The Justice Department, concluding that there is no legal basis to place greater restrictions on the purchase of guns by lawful immigrants as opposed to citizens, is dropping a policy that did just that.

Here's the letter the ATF has sent out to federal gun licensees.

The Department of Justice (the Department) has recently concluded that, as a matter of law, applying a more stringent State residency requirement for aliens legally present in the U.S. than for U.S. citizens is incompatible with the language of the GCA. As a result, ATF will be revising the regulations in 27 C.F.R. Part 478 to conform to the Department’s conclusions by removing the separate 90-day residency requirement for aliens. Once the regulations have been revised, both U.S. citizens and aliens legally present in the U.S. will be subject to the same requirements for State residency

The Guardian and CNN have good recaps of Bradley Manning's hearing this week.

David Coombs, Manning's lead defense counsel, seemed for focus on two major issues - the Army's lack of response to Manning's emotional and behavior problems as well lack of security in the SCIF where Manning worked in Iraq.

The judge/hearing officer is to make his recommendation to the special Court Martial Convening Authority. by Jan. 16 as to whether Manning should face a full courts-martial proceeding. If convicted of the charges, Manning faces a potential life sentence.

There's nothing better than homemade green chile and a good bottle of wine on a cold winter's night.

That's what we're doing here, and watching the finale of the X-Factor.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

We got 9 inches of snow last night, and it's still piling up. 12 to 16 inches are expected before the storm is done-- much more outside of Denver. It's a great day to work from home.

As usual, viewers from our local Channel 7 news have submitted some great photos.

[Hat tip to Skippy for making this graphic several snow seasons ago.]

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Andrew Sullivan:

It is quite something for a writer to accuse a presidential candidate of essentially supporting America's enemies, and of being full of venom and hatred for the United States, when he has served this country as a congressman for decades. [. . . N]otice the baldly McCarthyite language by Dorothy Rabinowitz.

If Christopher Hitchens were alive, he'd never stand for this Decadent Coastal Enclave-based Fifth Columnism.

Speaking for me only

Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ Editorial Board writes of Ron Paul:

Some in Iowa are reportedly now taking a look at Dr. Paul, now risen high in the polls there. [. . .] It seemed improbable that the best-known of American propagandists for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is. An interesting status for a candidate of Dr. Paul's persuasion to have achieved, and he'll achieve even more if Iowans choose to give him a victory.

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, this "Fifth Column" is not confined to Iowa. From his coastal enclave in Washington, DC, Andrew Sullivan writes:

[Paul] is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right[.]

Ahhh, the Decadent in their coastal enclaves, mounting a "Fifth Column."

Speaking for me only

At Cameron Douglas' sentencing yesterday for using drugs while in prison, the judge hammered him with a 54 month sentence, consecutive to the 5 year sentence he is already serving for a drug conviction.

“I don’t believe that I have had another case ever...of a defendant who has so recklessly, and flagrantly, and wantonly and criminally acted in as destructive and manipulative a fashion,”

After reading all the recent pleadings on PACER, the judge's 54 month sentence is not all that surprising. It's not just about a judge sentencing a relapsing drug-addicted inmate to a lot of time. The full story, as told by the pleadings of both sides and two other involved defendants, is below. Read it and decide whether you think the sentence was appropriate: [More...]

Krugman notes an important development out of the EPA on mercury and restates this important point:

The point that strikes me most, however, is that this shows that it matters who holds the White House. You can complain about Obama’s lack of a strong progressive agenda, which I sometimes do, or wonder what good it is to hold the White House when the other side blocks every attempt to do good through legislation. But mercury regulation would not have happened if John McCain were president.

Elections have consequences, and this is one delayed consequence of 2008 that will make a big difference.

This is not a plea to give Obama a free pass, quite the opposite (I think the larger problem is defenders of the President not seeing that criticism of specific policy need not imply lack of support for reelection). Criticism is necessary but the full picture must be kept in mind.

Speaking for me only

From the NY Times comments:

"As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice." -Tom Friedman, December 11, 2011

"The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war." Tom Friedman, February 9, 2003

Link

Was Tom Friedman lying then or is he lying now?

Suck on this.

Speaking for me only

Tom Friedman now:

Iraq was always a war of choice. [. . .] seemed to me to be a legitimate strategic choice. But was it a wise choice? My answer is twofold: “No” and “Maybe, sort of, we’ll see.” I say “no” because whatever happens in Iraq, even if it becomes Switzerland, we overpaid for it.

Tom Friedman then:

Friedman writes "I have nothing but respect for the Americans, Brits and Iraqis who paid the price to make it possible." Speaking for me only, eff you Tom Friedman.

Seems like a dumb question I know, but remarkably, Jon Chait says no:

It would be nearly impossible to imagine the Republican Party nominating a candidate who spent years and years publishing a racist newsletter and has deep associations with the fringe far right. (Here he is speaking to the John Birch Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.)

I think that Chait has it backwards. It is impossible to imagine the GOP nominating a candidate who does NOT make race based appeals.

Consider Ronald Reagan - welfare queens in Cadillacs and "states rights" in Philadelphia,Mississippi, just for starters.

And today, the GOP's universal war on immigrants is racism uncovered. What in Gawd's name is Chait talking about? The more plausible argument from Chait? This:

It would be even more impossible to imagine the Party nominating a candidate who favors total withdrawal from world affairs and takes a Chomsky-ite line on American power.

It is true that Ron Paul is not eager to use American military power and speaks of restraining Executive power. And those views are anathema to the GOP. Of course, they are also anathema to Jon Chait, who would be, in many ways, a more plausible GOP candidate than Ron Paul. It's an interesting story.

Speaking for me only

Menorahs around the globe are lit tonight-- There were major ceremonies in New York and Washington .

Whatever day you begin celebrating, we wish you all a joyous holiday season.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.