Now that Sting #4 contains what seems to be a flat out admission to first degree murder, you’re probably wondering to yourself, is this murderer going to be prosecuted? Your guess is as good as mine, but bear in mind that the video itself probably will not be admissible. The California Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, enacted Penal Code Section 632, which provides in subsection (a) that:

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication … eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

OK, you say, but this conversation wasn’t really “confidential,” was it? It’s not like the lady said “keep this under your hat” or anything. Not so fast. Subsection (c) generally defines “confidential communication” to include “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto,” excluding only communications made in public gatherings, legislative, judicial, executive and administrative proceedings open to the public, and “any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.” Any ACORN worker who now expects a consultation like that not to be overheard or recorded is probably relying on an unreasonable expectation. But unless O’Keefe and Giles told Murderer-Lady that this consultation may be recorded for quality assurance, Murderer-Lady had no reason to suspect that at the time.

All right, all right, so maybe Jerry Moonbeam can throw a misdemeanor charge at these two if he’s as politically tin-eared as his Maryland counterpart. That shouldn’t stop the state from using the woman’s statements against her, right? Wrong. Subsection (d) of this same brilliant statute provides that evidence obtained in violation of Section 632 is admissible for one purpose and one purpose only: to prove the violation of Section 632. Isn’t that special?

UPDATE: Then again, she may have another, more straightforward defense, namely the fact that the ex-husband she claimed to have murdered is … um … alive. How convenient.

I recently compared ACORN to the Mob. Apparently, the analogy was terribly unfair to the Mob. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Apparently, the jerks at Politico think they own the name “politico.” Kos them.

In the nation’s capital, “bitch set me up” is just an empty campaign slogan, but in Maryland, it’s official policy.

But for some reason, President Gotti won’t investigate.

After all these phony “Million ____ Marches” in DC that didn’t total anywhere near a million participants combined, they finally got an event whose proponents can credibly claim that well over a million “men” (and probably a good million actual men) did in fact march. So what did they call it? The Million Taxpayer March? The Million People Fed Up With Obama March? Oh no, either of those names would have made too much sense. Instead, they called it a friggin’ “tea party,” and then they didn’t serve tea. WTF?

UPDATE: Did I say WTF? I meant to say:

Saw a billboard today along US-52, just south of I-40, announcing that 1 in 3 people don’t know they have STDs. Am I to understand that the other 2 in 3 do?!

UPDATE: Here’s a pic, albeit a crappy one:

The 22nd and 24th Presidents agree that federal expenditures to benefit particular individuals in need are unconstitutional. Both Presidents wrote:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should I think be steadfastly resisted to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.

Unfortunately for both Presidents, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution itself suggests otherwise:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Note that while the duties, imposts and excises are required to be uniform throughout the country, the provisions for the general welfare are not. Expressio unius exclusio alterius est. That leaves us limited government advocates with only two options:

1. Give judges a line-item veto.
2. Accept that it’s up to Congress and/or the President to decide what does or does not provide for the general welfare of the United States.

As one who would never have proposed a tax and spend power as broad as the one we have, I can’t say I’m terribly wild about either option. I do think #2 is the lesser evil, however. What say you?

Know a guy who everyone else seems to think is brilliant, but who impresses you as a dolt? It could just mean he thinks you’re hot.

The good news is that Van Jones is out. The bad is that the clod who appointed him isn’t.