Ralph Reed: American Traditional Values Under Assault by 'Activist Court'

At Newsmax:

Republican strategist Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition, tells Newsmax that Americans who believe in traditional values of marriage are "under assault" by the government and the courts.

He also asserts that the Supreme Court is an activist court that is legislating from the bench, and says the nation is in the grips of an "immoral legal regime" of abortion on demand.

Reed is the former head of the Christian Coalition. He founded the Faith & Freedom Coalition in 2009.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, and handed down a ruling on Proposition 8, thereby allowing gay marriage to continue in California.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Wednesday, Reed says he is "profoundly disappointed" by the court's rulings.

"If you look at the ruling in the Defense of Marriage Act, they ruled that the state, not the federal government, should be allowed to define marriage for purposes of that state's customs, laws, and traditions. They ruled the states were more powerful in making this decision than the federal government.

"And in the California marriage case where the state defined marriage as between a man and a woman and a federal district court overturned that ruling, they ruled that that decision would stand.

"It's really a case of jurisprudential incoherence. On the one hand they're saying that state law takes precedence; on the other hand they're [disallowing] a state law – not just any state law but a law in which the people of California voted not once, but twice to keep marriage defined the way it has been defined for over 160 years in California, which is as between a man and a woman."

Yeah, well, stuff's pretty much messed up all around.

More at that top link.

"For the most insightful analysis of the #DOMA ruling, just read the Tweets of Meghan 'Look at My Magnificent Melons' McCain...'

That's the hilarious headline at the Daley Gator.

Bill Clinton on Whatever Helps Keep Democrats in Power

On Twitter:

RT @washingtonpost: What Bill Clinton said when he signed DOMA http://t.co/1qgnFfWpaM What Bill Clinton said today http://t.co/zsiriIJBnV

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) June 26, 2013

1996: "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms 'marriage' and 'spouse.' "

2013: "I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory" ...

New Kelly Andrews Pics

How about a break from teh gays for a bit?

Here's the brunette hottie from Liverpool, at Egotastic!, "Kelly Andrews Pink Thong Majesty for Ta-Ta-Tuesdays."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kelly Andrews at Egotastic!"

And on Twitter.

Hollywood Deserves Credit for America's Shift Toward Homosexual Licentiousness

Hey, it's a Gramscian culture shift underway, right before our eyes.

At National Journal, "Will, Grace, and a Decade of Change on Gay Rights":

Only 10 years ago, sex between two consenting males was illegal in Texas, six in 10 Americans opposed allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, including the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and Republican strategists were actively working to enact bans on same-sex marriage on swing-state ballots because it helped their chances politically.

Today, the president of the United States, along with half the country, supports same-sex marriage, one-third of Americans live in states that allow gay couples to be married, and the Supreme Court says the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a legal bond only available to heterosexual couples, is unconstitutional. The Democratic Party openly embraces gay marriage in its platform, while Republican leaders desperately want to avoid an issue that's now a political loser for them.

The stunning shift in American attitudes toward gays and same-sex marriage, which culminated in a pair of Supreme Court rulings on Wednesday invalidating DOMA and effectively killing an anti-same-sex-marriage ballot initiative in California, has been fueled by the rising influence of a younger, more accepting generation. That generation has been influenced in part by an increasing willingness of gays and lesbians to publicly declare their sexual orientation and by the rise of a popular culture in which gay characters on television and in movies are commonplace.

Polling shows younger Americans strongly backing gay marriage. Two-thirds of millennials--those born after 1981--now support marriage equality, up from about half in 2003, according to data compiled by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. A majority of members of Generation X, born between 1965 and 1980, now favor gay marriage, reflecting more than a 10-point increase over the last decade. A majority of baby boomers and the Silent Generation are still opposed to same-sex marriage, but support even among those older Americans has increased by between 9 and 17 points.

Coverage of the marriage debate in the news media has tilted strongly toward support for same-sex marriage. Pew studies show about half of all stories that covered this spring's arguments before the Supreme Court focused on those who supported marriage equality, while only one in 10 stories covered the opposition.

Researchers also credit popular culture with changing American attitudes on gay marriage. Television shows like Will & Grace, which ran in prime time from 1998 to 2006, and Modern Family, which debuted in 2009, feature gay characters in lead roles. Shows as diverse as The Simpsons, Lost, The Office, and Grey's Anatomy all featured prominent gay characters or characters who came out of the closet. Celebrities like Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O'Donnell who came out gave every American a face to attach to homosexuality.

"I think Will & Grace did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody has ever done," Vice President Joe Biden said on Meet the Press in 2012, when he inadvertently got ahead of President Obama's decision to publicly support gay marriage.

Being able to attach an individual to homosexuality has played a role, too. Data experts at Facebook showed about 70 percent of users of the popular social network has a friend who publicly identifies as gay or lesbian, The Wall Street Journal reported this week. Gallup polling conducted in May showed 75 percent of respondents said they have friends, relatives, or coworkers who have told them personally that they are gay or lesbian.

"Hollywood has made gay-rights mainstream while making Christianity seem extreme," said Chris Wilson, a Republican pollster. "Try to name one positive portrayal of an evangelical Christian in a prime-time show right now. Conversely, you can likely name at least one positive portrayal of a homosexual character in each popular prime-time program. A decade of that has an impact."

More at the link.

PHOTO: The Advocate, "Sean Hayes I Am Who I Am."

Justice Antonin Scalia's Dissent in United States v. Windsor

I just read Scalia's dissent in today's DOMA ruling.

The full case in PDF is here.

It takes awhile to wade through these things, and I've still got more studying to do.

Madeleine Morgenstern has this, at the Blaze, "12 OF THE MOST CUTTING HIGHLIGHTS FROM JUSTICE SCALIA’S ANGRY DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT DISSENT."

Here's the conclusion.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will no do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Interestingly, responses to Scalia don't address his substantive points as much as simply dismiss him as a bigot. Paul Waldman at the American Prospect, is a case in point, and the homosexual Josh Barro, at Business Insider, "Antonin Scalia's Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping With Contempt and Sarcasm."

Seriously. A good indicator that Scalia has destroyed the majority's holding is the visceral ad hominem reactions to be found on the radical left, for example:

I’ve never understood the whole “Scalia is so brilliant” thing. I’ve been hearing it for years and years, particularly from certain law school profs (who were raging unreconstructed old school liberals, but who loved to let us all know that they found “Nino” quite charming at cocktail parties). I’m a corporate lawyer, but my father was a federal appellate civil rights lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund for almost 40 years. He argued cases in front of SCOTUS including after Scalia was appointed. My father’s impression of him based on appearing before him seems totally consistent with my read of Scalia’s claptrap opinions – he’s a somewhat intelligent but extraordinarally belligerent narcissist. Reading his stuff, for me, provokes revulsion at his immaturity – which brings disrepute to the institution – and whiplash at his rampant inconsistency.

In any case, Scalia's in the minority of a deeply divided Court. Perhaps we'll return to this issue if public opinion shifts. There's clearly large remaining division on the issue nationwide, and once other moral barriers begin to fall we may well see a shift in public opinion back toward traditional morality. Trends in support for Roe v. Wade give conservatives lots of hope on that score.

For now, though, the homosexual thugs have won the day.

More at Althouse, "DOMA as 'a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group'."

Homosexuals Celebrate Supreme Court Rulings on Same-Sex Rights

Here's USA Today's tweet:

Across nation, gays celebrate court rulings on same-sex rights http://t.co/9spyxbFgcD

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 26, 2013

But this is what folks are really celebrating, at iOWNTHEWORLD, "Condemn these perverts and you’re a “gay basher”."

Hey, that's putting the "progress" in progressives!

Yay!

Running of the Interns

Here's something to lighten things up.

A BuzzFeed, "The 2013 Running of the Interns."

The 2013 Running Of The Interns http://t.co/VBMUbOZFuT pic.twitter.com/IUc2CemiOA

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) June 26, 2013

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer Banned From Britain

The world is turned upside down.

Here's Pamela's post, "BANNED IN BRITAIN: UK CAVES TO JIHAD." And Robert's, "Britain capitulates to jihad."

ADDED: From Pamela, "BRITAIN BANS GELLER AND SPENCER -- SANCTIONS IED JIHADIST SQUADS":

I have been banned in Britain. My crime? My principled dedication to freedom. I am a human rights activist dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and individual rights for all before the law. I fiercely oppose violence and the persecution and oppression of minorities under supremacist law. I deplore violence and work for the preservation of freedom of speech to avoid violent conflict.

I have never been convicted of any crime. I have never been arrested. I became a writer and activist in the wake of 911.

For this I am banned. I shed no tears. I am banned from Mecca, too.

The Home Secretary said that my being in the UK was "not conducive to the public good.” Banning those who speak in defense of freedom is "not conducive to the public good." It is painfully apparent that the action of the British authorities will have the opposite effect of what they had intended. They have lit a fuse. And instead of allowing a respectful laying of flowers in memory of Lee Rigby on Armed Forces day, they have given rise and sanction to poison like this (below).

Our banning is like a patient on life support refusing medical treatment.

More at the link.

And following the links takes us to the Sun UK, "IED threat to Britain as fanatic Anjem Choudary recruits vigilante squads."

Meanwhile, Typing 'Transgender' Into Google...

It's all rainbows in America...

Take a look here.

Supreme Court Avoids Proposition 8 Ruling

As expected, the Court ruled on a technicality, and not on the merits. The decisions of the lower federal courts will prevail in California, which means gay marriage will be de facto in the state.

At the San Francisco Chronicle, "High court: Prop. 8 backers lack standing." And at the Los Angeles Times, "Prop 8: Gay marriage could resume soon after Supreme Court ruling."

Expect updates...

Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

I'm not surprised.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Gay marriage ruling: Supreme Court finds DOMA unconstitutional."

And at Legal Insurrection, "Supreme Court DOMA decision – Unconstitutional."

UPDATE: We're still waiting for the decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop. 8 case out of California.

More at Twitchy, "SCOTUS circus day: Supreme Court declares DOMA unconstitutional; Hardest hit: Bill Clinton."

Okay, the Court has ruled narrowly on Prop. 8, arguing that supporters don't have standing to defend the initiative, sending the case back to the 9th Circuit.

Meanwhile, here's the People's Cube on DOMA:

#DOMA today the 2.5% forced the other 97.5% of us to be termed as haters for support of traditional marriage #tcot

— The People's Cube (@ThePeoplesCube) June 26, 2013

Expect updates...

Men's Wearhouse Explains Why It Fired George Zimmer

At the Los Angeles Times, "Men's Wearhouse: Zimmer tried power grab, privatizing before firing."

He tried to take back the company through some privatization scheme. I told you he was getting eccentric.

PREVIOUSLY: "Men's Wearhouse Fires Founder George Zimmer."

Obama Unveils War on Fossil Fuels

It's not just coal, and he didn't campaign on this either.

At Wall Street Journal, "The Carbonated President":

President Obama's climate speech on Tuesday was grandiose even for him, but its surreal nature was its particular hallmark. Some 12 million Americans still can't find work, real wages have fallen for five years, three-fourths of Americans now live paycheck to check, and the economy continues to plod along four years into a quasi-recovery. But there was the President in tony Georgetown, threatening more energy taxes and mandates that will ensure fewer jobs, still lower incomes and slower growth.

Mr. Obama's "climate action plan" adds up to one of the most extensive reorganizations of the U.S. economy since the 1930s, imposed through administrative fiat and raw executive power. He wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, but over his 6,500-word address he articulated no such goal for the unemployment rate or GDP.

***
The plan covers everything from new efficiency standards for home appliances to new fuel mileage rules for heavy-duty trucks to new subsidies for wind farms, but the most consequential changes would slam the U.S. electric industry. These plants, coal-fired power in particular, account for about a third of domestic greenhouse gases.

Last year the Environmental Protection Agency released "new source performance standard" regulations that are effectively a moratorium on new coal plants. The EPA denied that similar rules would ever apply to the existing fleet, or even that they were working up such rules. Now Mr. Obama will unleash his carbon central planners on current plants.

Coal accounted for more than half of U.S. electric generation as recently as 2008 but plunged to a mere 37% in 2012. In part this tumble has been due to cheap natural gas, but now the EPA will finish the job and take coal to 0%.

Daniel Shrag of Harvard, an Obama science adviser, told the New York Times Monday that "Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed." At least he's honest, though in truth Mr. Obama's target is all forms of carbon energy. Natural gas is next...

Man, he's awful.

Continue reading.

Giraffe Chases Jeep on Safari

This is great.

More at London's Daily Mail, "When giraffes attack! Moment tourists left terrified by angry bull chasing their car."

#VRA: Reactions Reveal Divide on Race Progress

Here'ss Jackie Calmes, Robbie Brown, and Campbell Robertson, putting it mildly at the New York Times, "On Voting Case, Reaction From ‘Deeply Disappointed’ to ‘It’s About Time’":

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday said he was “deeply disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision ruling a central piece of the 1965 Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, and he called on Congress to pass legislation protecting access to voting.

The president registered his critique in a written statement issued by the White House that noted the law’s bipartisan legacy and the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment, in the ruling, that discrimination persists.

“For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act — enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress — has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans,” the statement read. “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.”

Mr. Obama’s attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., who is named as the defendant in the case, Shelby County v. Holder, used similar language to criticize the court’s decision.

“The Department of Justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights,” Mr. Holder said. “Let me be very clear: We will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains available to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise.”

Mr. Holder also emphasized the law’s long history of bipartisan support in Congress and under successive presidential administrations.

In his decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but it was clear that the likelihood that a divided Congress could agree on a remedy was small.

Members of the N.A.A.C.P. and civil rights lawyers said they would ask Congress to draw up a new coverage formula, laid out in Section 4 of the act.

“We are confident that members of both houses of Congress that helped lead the effort in 2006, many of whom are still there, will help to restore the power of Section 4,” Wade Henderson, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday....

Across the South, reaction to the decision appeared to be split, largely along racial and partisan lines. Luther Strange, the Republican attorney general of Alabama, called it “a victory for Alabama” and added that he did not believe that the state should be included in any formula Congress may adopt.

Tate Reeves, the Republican lieutenant governor of Mississippi, said he was pleased by the decision but said that preclearance “unfairly applied to certain states should be eliminated in recognition of the progress Mississippi has made over the past 48 years.”

On one point, most people agreed: that Congress was not likely to come up with a remedy to Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act any time soon, leaving the South without the oversight provided by Section 5.

Good.

And see J. Christian Adams' comments to that effect as well, "Supreme Court's Ruling in Shelby v. Holder: 'It is one of the most important decisions in decades...'."

Lee Bollinger and Gail Heriot Discuss Affirmative Action

It's Lee Bollinger who's most interesting here. He was named as the defendant in the pair of big affirmative affirmative action cases 10 years ago. He's a pathetically lame racial grievance hack. A typical idiot leftist stuck in the Jim Crow past.

Brazil's Dilma Rousseff's Rebuked in Call for National Referendum

At WSJ, "Brazil's Proposed Political Overhaul Meets Resistance":

SÃO PAULO—Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff labored to drum up support Tuesday for the sweeping overhaul of the nation's political system she has proposed in response to large public demonstrations against government waste and corruption.

The first-term president called Monday night for a national referendum on whether to alter the constitution to improve government accountability. This was part of a package of proposals to appease an increasingly angry public that has taken to the streets in crowds of as many as a million to protest corruption and deteriorating government services. She also called for earmarking oil revenue for education, hiring foreign doctors to improve health, and other initiatives.

But Ms. Rousseff's proposal met with immediate resistance from some political leaders and legal experts.

The national chairman of the opposition Social Democrats, Senator Aécio Neves, called the referendum an attempt to shift the public focus from "the administration's failed social and economic policies" to the new and difficult-to-digest topic of electoral reform.

The president of the Brazilian bar association, Marcus Coelho, said the referendum was unnecessary and that an existing bill in Congress could be pushed forward to address political reform without a constitutional amendment.

The opposition was so strong that some analysts said they expected Ms. Rousseff to alter her call for a national vote on whether to call a constitutional assembly.

The call for a referendum was seen by some political analysts as an attempt to use the protest movement to push Congress into action on reform.

"Congress hasn't understood what's happening on the streets," said David Fleischer, a professor of political science at the University of Brasília. "The president wanted to take a step forward," but she is taking a big risk that could backfire if Congress blocks the move, he said.

It appeared that Ms. Rousseff's call for action already has had some impact. Congressional leaders agreed to vote—as early as Tuesday night— on a series of reform measures that have languished in the corridors of power for months. Congressional leaders also proposed pushing forward with existing legislation on political overhaul, which they said would be faster than the president's call for a constitutional assembly to decide the changes.

The protests began last week and marches continued Tuesday. Despite rainy weather in São Paulo, hundreds of people blocked major roads into the city, while there were protests in several other cities including Belo Horizonte, in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais, and São Luís, in the northeastern state of Maranhão.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Brazil President Dilma Rousseff Offers National Referendum to Ease Unrest."

Germany Blasts Britain Over Surveillance

I think it was Glenn Greenwald's feed, but folks were joking about how this was like the 1930s.

At the Guardian UK, "Germany blasts Britain over GCHQ's secret cable trawl":

Minister questions legality of mass tapping of calls and internet and demands to know extent to which Germans were targeted.

The German government has expressed the growing public anger of its citizens over Britain's mass programme of monitoring global phone and internet traffic and directly challenged UK ministers over the whole basis of GCHQ's Project Tempora surveillance operation.

The German justice minister, who has described the secret operation by Britain's eavesdropping agency as a catastrophe that sounded "like a Hollywood nightmare", warned UK ministers that free and democratic societies could not flourish when states shielded their actions in "a veil of secrecy".

Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger sent two letters on Tuesday to the British justice secretary, Chris Grayling, and the home secretary, Theresa May, stressing the widespread concern the disclosures have triggered in Germany and demanding to know the extent to which German citizens have been targeted.

It is the first major challenge to David Cameron's government to publicly justify its mass data-trawling operation, which was revealed in documents leaked by the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.

More at the link.

Stumbling Into Syria

From David Bromwich, at the New York Review:

Reporters working in Syria—most recently Robert Worth in an article in The New York Times Magazine—have converged on a single unhappy perception: far and away the largest and most capable groups of rebels are jihadists. That is a central fact of this uprising. But the fall of the town of Qusair to Hezbollah forces, in the first week of June, and the realization that Aleppo is also in jeopardy have turned the war so heavily in Assad’s favor that an all-out campaign for French, British, and American intervention has now been launched. The French “new philosopher” and journalist Bernard-Henri Levy did much to persuade Nicholas Sarkozy of the propriety of organizing a NATO war to overthrow Qaddafi; in a characteristic recent column for The Daily Beast, Levy nicknames Assad “the Syrian killer” and speaks of the danger that now threatens the morale and substance of the West:

The surrender of Aleppo to the death squads of Hezbollah would be a fresh eruption of carnage whose victims would be heaped atop the hundred thousand already claimed by this atrocious war against a civilian population.

He affirms that “Aleppo belongs not to Syria but to the world”—a stirring phrase of ambiguous import—and he numbers the recent crimes against civilization by Serbs and Islamists: “those past crimes haunt our collective conscience.” The failures of the West have all been failures to wage the necessary humanitarian wars against Slavic or Islamist fanatics.

It must be admitted that American policy has fallen short of demands like these. We sided with Islamist rebels in Afghanistan, under the name of Mujahideen fighters, and against the same rebels under the names of Taliban and al-Qaeda; we fought against them in Iraq during the 2004 insurgency, and stood at their side as paymasters and allies when they became the “Sunni Awakening” in 2007; we were against them in Mali, Somalia, and Yemen, but allied with them as the courageous militias in Libya; and now in Syria, we are both for them and against them—allies insofar as they agree with us in attacking the government, but opponents because they want to dominate or kill the moderate rebels to whom we intend to ship arms. We will wage war against them after they help us to win the war against Assad.

That's an excellent analysis, and Bromwich lays the blame for an inevitable fiasco right at the feet of Barack Obama.

Be sure to RTWT.

Al-Nusra Front Beheads Assad Supporters in Syria

Allegedly so, according to this video at Live Leak, "Big Crowd & Beheading Syria [Graphic]."

President Obama is supporting these rebels.

HAT TIP: Golem.

PREVIOUSLY: "NBC's Richard Engel: 'Just Back From #Syria ... Lots of Black Banners at Checkpoints...'" And, "Child Chained Up and Forced to Watch Parents Murdered by Obama-Backed Syrian Rebels."

The Economist Argues for Further Western Intervention in Syria

An interesting case, although as I always say, the moment has passed.

See, "Can Iran be stopped? The West should intervene in Syria for many reasons. One is to stem the rise of Persian power":

The growing risk of a nuclear Iran is one reason why the West should intervene decisively in Syria not just by arming the rebels, but also by establishing a no-fly zone. That would deprive Mr Assad of his most effective weapon—bombs dropped from planes—and allow the rebels to establish military bases inside Syria. This newspaper has argued many times for doing so on humanitarian grounds; but Iran’s growing clout is another reason to intervene, for it is not in the West’s interest that a state that sponsors terrorism and rejects Israel’s right to exist should become the regional hegemon.

The West still has the economic and military clout to influence events in the region, and an interest in doing so. When Persian power is on the rise, it is not the time to back away from the Middle East.

RTWT.

Emily Gets Her Gun...

That's Emily Miller, who's writing a book about becoming a gun owner.

Katie Pavlich on Obama's International Embarrassment

With Emily Tisch Sussman on Hannity's last night:

Better Naked Than Burka

Well, I guess they have a point.

A FEMEN interview at Euronews.

And at Blazing Cat Fur, "'Femen Is Pornography' Say Facebook."

"The six-year old 'transgender girl' is actually a boy and the couple's 'daughter' is actually their son, but since this confused child thinks he is actually a girl, he now is a girl in the eyes of the media, and the son is now a daughter..."

A great piece from Michael Brown, at Town Hall, "This Battle is For Your Children's Future."

And at Pat Dollard, "Transgender First-Grader Wins Civil Rights Suit After Girls’ Bathroom Ban."

Parents of Trayvon Martin Devastated by Graphic Pictures in George Zimmerman Trial

A huge piece, with lots of photos, at London's Daily Mail, "Drama at George Zimmerman trial as Trayvon Martin's parents walk out of court after jury is shown graphic pictures of their son's body."

And in case you've not been following, Andrew Branca is blogging the trial at Legal Insurrection, "Zimmerman Trial Day 2 – Analysis of State’s Witnesses."

Here's yesterday's main entry as well, "Zimmerman Trial Day One – Analysis of State’s First Four Witnesses."

Hollywood Slaying Suspect Arrested 46 Times

How many times have I heard this story?

How many multiple times have the perps been in and out of jail, only to have these vile criminals murder another innocent?

At the Los Angeles Times, "Suspect in Hollywood stabbing had been arrested 46 times."

PREVIOUSLY: "Death of Christine Calderon Recalls Hollywood's Crime-Ridden Past."

Lacey Banghard on Curvy Women

A commentary piece, at the Sun UK, "We are sick of stick ... curvy is the new size 0: Page 3 beauty Lacey Banghard on model Chloe Hayward — a size 12."

Previous Lacey Banghard blogging at the link.

'Classic Reactionary Liberalism'

That's an interesting concept, via WFB, "Krauthammer: ‘Classic Reactionary Liberalism’ On Display After Voting Rights Act Decision."

Some background here, "Civil Rights Icon John Lewis: Supreme Court Put 'Dagger in Heart of Voting Rights Act...'"

Sarah Palin Slams Obama Tool David Plouffe on Twitter

Awesome.

At Twitchy, "‘Is this all a game to you?’: Sarah Palin slams David Plouffe and his ‘messiah’ Obama."

@davidplouffe Is this all a game to you and your ilk? Your messiah's "Transformation of America" is destruction of America.

— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 25, 2013

NBC's Richard Engel: 'Just Back From #Syria ... Lots of Black Banners at Checkpoints...'

On Twitter:

Just back from #syria. Hardly saw rebel three star flags. Lots of black banners at checkpoints

— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) June 25, 2013

Blake Hounshell forwarded to John McCain.

RELATED: At Telegraph UK, from last month, "Under the Black Flag of al-Qaeda, the Syrian City Rule by Gang of Extremists."

Well, once Obama has his way, the whole country will be ruled by al Qaeda.

Alan Dershowitz Trashes 'Anti-American' Glenn Greenwald

Well, it's about time somebody trashed him.

Via John Sexton at Breitbart:

Obama's Fading Foreign Policy Influence

From Bret Stephens, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Age of American Impotence":

... however the Snowden episode turns out (and don't be surprised if the Russians wind up handing him over in exchange for an unspecified American favor), what it mainly illustrates is that we are living in an age of American impotence. The Obama administration has decided it wants out from nettlesome foreign entanglements, and now finds itself surprised that it's running out of foreign influence.

That is the larger significance of last week's Afghan diplomatic debacle, in which the Taliban opened an office in Doha for the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan"—the name Mullah Omar grandiloquently gave his regime in Kabul before its 2001 downfall. Afghan President Hamid Karzai responded by shutting down negotiations with the U.S. over post-2014 security cooperation.

Now the U.S. finds itself in an amazing position. Merely to get the Taliban to the table for a bogus peace process, the administration agreed at Pakistan's urging to let Mullah Omar come to the table on his owns terms: no acceptance of the Afghan Constitution, no cease-fire with international forces, not even a formal pledge to never again allow Afghanistan to become a haven for international terrorism. The U.S. also agreed, according to Pakistani sources, to allow the terrorist Haqqani network—whose exploits include the 2011 siege of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul—a seat at the table.

Yet having legitimized Haqqani and given the Taliban everything it wanted in exchange for nothing, the U.S. finds itself being dumped by its own client government in Kabul, which can always turn to Iran as a substitute patron. Incredible: no peace, no peace process, no ally, no leverage and no moral standing, all in a single stroke. John Kerry is off to quite a start.

What's happening in Afghanistan is of a piece with the larger pattern of U.S. diplomacy. Iraq? The administration made the complete withdrawal of our troops a cornerstone of its first-term foreign policy, and now finds itself surprised that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won't lift a finger to prevent Iranian cargo planes from overflying his airspace en route to resupplying Bashar Assad's military. Syria? President Obama spent two years giving the country's civil war the widest berth, creating the power vacuum in which Iran, Hezbollah and Russia may soon achieve their strategic goals.

Continue reading.

Stephens' discussion of Snowden has been overtaken a bit by events. Snowden may be under arrest in Moscow, being interrogated and having his laptops stripped from him. More on that later. I'm just watching CNN and Fox News to keep up with developments.

Man, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is One Butt-Freakin' Fugly Woman!

I just saw this on Twitter, and man, the DNC Chair and Congresswoman is one gawd-awful lookin' dog. Notice Wasserman Schultz at left.

.@Instapundit Debbie Wasserman Schultz freeze frame at the video is hilarious. http://t.co/J61EvFjwHQ #Fugly
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 25, 2013

It's from the Congressional Women's Softball Game. I'm sure there's a couple of Republican congressional hotties who aren't so butt-freakin' fugly!

Added: From the Mad Jewess, "Debbie Wasserman Schultz Gets A Serena Williams Make-Over By The Mad Jewess."Debbie Wasserman Schultz Gets a Serena Williams Make-Over by The Mad Jewess."

Civil Rights Icon John Lewis: Supreme Court Put 'Dagger in Heart of Voting Rights Act...'

Man, it's like the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated or something.

These civil rights icons really need to step into the 21st century. Poor baby.

At the Hill, "Civil rights icon Lewis: Justices don't know discrimination."

And man, check out the heavy drama at ABC News, "ABC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Portion of Voting Rights Act of 1965." Terry Moran's about to have a heart attack at the clip therein. Sheesh.

'Obama has chosen to bypass the representative branch of government, and declare anyone who disagrees with him to be evil and stupid...'

From Steve Goddard, at Real Climate, "The New Dictator."

More here, "Obama Escalates His Rhetoric Against Americans."

And at the Hill, "Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’" (via Memeorandum). And the New York Times, "Obama Outlines Ambitious Plan to Cut Greenhouse Gases" (via Memeorandum).

President Dronekiller can go right around Congress. See National Journal, "What’s in Obama’s Climate Plan?"

If Only Our Foreign Enemies Were Republicans

From VDH, at Pajamas Media:

I cannot recall, in the last five years, Barack Obama ever identifying the Iranians, Hezbollah, or the late Hugo Chavez as among our “enemies,” in the fashion that he once urged Latino leaders to punish conservatives at the polls: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If only the president would treat those who don’t like the United States in the same manner that he does those who do, he might bring great clarity to his now listless foreign policy. Indeed, why waste his rich vocabulary of teleprompted invective on fellow Americans, when there is an entire world out there that wishes the United States ill?

Well, O was gonna heal the waters so to speak, although that's not working out too well now.

Continue reading.

Yasiel Puig Lifts #Dodgers Playoff Hopes

I've been watching this guy. He's got some kinda magic spark, or so it seems.

At LAT, "Yasiel Puig leads Dodgers past Giants, 3-1, for rare three-game win streak":

As much entertainment as Yasiel Puig has provided in his three weeks with the Dodgers, his presence hasn't had a pronounced effect on the team's win-loss record.

Until now, perhaps.

By virtue of a 3-1 victory over the San Francisco Giants at Dodger Stadium on Monday, the Dodgers won three consecutive games for the first time since the opening week of the season.

Puig was a central figure in the triumph, as he hit his seventh home run in the first inning and drove in the go-ahead run in the eighth. The Dodgers (33-42) are 10-10 in games in which Puig has played and are eight games behind the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks in the National League West.

Meanwhile, the Giants fell to 38-38. The last time the Giants were .500 this late in the year was in 2008, their last losing season.

Until Monday night, the Dodgers had dropped five consecutive decisions to the Giants. And until the first inning, the Dodgers hadn't scored against Giants starter Madison Bumgarner in 16 consecutive innings.

Puig ended that streak right away, homering to the opposite field to put the Dodgers ahead, 1-0.

“Crazy stuff,” Manager Don Mattingly said.

RTWT.

Minnesota State Rep. Ryan Winkler Attacks Justice Clarence Thomas as 'Uncle Tom'

Wow.

Just wow.

At Twitchy, "Minn. state Rep. Ryan Winkler calls Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom, claims he didn’t know it was offensive."

.@RepRyanWinkler Don't worry. That tweet is safe and sound. pic.twitter.com/gClffltNJj
— William J. Miller (@WilliamJMiller) June 25, 2013

The dude's a Democrat, if that needs to be added.

New Jersey Mom Savagely Beaten in Home Invasion Attack

At CBS News New York, "N.J. Mom Attacked, Brutally Beaten In Front Of 3-Year-Old In Own Home."

And London's Daily Mail, "Nanny cam catches mom's ruthless beating by home invader as daughter, 3, watches."

And it's a black dude. Drive the point home. This is one criminal black mofo.

LINKED: At iOWNTHEWORLD. Thanks!

Where Was President Obama on Sept. 11, 2012?

Robert Stacy McCain has an investigative report, at the American Spectator, "Where Was the President?":

Where was the president? This is a simple question, one to which the American people might reasonably expect an answer, but more than nine months after that deadly night, we still have not gotten a detailed answer and most in the media seem to have lost all interest in the question. White House correspondents have let themselves be played like chumps, treated like court stenographers whose job is to transcribe the administration’s talking points. No one seems to have tried to pin down Obama himself on this question — what, exactly, was he doing while Islamic terrorists brutally slaughtered four Americans? — and only rarely have any of the presidential henchmen been asked about it. One of the few exceptions to the media’s see-no-evil policy of voluntary ignorance occurred last month, when Chris Wallace of Fox News asked the president’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer about Benghazi.

Wallace began by reiterating what is known about Obama’s actions that day, saying the president “had a meeting with [Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta in the afternoon … [and] wanted them to deploy forces as soon as possible. The next time he shows up is that [Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton says she spoke to him at around 10 o’clock that night, after the attack at the consulate — not as it turned out, at the annex, but the attack at the consulate — had ended. Question: What did the president do the rest of that night to pursue Benghazi?”

Pfeiffer responded that “the president was kept up to date as it happened throughout the entire night, from the moment it started till the end.” Pfeiffer then proceeded to portray Obama as the helpless target of “a series of conspiracy theories the Republicans are spinning.” The adviser elaborated on the number of documents released and the congressional hearings held. What “we are going to do,” Pfeiffer said, is “to move forward and ensure it doesn’t happen again.” Wallace listened patiently to this lengthy evasion and then said: “With all due respect, you didn’t answer my question. What did the president do that night?”

Anyone who saw that memorable interview — and if you missed it, please click here to watch it on YouTube — knows what a reaction Wallace’s persistence provoked from the White House aide. Pfeiffer blustered with indignation at what he called an “offensive” suggestion “that the president didn’t take action” and huffed that “there’s no evidence to support” such a suggestion. Wallace remained calm and reiterated: “I’m simply asking a question. Where was he? What did he do?” Whatever the facts of the matter may be, Pfeiffer refused to answer specifically, and so the question lingers: Where was the president?

Continue reading.

Via the Other McCain, "Benghazi: The Unanswered Question."

Supreme Court's Ruling in Shelby v. Holder: 'It is one of the most important decisions in decades...'

From J. Christian Adams, at Pajamas Media, "Supreme Court Buries Section 5 of Voting Rights Act."

Via Glenn Reynolds, who has a roundup, at Instapundit.

We Interrupt This Program for Some Epic @MSNBC Lulz!

Via Twitchy, "SCOTUS coverage is hard: MSNBC flubs ‘John Roberts’ graphic [pics]."

@TwitchyTeam Msnbc doesn't know what Supreme Court John Roberts looks like pic.twitter.com/DgbF67KL8Z
— Autiger (@autiger2k2) June 25, 2013

More on the MSNBC clowns here, "Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act."

Addded: At Legal Insurrection, "Ignorant and Confused Reactions to SCOTUS Voting Rights Act Decision."

The Gang of 8's Shamnesty Porkapalooza

At IBD, "Gang of 8 Immigration Reform Bill Turns Into Pork-Fest":

The Senate's Democratic leadership and bipartisan Gang of Eight were in such a hurry to stop debate on their 1,200-page immigration bill that they didn't want anyone to read it. It's the latest in a long line of political travesties that threaten the future of our 237-year-old republic.

Sadly, those who pass our laws can't be bothered even to read them these days.

But if they did, they might be shocked to discover that the "Immigration Reform Bill," after the Corker-Hoeven amendment, has turned into a giant pinata stuffed with all kinds of hidden pork and goodies to make it easier for senators to choke down.

"When you pass complicated legislation and no one has really read the bill," Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward noted on Fox News Sunday, "the outcome is absurd."

He's right. Just like the bloated, pork-filled ObamaCare bill before it, immigration reform has lots of juicy tidbits in it to buy the votes of key legislators.

And, also like ObamaCare, legislators and average citizens alike will have to "pass the bill to find out what's in it," in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's now-infamous phrase.

Among other things, the bill:

• Adds $1.5 billion to President Obama's failed jobs stimulus, a gift to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

• Turns the Travel Promotion Act, which was supposed to end in 2015, into a permanent program at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Prime beneficiaries? Las Vegas casino interests, a gift to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

• Makes a range of serious crimes for which U.S. citizens can be arrested and imprisoned — including assault and battery, drunk driving and tax fraud — "waivable" for illegal immigrants when it comes to their amnesty status.

• Gives Alaskan "Seafood processing" jobs special status as "shortage occupations," letting those industries hire low-skilled illegal immigrants to fill "temporary" jobs, a bipartisan favor to Alaska Sens. Mark Begich (Democrat) and Lisa Murkowski (Republican).

That, no doubt, isn't a comprehensive list. But since no one has read the bill — the latest version of immigration reform was issued less than 75 hours before Monday's vote — it's impossible even to say how much pork is in the bill the Senate is voting on.

But even if you took out all the pork, the bill should be rejected.

Putin Is Cleaning Obama's Clock

Today' sCBS News This Morning had a "Where's Waldo?" segment on the mysterious disappearance of Edward Snowden. I'll update if that clip is posted to YouTube.

ABC's Nightline has a segment last night, "From Hong Kong to Russia: Where Is Edward Snowden?"

This is getting to be an extremely embarrassing diplomatic disaster for the Obama White House.

Peter Wehner has more, at Commentary, "Putin Is Cleaning Obama’s Clock."

And from Max Boot, "Obama’s Diplomatic Humiliation."

More later...

Added: At the Los Angeles Times, "Moscow rejects U.S. pressure over Edward Snowden; eyes on Belarus."

Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 4 of Voting Rights Act

This is big

At the Wall Street Journal, "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Voting Rights Act":

The Supreme Court upended a longstanding pillar of civil-rights-era legislation, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ruling that the decades-old formula that Congress used to identify areas of the country subject to stringent oversight of election procedures is no longer constitutional.

The court ruled unconstitutional Section 4 of the law, which provides a coverage formula used to determine which voting districts must "pre-clear" voting changes with officials in Washington.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 5-4 ruling for the court, which was divided along its usual ideological lines.

The court didn't rule on two gay-marriage cases Tuesday. It said it would issue the final opinions of the 2012-13 term on Wednesday, when the gay-marriage rulings are expected to come.

Chief Justice Roberts said Congress failed to update the Voting Rights Act formula that singles out many localities, mostly in the South, and requires them to seek the approval of the U.S. Justice Department before making any changes to their voting procedures.

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a 24-page opinion.

The court said it wasn't issuing any ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which puts the formula into effect. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. However, that may be a difficult proposition in a deeply divided Congress.

The case involved Shelby County in Alabama, which is subject to the extra oversight under the law.

Congress has repeatedly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act, most recently in 2006, when President George W. Bush signed bipartisan legislation extending it 25 years.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a 37-page dissent, joined by the three other members of the court's liberal wing. She said Congress's move in 2006 shouldn't be overridden by the courts. "In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress' decision," she wrote.

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Supreme Court Voting Rights Act Decision — Section 4 invalid."

I'll read around and update in a bit...

Added: Here's Amy Howe, at SCOTUS Blog, "Details on Shelby County v. Holder: In Plain English."

And at Twitchy, "Meltdown of the day: Melissa Harris-Perry laments loss of citizenship after SCOTUS’ VRA decision," and "Schadenfreudelicious: MSNBC host ‘physically enraged’ by SCOTUS’ Voting Rights Act decision."

More at Memeorandum.

The Biggest Stakes in the Supreme Court Marriage Cases

This is from leftist Richard Socarides, at the New Yorker:

Rarely has the Supreme Court ended its term with as much suspense about its final rulings as now. On Monday morning, the Justices sent a case that could have ended affirmative action back to a lower court; Tuesday, the next scheduled day for decisions, may bring a ruling that strikes down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. And the two most anticipated remaining cases, expected by the end of the week, are on the future of same-sex marriage. Whatever the Court decides, it will, in an instant, dramatically change the political and legal landscape for gay rights.

What’s at stake? If you are part of a same-sex couple and are or want to be married, or are the child of gay or lesbian parents, your life and your choices will be directly affected. One of the cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, should, at least, determine whether or not you can marry the person you love in that state. That could provide the template for how courts view other states’ bans. Depending on how the decision is written, it could bring marriage equality to seven states, or to fifty. (The New Yorker has put together a map with possible outcomes.) Most ambitiously, the plaintiffs are asking the justices to find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The other case, United States v. Edith Windsor, is a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages sanctioned by the states. This means that it affects same-sex marriage in any of the twelve states that currently allow it, as well as any future ones. If DOMA is overturned, couples will be entitled to the federal benefits of marriage (preferential estate-tax treatment, social-security benefits) as well as the responsibilities (listing a spouse’s assets on financial disclosure forms), not to mention the dignity that comes with full recognition.

Exactly how the Court will rule has been subject to a lot of speculation. The expert consensus, which I think is correct, is that DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional. Prop 8 will end up being nullified, but not on the merits; instead, the Court will rule that the Prop 8 case is not properly before it and thereby allow a lower court ruling striking it to stand...

I'm not going to be surprised if that's the eventual outcome.

I'd like to see the Court uphold Prop. 8 and strike down DOMA (although I've argued that it should be upheld at times, so I'm ambivalent). My main concern is right here in California, and thus like everyone else I'm extremely anxious for the Court's ruling.

Anyway, read the rest of the piece at the link.

Brazil President Dilma Rousseff Offers National Referendum to Ease Unrest

At the Wall Street Journal, "Brazil's President Offers Referendum":

SÃO PAULO—Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called for a national referendum on overhauling a political system often criticized as unaccountable and corrupt, unveiling a far-reaching response to two weeks of mass demonstrations that have rocked this South American nation.

Under Ms. Rousseff's plan, Brazilians would vote on whether to convene an assembly to potentially alter the country's 1988 constitution. She announced other initiatives, including a bill to make political corruption a serious felony, rather than a minor offense, and additional funding for health and education.

The plan, announced at an emergency meeting with state governors and city mayors, underscored concern with the near-daily protests that have killed four people, brought cities to a standstill and threatened Ms. Rousseff's popularity. In it, Ms. Rousseff seeks to resolve what many see as the root of a matrix of national grievances expressed by protesters, from the poor quality of public services to corruption.

"This could release enormous political energy and, if done right, could be a way for her to come out on top," said Paulo Sotero, who directs the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. "Every Brazilian knows the political structure is completely messed up, and though the initiative to change it is coming from the street, she is showing she is listening and understands it."

By responding to protesters' demands, Ms. Rousseff has adopted a different strategy from the heavy-handed responses of other developing-world leaders who have faced mass demonstrations, such as Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Much of the explanation lies in the fact protesters weren't targeting Ms. Rousseff explicitly. And Ms. Rousseff, a former Marxist guerrilla and the country's first female president, still sees herself as a revolutionary in office dedicated to improving governance in a country that shed a military dictatorship in 1985.

In her speech, Ms. Rousseff defended her record, and that of her Workers Party, in power for the past decade. She cited low employment, years of economic growth and promised to leverage the street protests into long-standing changes.

"Everyone knows what the problems are. And we also know about the innumerable difficulties to resolve them," Ms. Rousseff said. "I have encountered since taking office, numerous obstacles, but the energy that is coming from the streets is bigger than any obstacle."

She's a communist. No doubt street protesters will cut her some slack. And should she shower the demonstrators with more social spending, poof!, away go the protests.

RELATED: At IBD, "Brazil's Woes Are the Wages of Socialism."

Indignity Lingers for Women of Anthony Weiner Scandal

This pervert could be elected mayor of New York City, the loser.

Anyway, FWIW, at the New York Times, "For Women in Weiner Scandal, Indignity Lingers":

Customers taunt Lisa Weiss. “Talk dirty to me,” they joke. “We know you like it.” Colleagues refuse to speak with her. Strangers mock her in nasty online messages.

“Clearly she’s got mental issues,” declared the latest.

Anthony D. Weiner’s improbable campaign for mayor of New York City is a wager that voters have made peace with his lewd online behavior, a subject he has largely left behind as he roils the race with his aggressive debating style and his attention-getting policy proposals.

But for the women who were on the other end of Mr. Weiner’s sexually explicit conversations and photographs, his candidacy is an unwanted reminder of a scandal that has upended their lives in ways big and small, cutting short careers, disrupting educations and damaging reputations.

“I cannot tell you the devastation,” said Ms. Weiss, a 42-year-old blackjack dealer in Nevada who exchanged dozens of explicit messages with Mr. Weiner, then a congressman, in 2010 and 2011.

Ms. Weiss, a die-hard Democrat who once volunteered for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign and was inspired by “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a film critique of the Bush administration, said she had reached out to Mr. Weiner after watching him joust with Republican rivals on cable news. They traded admiring messages on Facebook that, at his prompting, became intimate and raunchy, she said.

When their correspondence eventually became public, she said in an interview, conservative-minded colleagues sought to have her fired. The press lined up outside of her house and showed up at her casino, causing her to miss work for weeks. One night, she turned on the television to find the HBO host Bill Maher and the actress Jane Lynch performing a dramatic reading of the bawdy messages. Ms. Weiss, an avowed Maher fan, said she sat in her living room crying. While coping with the onslaught, she drank heavy amounts of alcohol, a habit that persists.

“I obsess about it,” she said, “every day.”

She agreed to it. That's the puzzle for me. Why did women exchange vulgar Twitter messages with the dude, who was not only a Member of Congress but also a married man? The thrill of it all, I guess.

More at that top link.

How #Snowden Outfoxed Everyone

From Robin Abcarian, at the Los Angeles Times, "How Edward Snowden managed to outfox everyone":

I hate to say this. Well, maybe I don’t.

It appears that Edward Snowden, the 30-year-old computer analyst hiding in broad daylight, has managed not only to throw a wrench into U.S. foreign policy, but to outfox the very national security apparatus whose overreach he warned against.

It’s pretty astonishing that our government can figure out a way to vacuum up our every phone call, email and text message, but can’t get its hands on Snowden, who left Hong Kong for Russia on Sunday, and may be there still, as he figures out how to make his way to what he has (inexplicably) described as a democratic nation for asylum.

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham put his finger on it when he told Fox News on Sunday that “The freedom trail is not exactly China-Russia-Cuba-Venezuela.” (I guess somewhere along the line, Iceland dropped off Snowden’s list.)

   In New Delhi during a three-day visit to India, Secretary of State John Kerry sarcastically called Russia and China “bastions of Internet freedom” and admonished governments that have helped or may help Snowden remain out of the grasp of American authorities.

“There would be, without any question, some effect and impact on the relationship, and consequences,” Kerry said, according to my colleague Henry Chu.  “I’d urge them to live within the law. It’s in the interest of everyone.”

Still, one has to wonder why it took the government until Sunday to revoke Snowden’s passport, as the AP reported . It may not have mattered in the long run, but why wait two weeks to take that step?

When Snowden left Hong Kong, according to a detailed New York Times story posted Monday http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/world/asia/snowden-departure-from-hong-kong.html?pagewanted=1&hp, he was allowed to pass through normal airport checkpoints, despite his annulled passport.

 The story also said that Snowden decided to leave Hong Kong after attorneys there advised him that he might not be able to remain free on bail while fighting extradition to the U.S. If he were incarcerated during that time, they said, he would probably not have his computer. Giving up his computer, the attorney said  would be “totally intolerable.” (Forget waterboarding. Confiscate a 30-year-old’s computer and watch him beg for mercy.)

One also wonders why the feds revealed Friday that Snowden had been indicted on three felonies, including two charges under the 1917 Espionage Act, which made it likely, in the view of some foreign policy experts, that countries antagonistic to the United States (i.e. Cuba and Venezuela) would not be inclined to respect the State Department’s notice advising governments that Snowden should not be allowed transit to or through their countries.

In any case, as this amazing story continues, in slow motion, like a global version of the famous white Bronco chase, the Obama administration has itself to blame for this mess.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Edward Snowden's Mysterious Flight to Cuba."

IMAGE CREDIT: Michelle Fields.

How Everyone Feels About Edward #Snowden

GIFs, at BuzzFeed.

Katie Pavlich on Fox News Channel's 'The Five'

I think this was her first time on the show, or at least I don't remember her being on before.

She's very smart, a promising star in conservative media.

Jess Davies for Zoo Magazine (VIDEO)

A good lady.

And from last month at Egotastic!, "Jess Davies Black Thong Only Goodness for Ta-Ta-Tuesdays."

Edward Snowden's Mysterious Flight to Cuba

Folks thought that dude boarded an Aeroflot jet to Havana, but there was no sign of him when the thing landed, making the media entourage look like a bunch of blithering idiots.

Here's WikiLeaks' statement:

And at Mother Jones, "WikiLeaks: We Know Where Snowden Is, But We're Not Telling You."

WikiLeaks statements on Snowden asylum | SBS http://t.co/2HjWAXCr6i

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 25, 2013

And at the New Yorker, "Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?" (via Memeorandum).

Continued Debate Over U.S. Intervention in Syria

Well, we're intervening now, in a big way and without disguising anything about it.

And readers know I don't favor a U.S. escalation at this point. (I wouldn't have favored big U.S. involvement about 18 months ago, when clearly American intervention would have been ahead of the curve.)

But I'm my headline above is sticking with that of Ron Radosh, at Pajamas Media, "Should the U.S. Intervene in Syria? The Debate Continues":

Last week, I presented my own reasons for why I think it is futile to go into Syria. I respect the arguments and analysis of those who favor intervention. I understand their motivations and their frustrations, all the result of our president’s failed policies. I comprehend Elliott Abrams’ analysis, and his argument that “the central fact about the region today is Iran’s use of raw power in Syria, with Russian support.” To counter Iran and Russia, Abrams believes that necessitates arming the rebels and more, and the announcement of a coherent and strong U.S. policy on Iran and Hezbollah. Abrams cites the work of Frederic C. Hof, who believes that we are militarily capable of stepping in without “boots on the ground,” and that we can “destroy and degrade” Assad’s capability without our own forces getting involved. Hof writes: “Syrians are being slaughtered and U.S. friends and allies are suffering the consequences. A family regime supported by terrorists threatens to plunge the region into war as it systematically wrecks the Syrian state.” But he thinks the U.S. can act even without a no-fly zone, which others see as a necessary first step.

For laymen like most readers and me, we can only consider the judgment of the experts, and then try to sort out their arguments and to reach our own conclusions. For now, I still believe intervention is shortsighted and likely to bring even worse results. I agree with my PJM colleague Victor Davis Hanson, who argues the following at National Review Online:

There is no guarantee that American air support or close training might not end up in some sort of American ground presence — the only sure guarantee that so-called moderates might prevail should Assad fall. Of course, any costly intervention would eventually be orphaned by many in the present chorus of interventionists in a manner that we also know well from Iraq. We are told that dealing a blow to Iran and Hezbollah would be a good thing, and no doubt it would be. But in the callous calculus of realpolitik, both seem already to be suffering without U.S. intervention.

And I take serious notice of the admonition of Michael Rubin, who recently returned from a trip through Iraq, where he often goes. Rubin writes that “many Iraqi Shi’ites warned against any support for the Syrian opposition, claiming they were more radical than the Americans realized,” and that they were joined in this analysis by Iraqi Kurds, Christians, and Sunnis. Rubin thus advocates only the use of U.S. air power, which he thinks is sufficient to stop Assad. He argues: “Arming the Syrian rebels is wrong and would gravely undercut U.S. national security.”

RTWT.

Radosh has an excellent review of recent arguments over intervention.

PREVIOUSLY: "Should We Use Airpower to Attack Syria?"

Our Hapless, Powerless President Can't Do Jack About Edward Snowden's Global Jetsetting

I read this piece at Politico last night, and it's devastating, "On Edward Snowden's travel, no good options for President Obama":

Snowden’s departure from Hong Kong comes a day after a senior administration official warned that failure to extradite Snowden “will complicate our bilateral relations and raise questions about Hong Kong’s commitment to the rule of law.”

The Justice Department had been in continual contact with Hong Kong officials at senior levels since learning June 10 that Snowden had relocated there, the department said Sunday, including a call last week from Attorney General Eric Holder directly to Hong Kong Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen.

The State Department, the U.S. consulate and the FBI had also repeatedly engaged their Hong Kong counterparts during that two-week period.

While Hong Kong’s government said Sunday that Snowden’s departure was via “a lawful and normal channel,” the Justice Department expressed frustration with the decision.

“The request for the fugitive’s arrest for purposes of his extradition complied with all of the requirements of the U.S./Hong Kong Surrender Agreement,” a Justice Department representative said in a statement.

“At no point, in all of our discussions through Friday, did the authorities in Hong Kong raise any issues regarding the sufficiency of the U.S.’s provisional arrest request. In light of this, we find their decision to be particularly troubling.”

Earlier Sunday, the Justice Department had said it would continue to discuss the matter with Hong Kong and to “pursue relevant law enforcement cooperation with other countries where Mr. Snowden may be attempting to travel.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to allow Snowden to change planes at Moscow’s airport on the first leg of his j0urney comes just a week after an icy bilateral G-8 appearance with Obama, where the Russian leader noted bluntly that on Syria, the positions of the United States and Russia “do not coincide.”

One reason Putin isn’t likely to cooperate now, Talbott said, is that the United States would almost certainly take in a Russian operative who admitted to leaking information about that country’s secret surveillance programs.

“If the shoe were on the other foot, if there was somebody who was wanted in Russia for leaking classified material would we feel obliged to turn them over?” Talbott said. “I don’t know, I kinda doubt it.”

In fact, there is little the United States could do now to secure Snowden’s return that wouldn’t chance creating more problems than it solves.

“I don’t see from my limited knowledge of how the world operates that there is any prospect of getting him back unless we were to interdict one of these flights,” said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “It’s in the realm of the possible, but not the likely. It would have serious consequences for relations with countries that I don’t think we are interested in poking right now.”

RTWT.

Charles Krauthammer drove the point home on this afternoon's Special Report All Stars.

#HeadDesk Tweets From Student Power NC

I thought this was a parody tweet for a second, but no.

The students' Twitter feed is here.

At Twitchy, "Morons untie! Lefty NC students triumph over forces that tried to ‘concor’ them."

For realz? RT @mkhammer Is are chilldrin lurning? RT @studentpowernc: They tried to divide and concor but they only untied us. #moralmonday
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 24, 2013

Dana Loesch has another one here.

10 Problems With the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill

The Senate's voting right now on the "Border Surge" amendment, and it's getting significant GOP backing, the damned amnesty shills.

I'll have updates. Meanwhile, see the Heritage Foundation's report.

Angelina Jolie Blasts United Nations for Inaction on Wartime Sex Crimes

At WaPo, "Angelina Jolie makes debut before UN’s most powerful body to urge an end to rape in war."

ADDED: From London's Daily Mail, "'This horror must end': Defiant Angelina Jolie suits up as she urges world leaders to combat warzone rape during impassioned appeal before U.N. Security Council."

Some Afternoon Heidi Klum

She keeps in shape, via Twitter:

I'm back running! #HKNB pic.twitter.com/ICUMlgsLnm

— Heidi Klum (@heidiklum) June 23, 2013

And at Egotastic!, "Heidi Klum Braless in the Park."

Supreme Court Punts in Fisher v. University of Texas

Recent analyses of the Court have stressed Chief Justice John Roberts' efforts to position the Court as a restrained judicial institution, and not an activist political one.

That said, this ruling may be more significant than meets the eye.

Background at the New York Times, "Justices Send Affirmative Action Case to Lower Court":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered lower courts to take a fresh look, under a more demanding standard, at the race-conscious admissions policy used to admit students to the University of Texas. The 7-to-1 decision was simultaneously modest and significant, and its recalibration of how courts review the constitutionality of affirmative action programs is likely to give rise to a wave of challenges to admissions programs at colleges and universities nationwide.

The brief decision, issued eight months after the case was argued, was almost surely the product of intense negotation among the justices. The compromise they reached was at least a reprieve for affirmative action in higher education, and civil rights groups that had feared for the future of race-conscious admission programs breathed a sigh of relief.

For now, the Texas program and other affirmative action programs can continue without changes.

The decision did not disturb the Supreme Court’s general approach to affirmative action in admissions decisions, saying that educational diversity is a government interest sufficient to overcome the general ban on racial classifications by the government. But the court added that public institutions must have good reasons to use the particular means they use to achieve that goal.

That requirement could endanger the Texas program when it is reconsidered by the federal appeals court in New Orleans. The program admits most students under race-neutral criteria, accepting all students in the state who graduate near the top of their high school classes. But the university also uses a race-conscious system as a supplement.

“Strict scrutiny,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without closely examining how the process works in practice.”

Courts reviewing affirmative action programs must, he wrote, “verify that it is necessary for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.” That requires, he said, “a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who announced her lone dissent from the bench, said the race-neutral part of the Texas program worked only because of “de facto racial segregation in Texas’s neighborhoods and schools.” She said she would have upheld the appeals court decision endorsing the entire admissions program.

The remaining justices, including ones friendly and hostile to affirmative action, agreed on a middle ground, though Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each issued dissents indicating that they would vote to strike down race-conscious admission plans in a future case.

RTWT.

Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stephens were in the courtroom today. Interesting.

More at Memeorandum.

And William Jacobson has a roundup, "Supreme Court Affirmative Action Decision," and Ilya Somin, at Volokh, "Competing Interpretations of Fisher." (That's a must read.)

Also, Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog, "Finally! The Fisher decision in Plain English."

Plus lots at Althouse, "'It offends me that the court failed to exert any kind of leadership with this decision'," and "'There is disagreement about whether Grutter was consistent with the principles of equal protection.... But the parties here do not ask the Court to revisit that aspect of Grutter’s holding'."

More from Althouse, "The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities'," and "'If you think that you can think about a thing inextricably attached to something else without thinking of the thing which it is attached to, then you have a legal mind'."

Here's a whiny piece, from S. Mitra Kalita analysis at Quartz, "The Supreme Court sent the Fisher case back, but make no mistake: Affirmative action is dead." And from Richard Kahlenberg, at Slate, "The Next Affirmative Action?"