Apparently, the real policy on gays in the military is don’t ask, don’t tell, and hope to God some other jerk doesn’t tell, either.

Ann Coulter thinks the criminal-minded ACORNies in the Brooklyn video are guilty of criminal conspiracy. I’m not so sure. I don’t recall the ACORNies conspiring with each other on the tape, only attempting to conspire with two people they thought were a pimp and a prostitute but who actually weren’t. Can you have a conspiracy of one?

Experian is getting hit with a class action on the novel theory that false advertising in a domain name is false advertising. My heart bleeds.

If there’s one thing worse than a school having crappy test scores, it’s expelling the few students you have who get good test scores for complaining about your low test scores.

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 not to decimate the Bill of Rights. Thank goodness for small favors. Last time, the Douche in Chief lied an claimed to have supported the decision all along. This time, he’s doubling down and asking Congress to either repeal the First Amendment or simply ignore it, it’s not clear which.

But … he’s a good man, and heaven forbid anyone hope he fails.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer calls for Congressional hearings on the separation of powers, and the ACLU re-thinks its support of the one American civil liberty this union has mostly supported in the past. ‘Cuz allowing Nazis to march in Skokie is one thing, and allowing the Obamessiah’s scapegoats to talk back to The One is another.

If Wal-Mart’s refusal to fire idiot employees who don’t do the right thing isn’t enough reason to boycott them, how about their policy of firing the reasonable ones who do?

‘Hat tip: Uncle.

Old excuse: “Fake but accurate.”
New excuse: “Not faked, but not pretty.”

Hot Air and DRJ catch on to Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi’s unfulfilled promise to die in three months in exchange for his ill-gotten freedom. You read it here first (assuming, of course, that you are one of the three people who still read this blog at all).

Doubts, (which are not to be confused with reasonable ones) notwithstanding, is justice delayed finally about to mean something other than justice denied?

One can only hope.

I’m not sure who to be madder at, Irv Sutley for demanding that an angel be removed from a Christmas tree, or Sonoma County, California for complying with his demand. It’s bad enough having local governments take down crosses off hills or re-write the Pledge of Allegiance when some activist judge requires them to. Here there was no credible threat of a lawsuit at all, just the whining of one individual citizen who, perhaps not coincidentally, is also the chairman of the local, Orwellian-named “Peace and Freedom” Party. Sutley non-explains his position thusly:

“I just don’t believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior. I’ve opposed Buddhist statues, the star of David — anything of a religious nature.”

In other words, so what if I’m a jerk, I’m consistently a jerk to everybody. Normal people might find such consistency even more upsetting than jerkhood per se – let’s face it, we all act like jerks a little bit every now and then – but I’m sure the principle fetishists will be happy that he’s acting consistently according to a principle, any principle, and therefore it’s AOK that he is acting like a jerk so long as he’s a principled jerk. Only in this case, even his purported principle about government intrusion isn’t quite right:

[Sutley] now intends to ask county officials to remove a steel cross near Ernie Smith Park in Sonoma that serves as a memorial to an accident victim.
“It was put up privately without a permit,” Sutley said. “It shouldn’t be there.”

So first government “intrudes” by placing an angel on a Christmas tree, now it’s “intruding” by not insulting grieving family members of an accident victim by allowing them to put something up without a permit. Not that a permit would have mattered, anyway. Does anyone doubt this jerk would have found it equally “intrusive” if a permit had been issued?