Bonzer Wolf Today™


Liberals Speak Out Against Travis County Abuse of Grand Jury 

The University of Texas at Austin is one of the most liberal universities in the south. See Travis County for details.  

As reported by Sandy Fitzgerald at NewsMax:

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz calls himself a “liberal Democrat who would never vote for Rick Perry,” but he’s still “outraged” over the Texas governor’s indictment Friday on charges of abuse of power and coercion.

The charges are politically motivated and an example of a “dangerous” trend of courts being used to affect the ballot box and politics, he told Newsmax on Saturday. 

“Everybody, liberal or conservative, should stand against this indictment,” Dershowitz said. “If you don’t like how Rick Perry uses his office, don’t vote for him.”

On Friday, the District Attorney’s office in Travis County, Texas, filed its indictment against Perry charging he overstepped his powers by threatening to veto, and then vetoing $7.5 million in funding for the office’s Public Integrity Unit after District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg refused to step down after her conviction for drunken driving.

Perry said Saturday he stands by his veto, and slammed the indictment against him as outrageous.

“We don’t settle political differences with indictments in this country,” the Republican governor said in a brief news conference Saturday afternoon. “It is nothing more than an abuse of power — and I cannot and will not allow that to happen.”

Perry’s supporters are backing his decision, saying that he was well within his rights under the state Constitution to veto the funding, while opponents say it’s another example of how he abuses the power of his office.

“This is another example of the criminalization of party differences,” said Dershowitz, a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law who writes the “Legally Speaking” column for Newsmax. “This idea of an indictment is an extremely dangerous trend in America, whether directed at [former House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay or [former President] Bill Clinton.”

Further, Dershowitz said, such indictments are something that’s done in totalitarian countries and should not be done in the United States.

In such countries, “if you don’t like them, you indict,” Dershowitz said. “In America, you vote against them…this should be up to the voters. There is no room in America for abuse of office charges, and this has to stop once and for all. This is a serious problem.”

And indicting a politician, rather than fighting back through a ballot box, “is so un-American.”

Dershowitz also told Newsmax Perry was well within his rights when he vetoed the money for Lehmberg’s office, as he “saw a drunk serving as DA” who “shouldn’t be enforcing criminal law.”

Dershowitz believes Perry will be acquitted, and the indictment will become an embarrassment to those involved.

Perry is often named as a potential candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, and has opted not to seek a fourth term as governor of Texas. Dershowitz said he hopes the legal charges are resolved long before the presidential election campaign cycle begins.

“It’s just ridiculous the extremes some prosecutors will go to,” when they seek criminal charges in retribution for actions that they don’t agree with politically,” Dershowitz said.

He’s not alone among liberals questioning the Perry indictment, reports Business Insider, with pundits including former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, former Clinton and Obama administration strategist Jonathan Prince, Vox’s Matt Yglesias, and New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait all tweeting that they do not agree with the DA’s decision to indict the governor.

Axelrod called the indictment “sketchy.”

ThinkProgress, a liberal-oriented news site, also questioned the indictment, saying Perry’s attorneys “may have a point” when arguing that Perry acted according to state law.

“Though the state legislature probably could limit this veto power in extreme cases — if a state governor literally sold his veto to wealthy interest groups, for example, the legislature could almost certainly make that a crime — a law that cuts too deep into the governor’s veto power raises serious separation of powers concerns.” ThinkProgress wrote.

Read Latest Breaking News from 


Police Stand Down As Rioters Loot Local Businesses 

Police were present again on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., Saturday morning after the Missouri State Highway Patrol ordered officers from St. Louis County to ‘stand down’ as looters attacked businesses overnight.

According to one peaceful protester, several protesters and business owners literally put their bodies in between the looters and the different businesses. The protester feels they were forced to do so after several police officers got into their cars and drove away while the looting was underway.

Just before midnight, some in what had been a large and rowdy but mostly well-behaved crowd broke into that same small store and began looting it, said Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson.

Some in the crowd began throwing rocks and other objects at police, Johnson said. One officer was hurt but details on the injury were not immediately available.

Johnson said police backed off to try and ease the tension. He believes looting may have spread to a couple of nearby stores. No arrests were made.


Consequences of Electing Progressives to National Office

The police officer who fatally shot a robbery suspect last weekend in Ferguson, Missouri, was injured in the incident that has sparked racially charged protests.

Police Chief Thomas Jackson told a news conference the unidentified officer was treated at a hospital for swelling on the side of his face, one of the few details released about events surrounding the Saturday night shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

After three nights of tense standoffs between protesters and heavily armed police - and instances of violence and looting - Jackson urged demonstrators to rally only during daylight hours.

On Sunday night, some residents were seen looting stores, damaging buildings and vandalizing property. Since then, officers from multiple departments in riot gear and in military equipment have clashed nightly with protesters, who chant, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” a reference to witness accounts that Brown had his hands raised when he was shot.

Police have used tear gas and smoke bombs to disperse large crowds, including on Wednesday night when some people threw Molotov cocktails and rocks at officers. Video footage released from the dark streets resembled images usually reserved for warzones.

State troopers took over security in the St. Louis suburb after days of clashes between local police and protesters.

Gov. Jay Nixon said he decided to put the Missouri State Highway Patrol in charge of security because “at this particular point, the attitudes weren’t improving, and the blocks towards expression appeared to be a flashpoint.”

Via Mediaite, a reminder that no modern tragedy can escape Truther-ization. One woman in the clip, speculating on why the cops waited to release the surveillance footage, says, “It took so long for them to do that because they Photoshopped him.” That’s how cognitive dissonance works in the digital age. In fact, the basic argument made to Don Lemon here seems to be, “It wasn’t him, and even if it was, you’re smearing him, and even if you aren’t, he deserved a jury trial, not summary execution by cop.” The shooting must have been unjustified; take whatever logical path you need to in order to arrive at that conclusion. And needless to say, there are people on the other side following the opposite “logic.”

The woman in the hat is more interesting because she claims the man in the surveillance video was wearing different clothes than Michael Brown was when he was shot. Don Lemon doesn’t ask her how she knows that but I’ve seen that same point made on Twitter today — supposedly, the guy in the clip is wearing shorts and sandals whereas the photo of Michael Brown lying dead on the ground shows him wearing khaki pants and sneakers. I’m not going to link that photo but I’ve seen it and it’s pretty clearly the same clothes. Brown’s shorts were long (as you can see in the surveillance video) and appear to have slipped down a bit sometime before he died; the angle of the photo makes it look as though they run almost to his ankle. That’s probably where the “pants” idea is coming from. The sneakers/sandals confusion is likely due to how his sneakers look in some of the stills from the surveillance video. If you only saw the two images on the right-hand side here, the shadows and cross-wise bands might make you think Brown was wearing something with straps and no heel. The actual footage makes clear that they’re sneakers. And although there’s no Cardinals cap on Brown in the death photo, as there is on the man in the video, there was a Cardinals cap on the ground at the crime scene. There’s a photo of it in the gallery here. But needless to say, none of this will convince anyone who’s invested in a conspiracy theory.

There is one good point made here, though. Ed made it himself in a post this morning. Why’d it take the cops days to accuse Brown of a robbery and to release the footage? The narrative from the beginning was that a rogue cop decided to hassle two black teens who were minding their own business for no reason, then shot one of them in cold blood. If you accepted the first part of that narrative, the second part was easier to swallow. Go figure that a man looking for a fight might be quick to anger with deadly force. But Wilson apparently wasn’t looking for a fight and the PD knew it. He was looking for a robbery suspect. Why didn’t the PD emphasize that sooner?

Apparently Dorian Johnson has ‘fessed up to the convenience store robbery.

The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a “strong-arm robbery.”


Progressives Seek to Disarm Law Abiding Citizens NOT Criminals

Progressives fear law abiding gun owners not criminals. Liberals hate the Constitution and continue to do everything they can to subvert Second Amendment civil rights.  We have ourselves to blame for electing liberal fascists.  Wake up America.

From David Goetsch at

America has never had a more anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment president than Barack Obama. Whatever this president’s legacy turns out to be—besides the obvious legacy of failure—part of it will have to be his war on the Second Amendment. Obama’s anti-gun rhetoric has been so strident and so frequent that law-abiding gun owners have begun to fear that they might be locked up for simply possessing firearms. This is certainly a rational fear since all of the new gun laws proposed by President Obama and his anti-Second Amendment cronies, when taken together, would affect only law-abiding citizens. One thing is certain. During the Obama administration, gun-toting criminals need not worry.

Gun-related prosecutions have steadily declined during Obama’s tenure in office. The inescapable conclusion is that when it comes to gun control, the president is clearly a hypocrite. He is joined in his perfidy by many of his anti-gun minions on the left. One would reasonably think that a president who puts so much energy into pushing for new and more restrictive gun-control laws would instruct his Justice Department to actively prosecute those who violate existing laws. But those who think this do not understand the liberal mind.

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here.


Bloomberg Craps Out Again - Milwaukee Sheriff Prevails 

From Reason.Com

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., made waves when he urged the public to consider purchasing firearms and getting training so that they’d be able to defend themselves against criminal attacks. He even taped public service announcementsto that effect. “Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family,” was part of the message in one.

Unshockingly, gun-banners were displeased by the sheriff’s stance. The likes of Michael Bloomberg poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Democratic primary race to back his challenger, Milwaukee police Lt. Chris Moews. In the end, they blew their cash as Clarke won the nomination and, effectively, the general election.

Writes Georgia Pabst at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. edged Milwaukee police Lt. Chris Moews early Wednesday in a Democratic primary race that drew national attention and more than $600,000 in outside spending.

Clarke led by more than 4,700 votes with just the absentee ballots in the city of Milwaukee left to count, and shortly before midnight, Moews refused to concede. Shortly thereafter, Clarke told supporters he felt good about his chances but would not declare victory until all ballots were counted.

“We like where we’re standing right now,” he said.

When the last of the absentee ballots were counted early Wednesday, Clarke had beat Moews by 4,644 votes.

Bloomberg’s own political action committee put more than $150,000 in the race against Clarke, without effect. Another group put $400,000 against him.

Clarke received outside support, too, though in far smaller amounts.

His support for Second Amendment civil rights is obviously appreciated by the voters, who handed Bloomberg another crushing defeat.