NY Post has a video murder of a teen dad . He wanted to quit the Bloods. Apparently, they had a problem with that. (There is no video, but print captures).

Hey SL, don't you think the stories at the bottom left and right of your paper (below the fold) would make better stories? 

...and I'm not talking about pizza.

I'm talking about good old fashion strong arm politics.

Tom Lauria is an attorney for  group of investors that Obama did his best to through under the bus by demonizing them by suggesting they were being overly greedy, looking for government handouts, and stating he "didn't stand with them".

Well, just check out what he has to say in this radio interview .

Here's one opponent's take on the recent hate crime legislation:

"Had [Hilton] done what he said he would do and stormed that stage and pulled that tiara off [Prejean's] head and [inflicted] bodily harm when he did it, there would not have been one ounce of protection under this piece of legislation for that young girl," Forbes stated.
 
"But after he did it, if she had in response made a statement back about the very sexual orientation that had led him to his hatred and dislike for her, and if she had responded by slapping him or any physical injury, she would have had the potential of a ten-year federal piece of legislation coming against her."
 
The Virginia Republican also argued that if beauty contestant's father had rushed onto the stage at the Miss USA pageant and responded to Hilton's hatred in a physical way, he would have been open to prosecution under the hate crimes bill as well.

As I understand the story, Prejean had expressed an opinion on a social/political issue (gay marriage), which Hilton strongly disagreed with. So does the newest Federal hate crimes legislation have anything to say about the imagined scenerio?

I do not see any protection regarding political or social opinion (I don't think it is relevant if that opinion is based on religious belief or not). Should such opinions be protected? Violent acts motivated by political/social opinion seem to have the same problems as violence based on race/religion/ethnicity etc. -- they can intimidate people who express unpopular opinions and they can incite further violence against such people, and ultimately lead to civil war.

So the above author is right that Prejean would not have any protection under the hate crimes law, but he is wrong to claim that Prejean and her family would have lost the right to self-defense. The legislation states that a person committs a crime if he:

willfully causes bodily injury to any person...because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person (emphasis mine).

If Hilton were to attack Prejean, then we would clearly know why Prejean or her family were motivated to attack him: it would not be "because of the...sexual orientation " of Hilton.

Earlier, in writing about California’s fiscal meltdown, I noted that Barack Obama has threatened the state with a suspension of its stimulus funds, on which Sacramento depended for its budgetary calculations.  The story behind that threat is worth pursuing.  In attempting to bridge a huge shortfall, the state lowered compensation to for home health care workers, saving $74 million. Obama wants those cuts rescinded, and it’s not hard to see why :

Reporting from Sacramento — The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger’s office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials. …

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state’s contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

In other words, Obama has unleashed his inner “madman” in the exact same cause he did with Chrysler and GM bondholders.  He’s doing it to support the unions.  The SEIU appealed directly to Obama, as the LA Times reports, when the budget cuts hit.  Rather than rely on California to determine its own compensation plan, Obama simply threatened them with economic ruin if they didn’t fall into line.  I’m surprised he didn’t threaten to sic the White House press corps on Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The irony here is that Sacramento is doing the exact same thing to its own citizens.  With most of them poised to shoot down higher taxes and more spending in a series of referendums next week, Schwarzenegger has published his intent to close firehouses and police stations, and to empty prisons and let convicts free on the streets.  That “madman theory” gets around, doesn’t it?

This should make clear Obama’s prioritie as President.  He couldn’t care less about California defaulting or automakers going under, but a $2/hr pay cut for 400,000 union workers is the center of his universe.  I’d suggest changing “Hail to the Chief” to “Look for the Union Label,” but Obama would probably approve it.

H/T Hot Air