Let’s all do the Ferguson Spin!

0003207DA80B0C2627236C6B5There’s a new dance in town! It’s called the Ferguson Spin!

It goes something like this:

Well you spin to the Left,
Then you spin to the Left,
Then you spin a bit more to the Left.

Then when evidence comes out
That says you’re full of crap,
You spin a ‘couple inches to the Right.

Put both your hands in the air
Like you just don’t care
Whether Mike Brown actually did.

To its credit, the Washington Post published a piece on the Michael Brown case that has angered its friends on the Left, “Evidence supports officer’s account of shooting in Ferguson” (emphasis added):

Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson and Michael Brown fought for control of the officer’s gun, and Wilson fatally shot the unarmed teenager after he moved toward the officer as they faced off in the street, according to interviews, news accounts and the full report of the St. Louis County autopsy of Brown’s body.

Because Wilson is white and Brown was black, the case has ignited intense debate over how police interact with African American men. But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post….

Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.

Read the whole piece here.

Well, that’s a rather awkward bit of reportage, particularly coming from the Washington Post, given how much energy the Left had invested in canonizing Michael Brown, while it demonized Darren Wilson. Very awkward, indeed.

So what’s a good Left-wing journalist to do?

Well, I suspect we will see more than a bit of suddenly-nuanced analysis that argues against jumping to conclusions (try not to laugh too hard), while admitting that, well, maybe we didn’t have the story entirely right. Maybe. Possibly. We’re not sure. Oh look, a SQUIRREL! And, of course, we’ll see a good bit of hand-wringing about the leaks (rather than the content of the leaks), and about possible rioting by the “No Justice! No Peace!” crowd in the event they are cheated out of their virtual lynching of Darren Wilson (no irony there!).

The New Republic:

The new evidence, although not conclusive, would seem to lend some credence to Wilson’s claim that he fired in self-defense. But, as Danny [Vinik] says, there are questions about how reliable the evidence is. From the get-go, Brown’s family did not trust local officials to conduct an impartial investigation. That’s why they commissioned their own autopsy—which, Danny notes, reached some different conclusions.


Protesters, many of them increasingly suspicious of a recent spate of leaks surrounding the Brown investigation, say there will be more nights like Wednesday than Tuesday should a grand jury not indict Wilson….

Many protesters are preparing for the possibility that the grand jury may decline to indict Wilson. If that’s the case, one protester told CNN this week, “Excuse my French, all hell is going to break loose.”


In many ways, the leaks amplify what we already knew….

What don’t the leaks tell us? They don’t explain the origin of the skirmish, which seems to have escalated abruptly….

The recent autopsy and other leaks have fanned the flames in Ferguson. That anger is likely a mere preview of how the community will react if Wilson is cleared. “If there is no indictment,” said one protester, “all hell is going to break loose.”


[U.S. Attorney General Eric] Holder told Justice Department lawyers that he is “exasperated” at the “selective flow of information coming out of Missouri” and called the leaks “inappropriate and troubling,” according to a Justice Department official speaking on background.

The Big Lebowski:

“Well Dude, we just don’t know.”

OK, I admit that the last one was out of context.

It will be an interesting media dance to watch as it unfolds.

Politico Slanders Michele Bachmann, Conservative Media Yawns

In “Michele Bachmann given security detail over ISIL threat” by Politico writers Anna Palmer and Rachel Bade, the following gem appears (emphasis added):

Bachmann has been publicly critical of not only ISIL, but also Islam, calling on President Barack Obama to declare war on the religion during a speech at the conservative Value Voters Summit at the end of September.

That is a bald-faced lie. This is what she said (starts at 6:02 mark):

And during my time on the Intelligence Committee, I had a front row seat to a world set on fire from Islamic jihad. And what we’ve seen is one disaster after another from the Obama/Clinton foreign policy team. And in their fantasy world, a smaller, diminished, less-powerful United States is somehow supposed to bring about global tranquility. Well Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, we want our 1980s foreign policy back. Peace through strength!

We don’t want your failed Russian reset. We don’t want four Americans dead in Benghazi. It was a tragedy to release the five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps nothing will change the world more than your foolish lifting of sanctions on Iran as they are racing toward completing nuclear weapons. And they will, if we stay the course, as President Obama and Hillary Clinton have laid forward [sic].

And, unthinkably, we have the first anti-Israel President in American history? That’s the Obama/Clinton legacy. It’s no wonder that Hillary Clinton couldn’t think of an answer when asked on her book tour to name her accomplishments as Secretary of State. I have one: permanent retirement! Quite simply because she basically fails to inspire confidence in anything; and never forget, she will be Barack Obama’s third and fourth term as President of the United States.

Stay the course–what an exciting message for her 2016 campaign. But one slogan that she won’t be able to use? Al Qaeda is on the run. Remember that one in 2012?

As the rise of radical Islamic jihad–although that’s redundant–dominates the headlines, we are seeing this enemy as pure evil, as they are cutting off the heads of innocent people. That in August, buried literally women and children alive. These are Christian brothers and sisters. These are Yazidis–tonight, tonight–who are on Mt. Sinjar, and they are continuing to suffer.

I recently got an email from a pastor this week [sic] who told me there’s a missionary working with Yazidis who are barely clinging to life. They’re sleeping in the cold mountains, they don’t have blankets; it’s a whole different world now. And we can’t forget them. We can’t forget the others who are persecuted around the world, just because of their religious beliefs. And why is that? It’s because we have jihadists who are subscribing to this radical ideology that believes that dying in the name of Islam gets them to heaven.

This is spiritual warfare. And what we need to do is to defeat Islamic jihad. Sadly, our President has the wrong prescription. He even fails to acknowledge their motivations for bringing about jihad.

Yes, Mr. President, it is about Islam.

And I believe that if you have an evil the order of this magnitude, you take it seriously. You declare war on it, you don’t dance around it–just like the Islamic State has declared war on the United States of America. You kill their leader, you kill their council, you kill their army until they wave the white flag of surrender. That’s how you win a war.

And you don’t preemptively take anything off the table. You don’t advance-signal your enemy as to what your intention is. The President asked Congress to follow him in a Vietnam-style, slow-walk response, and I said no–because either the United States chooses to decisively defeat this brutal evil with every resource we have, or we’re going to have to answer to the next generation–why we failed to defeat the totalitarian evil of our day.

And I also believe the President’s decision to train and arm the so-called vetted moderate Syrian rebels is a tragic mistake. Because here is the ugly truth. They will never be vetted, and they certainly aren’t all moderates.

There’s a British Intelligence Service study, called Jane’s, found [sic] nearly half of the Syrian rebels today that we’ve trained, have already taken up the cause of Islamic jihad. Half! So why in the world are we giving them American weapons? It is complete madness.

But one thing we could do immediately to keep the American people safe is this: we could strip from the terrorists the passports of any US citizen [sic] who joins the fight with the Islamic State or any other terror group. I can’t believe that we aren’t doing this now. They shouldn’t be allowed–a terrorist should not be allowed to re-enter the United States once they have voluntarily chosen to be a terrorist. That’s about like a 100% issue.

After we remove their passport, then I believe that we should begin the process of removing their American citizenship from them as well.

The rise of the Islamic State seemed to be a shock to President Obama. It wasn’t to me; it wasn’t to those of us who sat on the Intelligence Committee. I watched the up-tempo of Islamic jihad. I knew what was coming. So earlier this summer I asked the FBI for a classified briefing….

And so on. Shortly after that, she transitions to talking about the southern border.

Show me where she called on the President to declare war on Islam. She was clearly referring to Islamic State in particular, and “radical Islamic jihad” (I prefer the term “Islamist terror,” but that’s merely a semantic quibble) in general.

notlisteningEven worse than Politico’s breathtaking lie, is the near-total disinterest in this story on the part of so-called conservative journalists–when they aren’t agreeing with Politico’s slander outright.

(The transcript is also available here, but I basically piggybacked on this, adding to and editing it.)

What are you looking at, Joe?


Ebola Boat


Farmer Hugh



Please Help!

The emergency begging bowl fundraiser is short of its goal.


Any help would be greatly appreciated.

More fun with help-wanted ads (Updated 10/25/14)

“[Company name] is an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, and protected veteran status.”

Cool. But what’s missing?

Oh, age.





Wait, what?



Wanted: Accountant/Bartender (click on graphic to view full size):






Also, familiarity of language skill:





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.