Really quick Sunday afternoon round-up and Open Thread

Victorian posy of pansiesJust a few more links to round out the day.

***

Walmart gets huge kudos for its charming, but still pointed, fact-filled response to a grossly biased — indeed, defamatory — New York Times opinion piece.

***

Rand Paul nails it: The federal government should not be concerning itself with an NFL team name.  This is another reminder of the terrible damage the civil rights movement did to American politics.  Because the federal government belated worked its way to the moral position on the issue, DemProgs have forever since believed that the government is their Leftist moral sword.  It shouldn’t be.

***

Reading about this the travails Christian converts suffer in Muslim lands is precisely like reading the old martyrdom stories from the earliest days of Christianity. Just as with the original Christians in pagan lands, these new converts are the most devout, brave people one can imagine. This generation’s St. Sebastians and St. Catherines are living now in Muslim lands.

***

Methinks Cheney speaks the truth when he says another 9/11, only far worse than before, is headed our way. As I’ve said before, I do not agree that he was wrong in 2003 when he backed the Iraq war. The joker in the deck wasn’t WMDs, or insurgents, or anything else — it was the anti-War Left at home that made sure that the U.S., despite its massive military advantage and on-the-ground support from ordinary Iraqis, could not win. Ours was a fifth column failure, with Barack Hussein Obama driving the final nail into that coffin.

***

DemProgs are trying to say that Republicans cannot critique Hillary’s laughing retelling of the way in which she maligned a 12-year-old to save a rapist because Todd Akin. What they don’t understand is (a) that Todd Akin was a fool, but not a hypocrite; and (b) that Republicans disavowed him with head spinning speed. Hillary, however, has built her entire career on being “the women’s politician.” To hear her cheerfully cackle about destroying a 12-year-old is appalling. Speaking as a lawyer, here are a few things to understand:

  1. Even bad guys are entitled to a defense. The beauty of our criminal justice system is the principle that, when an individual faces the awesome majesty and power of the law, he is presumed innocent and you are allowed a friend, in the form of a lawyer, at his side. This recognizes that, no matter how bad a criminal is, the government is much scarier and more dangerous.
  2. There is nothing wrong with a young lawyer taking on a criminal case (see the reasons stated in 1., above).
  3. There is nothing wrong with a lawyer giving her all to a case once she’s taken it on. Indeed, doing so is a professional, ethical obligation.
  4. Giving your all to the case does not mean lying . . . and the way Hillary speaks about that affidavit libeling a 12-year-old rape victim makes it sound very much as if Hillary made up those vague accusations out of whole cloth.
  5. There is something terribly disturbing about hearing a lawyer laughingly explain how she got a known rapist off by slandering a child victim. Assuming there was no attorney-client privilege in effect then (which might have been the case if the rapist was dead when she gave the interview), she should have spoken of the matter in subdued, measured tones, explaining the points I made in 1-3 above.
  6. The disturbing aspects of the interview rise to epic heights when the lawyer is someone who has billed herself as a champion of women’s rights. It reminds us how she venomously slandered as crazy or sluttish the women that Bill Clinton assaulted, raped, and harassed, as well as the women with whom he had adulterous affairs.

To get a fullest picture of Hillary’s hypocrisy, not to mention the stand-alone awfulness of her conduct, as well as the equally heinous hypocrisy of her supporters, read Sultan Knish on the matter.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. qr4j says

    Mr. Cheney is right, I believe. I wish he weren’t right. I wish we could live in candy-cane and lollipop land where the unicorns frolic with fire-breathing dragons who’ve given up fire breathing. But it ain’t so in Realville.

    The bit I don’t get is this: How can the Left be so stupid? Being nice to terrorists doesn’t make them nice. Perhaps enlisting a Salvation Army full of Roman Catholic priests led by the pope (there’s an odd religious combination) to perform exorcisms on terrorists would work. But evil stays where people want it to stay.

    And that makes me wonder: Does Obama want terrorism in the world? If he does not, why is he so ham-handed about fighting it? Why is he so stuck on stupid?

    All that’s going on in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East saddens me greatly. I imagine there are many normal people of all religious stripes — or no religious stripes — who just want to carry on peacefully with their lives. And then these damned terrorists like ISIS or Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden come along with nothing but hatred and slaughter.

    I do believe in a day — the Great Day of the Lord Almighty — when the lion will lie down with the lamb, when the child will play with an adder and not be harmed. But we won’t get there via Obama.

    “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and turn from their wicked ways, I will forgive their sins and heal their land.” Applies to people of all religions.

    • Caped Crusader says

      “Why is he so stuck on stupid?”

      Not so, for he is the smartest man in the world. We have been told by elites who can tell such things by the crease in a man’s pants, and nothing else. Why is it so hard for people to believe in incarnate evil? For that is the plain truth of the matter, and we are being subjected to this intentionally, with total complicity by his fawning agents of the netherworld. with total awareness of what they are doing,.and they delight in it!

  2. jj says

    A problem with the Hillary tapes. Hillary, a bigger sack of shit every time you look at her, was indeed under an obligation. It has always been the contention that even the guilty deserve a defense, and you may even go so far as to say that the guiltiest defendant is entitled to the best defense. Okay – I’ll buy it. Bad guys are entitled to a defense, and once committed to that defense the advocate may be expected to give their all.

    But – to what degree do you ‘give your all’ in a matter wherein you know every word out of your mouth must be a lie, because you know your defendant is lying, and guilty? To quote her: “I had (Taylor) take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She knew he was guilty. She knew he was lying. Which means she was also aware that she was lying. This person she was defending was not a shoplifter: the matter was serious.

    At what point did her obligation to provide a defense bend before her obligation to the truth? (Lawyers will babble all day long about their ‘obligation to the truth’ – she didn’t have one?) At what point does her obligation to disclose knowledge of a crime kick in? At what point should she have recognized an obligation to go talk to the judge and say something like: “I know too much, I can’t continue.”

    I don’t actually expect that she would at any time, then or now, be capable of recognizing any of those decision points: she is, as noted, a sack of excrement and her brain doesn’t work that way. What’s troubling is how much company she evidently has in that obtuseness.

    • sabawa says

      This child rapist case was not dumped in Hillary’s ample lap…..she chose to defend this child rapist. That speaks volumes to me. She has reminded her adoring audiences on numerous occasions that her entire life has been about women’s rights. I might add here, except for that one niggling factoid. LIAR.

  3. says

    A lot of defenders of terrorists, gangsters and mafia types are fellow travelers or professionals who do nothing but and act as legal resources. Legal isn’t necessarily ethical.

    What is telling is Hilary calling the case interesting. It is not. It did not establish a fine point of law. What it did do was let a psychopath see what she could get away with. Says a lot about what she really is.

  4. Mike Devx says

    Hillary will definitely be vulnerable in 2016 because of this rape case. Not because she defended him, but because she defamed the rape victim and lied about her.

    There is hay to be made here with women in the middle. It’s gonna stick.

Leave a Reply