If this is failure, we could use a dose

How easy it is, if you're Jessica McBride, to throw away a one-liner like this:

Looks like that handgun ban in England did a lot of good

over a story about some recent gang killings in England. In McBride World, that qualifies as an in-depth investigation.

A few things she didn't mention:

There were a total of 50 homicides involving firearms in England and Wales in their reporting year 2005-06.

There were 8,478 homicides involving handguns and 2868 involving other firearms in the US in 2005, according to DOJ reports.

Milwaukee had 122 homicides in 2005 and 103 in 2006. More than 75% of the homicides in 2005-06 were committed with a firearm. Source: Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission.

Milwaukee has more gun homicides than all of England and Wales. If that's a failed gun policy in Britain, maybe we could stand a little of that kind of failure.

What's the point, indeed

From the conservative blog with the misnomer Real Debate Wisconsin:

What's the point?

What's the point of the Journal Sentinel allowing comments on their blogs if valid comments that get made have to get approval of the author before they are posted?

I made a point on Eugene's post against deer hunting. In that post I pointed out how much deer meat makes it way to area food pantries that feed the poor.

It was a valid point, one worthy of discussion.

Except in Kane's world apparently.

Just what we were asking about their friend Jessica McBride, who now screens comments and chooses the ones she likes.

We know you are, but what are we?

This rant from the person who just decided to delete comments on her blog from a number of liberals, and who's now screening comments to prevent the public from reading all but the ones she approves:

Conservatives aren't afraid that the public might be exposed to the liberal point of view. The public's exposed to the liberal point of view in the MSM and from Hollywood every day. Conservatives believe that if more people hear about what conservatives really stand for, then conservatives will gain supporters. Conservatives want more people exposed to what liberals really stand for.Liberals want to silence conservatives even as the liberals drop or cloud their basic liberal principles when they're running election campaigns. They are trying to silence conservatives in many ways: Campaign finance laws, pressuring candidates to avoid debates on Fox, advertising boycott campaigns, drumming up support for a return of the unfairness doctrine (as I said before, affirmative action for liberals), flinging so much name-calling and other abuse at conservatives (especially minorities and women) that they hope conservatives will just hang up their hats, and accusing conservatives of "hate speech" by distorting their comments and hoping skittish non-ideological corporations cave in. Bullying liberals can't retain power without rigging the game.

You'd think that someone who wants to expose the public to more crazy liberal ideas would be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, which doesn't try to silence conservatives but would merely allow an occasional liberal idea on the radio waves.

Meanwhile, we continue to link to McBride's blog daily, to help expose her ideas to a broader audience. We practice what she preaches.

Bucher 's bad idea laid to rest

It's hard to know who likes immigrants less, Paul Bucher or wife Jessica McBride.

Bucher, trying to cash in on anti-immigrant sentiment during his failed campaign for attorney general last year, decided the Waukesha County DA was the logical person to crack down on illegal immigration.

Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed in Waukesha, now that Bucher's out of office. Jim Rowen has more.

Thin-Skinned?

Fearless Jessica McBride has reposted her post titled, "The left's racism," because, she says: "I have reposted this without the comments because I will not allow anonymous trash comment postings on my blog. If people don't have the guts to say who they are, they are not welcome to comment on my blog."

Other than one comment from Mssr. Whallah, which was pretty tame and invited people to "Whallah" for some good commenting, the only anonymous posters who were trashy were her conservative friends.

She just can't face the truth.

Testing Update: McBride reacts as predicted

Jessica McBride has decided the left is totally racist, based on one three-week old comment on Whallah! about James Harris that she dug up, and which rubbed her wrong.

In typical fashion, she offered no link to the offending item, fearful of sending any readers our way.

We put the following comment on her blog post:

In case people wonder what a "typical liberal abuse/hate blog" looks like, here's the link Jessica failed to provide.

You, James Harris, and anyone else are always welcome to comments.

Let's see how long it stays up.

UPDATE: We have our answer: Not long at all. It turns out she detests anonymity on the Internet, even though she was a major fan of "Dennis York" and defended his right to hide behind a pseudonym -- as one of the comments she deleted pointed out.

Ironically, her attack came about 15 minutes after one she wrote about spending some quality time in northern Wisconsin:

The abusive, petty political fights in the blogosphere, for example, are so silly and far away.

Apparently, that wore off pretty quickly once she got back to Waukesha County.

Evidence be damned; we want convictions

Will the state and federal government come down hard on the young protestors who vandalized a military recruiting station, or will they let a little thing like lack of evidence get in the way?

That's the burning question for McBride & Co. this week.

The Journal Sentinel reports:

The city attorney's office moved to dismiss the charges citing a lack of sufficient evidence against those ticketed, said municipal court Judge Derek Mosley.

Police arrested 21 people March 19 on suspicion of disorderly conduct after windows were smashed at the recruiting station, in the 3100 block of N. Oakland Ave.

Mosley granted the dismissal without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be filed again if police collect more evidence.

Says McBride:

DA Chisholm and US Attorney Biskupic, the ball is in your court.

She and other wingnut bloggers are poised to criticize DA John Chisholm, a Democrat, if he doesn't charge anyone. In fact, many of them jumped the gun and attacked him last week for dropping the municipal charges, which he had nothing to do with. It's not clear whether they are as ready or willing to go after US Atty. Steven Biskupic, the Republican appointee they all love for his willingness to prosecute Democrats.

Indymedia first reported the story on the dropped charges, although it was a Junior McBride, Rebecca Hontowicz, whose subsequent post got all of the right wing's undies in a bundle.

So much for diplomacy; Let's kill 'em!

McBride on the warpath, as usual:

You know how the big Democratic criticism of President Bush has been that his administration won't talk to Iran?

Guess we're already trying that. It's not going too well. Since that was the big Democratic plan for what we should do about Iran - talk to them - what's their big plan going to be now?

The story she links says there have been two meetings since May, and describes the two countries as "arch enemies." It might be just a little early to give up.

But McBride's true sentiments come out in the comments section, as she responds to a critic:

If Iran is responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, I want to do more than talk to them.

It's a big IF she offers. There have been a lot of claims and little evidence that the Iranian government has been involved in Iraq warfare.

What does she want to do besides talking to them? Scream at them? Bomb them?

If the Iranians are responsible for some American deaths, as she believes, when the Iranian delegation shows up for the meeting, does she think the US should slaughter them? Capture them? Torture them?

Or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

'The poor deserve all the health care they can afford'

We told you recently of Jessica McBride's compassionate conservatism on the subject of health care: The poor don't deserve it.

Now comes support for her position, in much the same terms. It comes, not surprisingly, from the owner of eight hospitals who's making a fortune and likes things just the way they are. He puts it thusly:

“Patients, he said, may simply deserve only the amount of care they can afford.”

Hang 'em first, ask questions later

The blogosphere merry-go-round spins today:

McBride's protege screws up in a confusing post about dropped charges against protestors at an Army recruiting center.

Charlie Sykes, Steve Egg, Owen Robinson, and probably other assorted wingnuts jump on the report -- checking no facts, of course -- and denounce Dist. Atty. John Chisholm, who had nothing to do with the municipal charges being discussed.

Illusory Tenant sets it straight.

And McBride walks gingerly, pointing out that the charges are municipal,not dissing the original post by her friend Rebecca Kontowitz Kontowicz, and reserving the right to criticize Chisholm later. What she fails to do is look at whether any charges were warranted and whether they could be made to stick. But the wingnut lynch mobs never let the facts get in the way.

UPDATE: Sykes offers a correction. So does Egg , after a little prodding.

Oh, THAT Constitution!

McBride writes:

Assaulting the Constitution

Russ Feingold wants to censure the president:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

Maybe he should just censure Congress for its "assault" against the Constitution by meddling in the commander in chief's executive powers to manage the Iraq war. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned this many generals controlling the battlefield.

Actually, the Founding Fathers envisoned Congress making the decisions about taking this country to war.

Adam Cohen explains in today's New York Times:

...The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side...

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress...

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly...

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.

Bucher for Supreme Court? Slogan: 'Not one day as a judge'

Dan Bice in the Journal Sentinel:

Justice Louis Butler is the most vulnerable member of the state Supreme Court.

But Republicans and business interests have yet to come up with anyone to take him on in the spring election. Butler, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, was trounced in his only statewide race.

Here's the latest name to surface as a possible Butler foe: former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher.

Bucher didn't return calls Friday, but he has told others that he is weighing a bid for the high court.

The Republican prosecutor's strength is that he has some name ID around Wisconsin, having run for attorney general last year. But he is gruff, lacks personal wealth and, like Butler, was beaten badly in his only statewide race.

"Of course, we'd love to have him run," said a Butler supporter.

Perhaps Bucher has forgotten the Supreme Court race of last April, less than four months ago, when the mantra of the conservative candidate, Annette Ziegler, and her supporters was that her opponent, Linda Clifford, had "not one day as a judge," as one Ziegler TV spot said. "Linda Clifford. Not a Judge, never taken a criminal off the streets," said another.

Bucher's experience? A former DA, he can talk tough on crime. But he has "not one day as a judge."

No wonder Butler's campaign is licking its chops at the prospect of a Bucher candidacy.

UPDATE: Legal Newsline takes note.

Hey, here's an idea!

More of what passes for commentary -- or is it supposed to be humor? -- from McBride's blog:

Since the Democrats sound so upset by fee increases...

... how about if they agree to a budget that strips out the tax increases AND fee hikes? How about that?

Hey, here's a better idea: Since Republicans have long said that fees and taxes are the same thing, and Republicans hate them both, how about if the GOP comes up with a budget that contains no taxes or fees at all?

Then we could all move to Mississippi, which would seem like paradise by comparison.

Making it up: What Obama didn't say

Obama says he would turn his back on genocide

That's McBride's headline on a blog item, which she supports by using only one paragraph of a wire story:

SUNAPEE, N.H. (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

She doesn't link to the article so anyone can read it, but commenter "John Foust" does. We'll let him handle it:

Here's a link to the original article. If we read the very next two sentences in the article, they say: ' "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.'

He continues later: "When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."

McBride must rue the day she finally decided to allow comments. In another post on Iraq, Foust and Jay Bullock deconstruct her claim that those hated liberals have flip-flopped on Al Qaeda.

UPDATE: Bullock explains McBride Math on his folkbum blog.

Where is everybody?

McBride's taken some time off from posting, so we have, too.

No, we are not vacationing together.