Click the photo to submit your captions
Our latest Free-n-Legal MP3s 
Days are like minutes and weeks like days. July is already wrapping up and now the dog days of August are upon us, and yet it seems as though summer has just gotten started. Time doesn't just fly, it travels at warp speed.
Have nice weekend, and post what you like.
Permalink | tagged Open Thread From Congressional Quarterly:
The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a bill that would change the way the state allots its presidential vote -- and that could result in Massachusetts giving its Electoral College votes to a candidate who wasn't the state's top vote-getter.
The Boston Globe reports that the bill now headed for the desk of Gov. Deval Patrick (D) would require that the state's 12 electoral votes go to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationally.
This move is almost certainly a Constitutional one; when it comes to electors, Article II clearly states (emphasis added):
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress [...]
I would think that any argument about the Constitutional propriety of this proposed change would face a very steep challenge.
The question should be asked, however: Is this change a good thing? For all the criticism leveled at the Electoral College over the years, it has done its job in a largely quiet fashion for centuries. What do you think?
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, seems to think so. Apparently, Grassley has obtained a memo
written by four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency staffers addressed to Director Alejandro Mayorkas which details a 'Doctrine of Balaam' type procedure that could possibly circumvent the deportation of illegals.
"In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear," the staffers wrote in the memo...
USCIS spokesman, Chris Bentley claims that the memo doesn't necessarily mean that it's contents will become policy.
"nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
Maybe not, but it certainly gives us insight into their stance on illegals.
Permalink | tagged Illegal immigration, USCIS Conservative businessman and radio talk show host Herman Cain has formed a PAC and says that he is, 
"prayfully considering" a run for the presidency.
Cain is a Washington outsider, proponent of the 'Fair Tax' and an economist who previously made a unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Permalink | tagged Herman Cain, presidential bid Remember this claim?
Really?
Well, we learned last week that the Obama Administration has been politically scrutinizing FOIA requests:
For at least a year, the Homeland Security Department detoured hundreds of requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive, according to nearly 1,000 pages of internal e-mails obtained by The Associated Press.
The department abandoned the practice after AP investigated. Inspectors from the department's Office of Inspector General quietly conducted interviews last week to determine whether political advisers acted improperly.
The Freedom of Information Act, the main tool forcing the government to be more open, is designed to be insulated from political considerations. Anyone who seeks information through the law is supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose confidential decision-making in certain areas.
But in July 2009, Homeland Security introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees for "awareness purposes," no matter who requested it. The government on Wednesday estimated fewer than 500 requests underwent such political scrutiny; the Homeland Security Department received about 103,000 total requests for information last fiscal year.
Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Janet Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records - such as where they lived, whether they were private citizens or reporters - and about the organizations where they worked.
If a member of Congress sought such documents, employees were told to specify Democrat or Republican.
Apparently all that political scrutiny is just too much work for the Most Transparent Administration Evah, because now at least one federal agency doesn't even have to cooperate with most FOIA requests:
Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
The law, signed last week by President Obama, exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.
That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would “increase transparency in financial dealings."
The SEC cited the new law Tuesday in a FOIA action brought by FOX Business Network. Steven Mintz, founding partner of law firm Mintz & Gold LLC in New York, lamented what he described as “the backroom deal that was cut between Congress and the SEC to keep the SEC’s failures secret. The only losers here are the American public.”
If the SEC’s interpretation stands, Mintz, who represents FOX Business Network, predicted “the next time there is a Bernie Madoff failure the American public will not be able to obtain the SEC documents that describe the failure,” referring to the shamed broker whose Ponzi scheme cost investors billions.
Any chance our watchdog media will challenge the President or his flunkies the next time they trot out the transparency lie?
Machiavelli | Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 09:57 in Afghanistan, Journalism, War on Terror | 1 Comment 
While most experts agree that the WikiLeaks' publication of classified documents from the Afghanistan War revealed little new information about the state of affairs in that war-torn country, the unauthorized disclosure of information about Afghans working with coalition forces has likely put hundreds in danger. Via CBS News:
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.
"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."
One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.
In addition to criminal charges related to the unathorized disclosure of classified information, the source of this leak should be charged as an accessory to murder for any Taliban revenge killings.
Permalink | tagged Afghanistan, Classified, Documents, Taliban, War, WikiLeaks It appears that the new health care bill holds a little surprise for business people. Beginning 1n 2012, every 
business will be required to send a 1099 tax form to every entity pays more than $600 in the year and file it with the IRS.
The 2010 Health Care Act adds “amounts in consideration for property” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(1)) and “gross proceeds” (Code Sec. 6041(a) as amended by 2010 Health Care Act §9006(b)(2)) to the pre-2010 Health Care Act categories of payments for which an information return to IRS will be required if the $600 aggregate payment threshold is met in a tax year for any one payee. Thus, Congress says that for payments made after 2011, the term “payments” includes gross proceeds paid in consideration for property or services.
A small burden, you say? Consider this...
Our son in law and daughter own a small electrical contracting business. They currently file three or four 1099's for subcontractors each year. Now, a business such as theirs will have to acquire the Federal tax I.D. of everyone they pay more than $600 in a given year. The gas station, the utility company, every supply house, American Express, Visa, Mastercard, any and all banks and financial institutions that receive loan payments for any and all equipment and supplies, accountants, uniform companies, the landlord...etcetera, ad infinitum. Imagine how the list grows the bigger the business.
It is estimated that the average business files approximately ten 1099's per year and that the new regulations will bump that to an estimated 100 1099's per year.
Just more bureaucratic expense from the folks that wants the government to provide you everything.
Permalink | tagged 1099, business, health car expenses Germany is now considering a 'Fat Tax' on obese Germans to offset health care costs related to being overweight. 
Could we be close behind? The new health care bill will require Americans to electronically submit their BMI (Body Mass Index) beginning in 2014.
BMI is a formula that calculates ones body measurements, including height and weight, in order to come up with an individual obesity rating.BMI is a formula that calculates ones body measurements, including height and weight, in order to come up with an individual obesity rating. Calculation of BMI is the preferred method of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for measuring obesity and coming up with an obesity rating, which is the measure of a person’s body fat percentage.
Some experts claim that using the aforementioned formula doesn't accurately compute body fat for those that are muscular. Body builders and those that regularly exercise could be considered fat.
Speculation abounds as to why the government would want such individual records, but that the practice is an intrusion on personal liberty and privacy is certain.
Permalink | tagged health care reform 
(Hat tip to Comics Alliance)
Most of us are familiar with Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. These folks set up anti-gay pickets wherever they believe they can get the most media coverage; the most infamous (and, in my opinion, disgusting) examples of this technique have been their pickets of soldiers' funerals. Well, this week they decided to picket San Diego's Comic-Con, the world's largest comic book and popular arts festival in the world. Why, you may ask? Well, their press release stated:
Comic Con is an excuse for whores to wear skimpy get-ups (as if they don't already) without censure & for emulating rebels to compare costumes. Yikes. Put away your action figures & get about the business of serving your God.
Now, I've often said that one fights speech with more (or better) speech, and the folks at Comic-Con did exactly that. There's no point in attempting to debate or rebut Phelps' crew on their arguments, because you really can't "rebut" or "disprove" elements of faith. Thus, the most effective means may well be to take their own arguments to an extreme. Who better to do that than comic aficionados--who are intimately familiar with any number of belief systems (real or fictional) almost by definition--and hardcore fans, who are often accused of turning their hobby/fandom into a near-religion?
Yep, you guessed it - fight "God Hates Fags" with "God Hates Jedi" and the like. Priceless.
Wow! What a hot week it's been in my neck of the woods! But hey, I like it that way. It's certainly been a hot 
I'd like to point out a recent change here at BL RAG...log in is now required for posting in all sections of the site. We hope that you post often and want to thank all of you for your participation.
I hope everyone else's week has been a good one, and hope you have a great weekend. Post what you like.
Permalink | tagged Open Thread 
Looks like Charlie can run from the allegations of corruption no more.
A House investigative committee has charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, with multiple ethics violations.
The investigation of Rangel has focused on:
_His use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
_Whether he had the Ways and Means Committee consider legislation that would benefit donors to the Rangel Center at the same time the congressman solicited donations or pledges.
_Preserved a tax shelter for an oil drilling company, Nabors Industries, which has a chief executive who donated money to the center while Rangel's committee considered the loophole legislation.
_Used four rent-controlled apartment units in New York City, when the city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. This raises the question of how all the units could be primary residences. One was a campaign office, raising the separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
_Whether Rangel, as required, publicly reported information on the financing and rental of his ownership interest in a unit within the Punta Cana Yacht Club in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Rangel also had to pay back taxes on the rental income.
_Intentionally failed to report – when required – hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in assets. The amended disclosure reports added a credit union IRA, mutual fund accounts and stock.
GrayRider
Panel hits Rangel with 13 ethics charges. Case will probably go forward regardless of any deal.
The charges came as lawyers for Rangel and the House ethics committee worked out a plea deal, according to people familiar with the talks. But Republicans on the ethics committee indicated it was too late.
The deal between the lawyers has little meaning if the committee members don't approve it, and Republicans insisted — at the first meeting of a House panel deciding Rangel's fate — that the case go forward with an ethics trial. The panel is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
"Mr. Rangel was given multiple opportunities to settle this matter. Instead, he chose to move forward to the public trial phase," said Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, the senior Republican on the ethics panel.
However, as Thursday's public airing of the charges drew nearer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seem resigned to the case proceeding.
Permalink | tagged Charlie Rangel, ethics The Daily Caller has more information from Journolist, an electronic mailing list populated by liberal writers and activists. This time, we're talking about what was said and done by these folks during the Jeremiah Wright controversy of the 2008 Presidential campaign.
I'm not going to quote big chunks, but I think you should go read the article...
As I read it, the "plans" discussed boiled down to three points. Two of them were fairly tame; they wrote an open letter airing their concerns about "gotcha" journalism, and they encouraged each other not to write on the subject. I don't see a big problem with either of those; opinion journalists pick and choose their topics all the time, and an open letter is just that--a public statement with names attached. However, the third point, apparently put forward by Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent, goes WAY over the line:
If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
This kind of garbage is what poisons our democracy. It's the race card, plain and simple. Ackerman should be rightly condemned for even suggesting this approach. We don't need it.
Permalink | tagged JournoList Folks are beginning to ask tough questions the Andrew Breitbart video that prompted the (forced) resignation of Shirley Sherrod from the USDA. Talking Points Memo tells us:
Big Government has not posted the full speech. The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release it to TPMmuckraker. The owner of the video company, Johnny Wilkerson, says he is sending the full video to the national NAACP, and hopes to post it in full once he gets permission.
Wilkerson also told us that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm.
In 1986, at the time of the incident, Sherrod worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, a job she held until she was appointed to the USDA last year.
Sherrod identified the white farmer as Roger Spooner. CNN today interviewed his wife, Eloise Spooner, who said Sherrod had helped her and her husband save their farm.
"She's a good friend ... she helped save her farm," Spooner said, adding that Sherrod did all she could to help them. "They have not treated her right.
Here's the CNN video of that interview, courtesy of Media Matters:
Meanwhile, conservative bloggers Allahpundit and The Anchoress question the edited tape, with The Anchoress specifically stating "I'm uncomfortable with this "get" by Breitbart" and "I want to see the rest of the tape."
I agree - let's see the full tape, and then we can have the full story of what Sherrod said.
wesmorgan1
After seeing the full video, it's clear that the clip pushed by Breitbart, Fox News and others was a smear job. Politico reports that the White House directed USDA to review the matter after the full video was made available. Sherrod has told the media that she doesn't know whether she would return to USDA if an offer was made, and who can blame her? Breitbart pushed a smear, the Administration went into kneejerk reaction mode, and she's been tainted by the fact that corrections never travel as far as the original lie.
Remember this?
Well, if 'Sheriff' Joe Biden's doing as good a job tracking Porkulus spending as he did running his 2008 Presidential campaign, then we might be in trouble because the FEC just fined the crap out of him. Via Associated Press:
Election watchdogs have fined Joe Biden's 2008 presidential campaign more than $219,000 for sloppy bookkeeping and accepting excessive contributions, including a discounted flight on a private jet.
The audit was released Friday by the Federal Election Commission.
It determined that the Biden campaign accepted an illegal corporate contribution in the form of a round-trip flight between New Hampshire and Iowa in June 2007 for three people. The Biden campaign paid GEH Air Transportation $7,911 for the first-class airfare, but regulators say the campaign should have paid the charter rate of $34,800.
The FEC also found that the Biden campaign received at least $106,000 in donations that were over the limit, and the campaign was ordered to pay the U.S. Treasury more than $85,000 for stale-dated checks.
The Biden campaign also failed to disclose more than $3.7 million in payments and roughly $870,000 in debts.
The audit was conducted in part as a condition of Biden's accepting taxpayer funds for his campaign through the presidential public financing system.
Can there be any doubt now that this man is a complete fraud? Via NY Times:
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Here's the clip from ABC's "This Week":
Perhaps Obama needs someone to quote another word definition to him?
Hat tip: Hot Air
