Here’s a shocker from the Vatican

VATICAN CITY — Few eyebrows were raised last week when Pope Francis brought the Vatican’s legal system up to date by criminalizing leaks of official information and formalizing laws against sex crimes. But now that the laws have been made public, a closer look revealed that the pope has made it illegal to report sex crimes against children.
 

Psyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyych!!!!!!!

 
It’s a new Onion, with gems such as “Indebted Students Hope to Repay Loans with Obama’s Empty Words” and  “Fox News Calls For End to Black Privilege.”
 
But the atheistic dumbbells at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science [yes!] face page demonstrated remarkable gullibility even for atheists, taking the Pope Francis news verrrrrry seriously, posting what StrangeNotions.com calls with appropriate irony a “bombshell”:
“According to the new laws, revealing or receiving confidential Vatican information is now punishable by up to two years in prison, while newly defined sex crimes against children carry a sentence of up to twelve years. Because all sex crimes are kept confidential, there is no longer a legal way for Vatican officials to report sex crimes.”
Wow. Not what I expected from people devoted to reason and science. As for the foundation’s friends and readers, the laughable post had 4,584 “likes” and was shared more than 7,804 times on Facebook. A golden moment in systematic skepticism, to be sure.

Sun-Times Natasha Korecki exposes dumb DC judge in Jesse Jr. trial . . .

. . . and sentencing. She doesn’t call the judge a nitwit. Doesn’t have to, noting that she ruled out the Blagojevich connection (whether JJJr. offered big money for the senate seat), but rather credited JJJr. for testifying vs. Blago!

Prosecutors werent allowed to bring up the Blagojevich case at Jacksons sentencing. But Jesse Jackson Jr.s lawyer, Reid Weingarten, asked for less [prison] time for his client, in part, because Jackson was a critical witness at Blagojevichs trial who was very important to Blagojevichs conviction.

She let him do that?

[He] wouldnt have gotten away with that in Chicago.

The truth is that it was Blagojevich who called the ex-congressman to the stand.

As a defense witness. [italics
added]

And then JJJr. chief defenseman Dan Webb called JJJr’s wife Sandi, who lived with him and their kids in DC

an extraordinary alderman. Too many people [wrote Korecki] would have pounced on the fact that, in the annals of corrupt Chicago aldermen, most had a leg up on her: At least they lived here.

Even though JJSr (Reverend Milker of corporate cash cows with threats of guerilla politics by way of boycott) urged her not to live outside the city they love so much!

Dick Durbin’s witch hunt

Read it at today’s Steve Huntley column:

Dick Durbin, one of the most powerful members of the U.S. Senate, has set his sights on the American Legislative Exchange Council. The ALEC focuses on fiscal issues in state legislatures but did support stand-your-ground laws that have been adopted by many states.

Such laws have been the focus of much controversy after the Trayvon Martin case, although Floridas statue [sic] was not a factor in the trial. Durbin wrote 300 companies and organizations that donate to ALEC asking their position on the laws. Durbin tried to frame this as a transparency issue, saying the donors may not be aware of ALECs support of the laws. Why didnt he just tell the donors of ALECs position instead of asking for their views?

Conservatives understandably see Durbin using the racial undertones of the Martin case to intimidate controversy-averse corporations and groups from donating to the ALEC, which has been effective in promoting free-market principles in state capitals. Confirming that suspicion is Durbins declaration that he will make the donor responses public in the record of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing. In a chilling evocation of another era, Durbin asks, Do you now or have you ever supported stand-your-ground laws?

Scratch a liberal, I say more and more, and you find a fa—st, sometimes incipient, sometimes not.