now?  Why is court evidence being released to the public prior to trial?

My own hypothesis.  Prosecutors are going to either drop the charges or significantly reduce them.  Rather than have a Rodney King type situation erupt at that news, or a backlash against the prosecutor and police, they are trying to pave the way for the news with releases of information that shows there's no case to be made against Zimmerman.

Let's see what plays out.  Thanks to Fox News for the story.

Lawsuits as censorship

From Breitbart:

The political director of the Democratic Party of Georgia (DPG) is filing a lawsuit against two bloggers who alerted their readers to his criminal past.  Rashad Richey filed the lawsuit against Andre Walker for alleging that he had been arrested twelve times for crimes such as burglary, driving with revoked license, battery, family violence, obstructing an officer, and violating probation, and against Melanie Goux for posting a letter from Chairman Berlon of the DPG to the State Committee specifically related to a news story being done on Walker’s post.

In addition, Richey named as defendant a former member of the DPG Executive Committee, Jane Bradshaw, who was fired by DPG Chairman Berlon after she said she no longer supported Chairman Berlon to lead the DPG. She had not written anything.

Remember folks....if he has a "D" after his name, you can't mention anything personal.  Then it's an attack.  But if the person has an "R", then it is just alerting the public.

This lesson in double standards is brought to you by the letters "D" and "R" who hope you now understand the difference.

Scary words from a member of SCOTUS

CNS has the following about one of The Brethren:

Describing her move from serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general to serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan said last week that “sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all.”

As solicitor general, Kagan’s job was to advocate the Obama administration’s position in cases brought to the Supreme Court. As a justice, Kagan's job is to judge cases brought to the Supreme Court.

“So, sometimes I think that the job doesn’t really change at all--that as solicitor general my life was spent trying to persuade 9 people and now it’s just trying to persuade 8 people,” said Kagan.

Boy, is that scary.  In Kagan's view, her job isn't to rule on the law, it's to persuade her fellow justices.  She's not a referee, she's still one of the players.

Read more about this, including a link to the video of Kagan, in the post at Patterico.