Mary Helen Berlanga, Radical Open Borders Attorney and Obama Democrat, Pushes Left-Wing Extremism in Texas Curriculum Battle

The Houston Chronicle has a left-leaning report, "Texas Board to Finish Social Studies Guidelines" (scroll down for the debate on President Obama's middle name). And at Dallas Morning News, "Vote on Social Studies Standards Likely Today":

One potential division was averted when a Republican board member, David Bradley of Beaumont, withdrew an amendment to list President Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, in the standard calling on high school history students to examine the historical significance of the 2008 presidential election – the election of the country's first black president.

Fellow Republican Bob Craig of Lubbock questioned the motion. "The intent of what you're doing is pretty obvious, but I don't think it is necessarily correct," Craig said, noting that other presidents like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan don't have their middle names listed in the standards.

Board member Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, was more blunt, telling Bradley, "I'm getting pretty fed up with this conduct and the way you're trying to be derogatory. You're braying in trying to make fun here, but we're talking about a serious subject, the election of the first black president – and you're making it sound derogatory.

"These are very bad manners."

Fox News has a report as well, quoting Mary Helen Berlanga's claim that including the president's full name was "derogatory":

Well it turns out the Ms. Berlanga, the hardline leader of the leftist faction on the Texas Board of Education, is a radical open borders attorney with the Corpus Christi law firm of Bonilla and Chapa, P.C., Inc.

The firm is headed by Ruben and Tony Bonilla, who are both past national presidents of the open-borders Latino advocacy group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), see here and here. According to the organization's entry at Discover the Networks:

In 2005 LULAC created an online petition calling for comprehensive immigration reform that would convert all illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, into legalized citizens. Referencing only the needs and rights of “immigrants” generically, the petition makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. For example, it calls for legislation that “treats immigrants with respect” and “provides a reasonable, realistic and legal path to earned permanent residence and citizenship for those already within the United States”; it asserts that “the vast majority of immigrants … work hard and they pay taxes”; and it rejects immigration-control proposals "that criminalize immigrants and their families, and the people and organizations that come in contact with them." According to LULAC, “Since the 9/11 terrorists, efforts have been focused on terrorizing good people simply because they are foreigners.”

LULAC has joined in a broad coalition of radical LA RAZA groups to organize the economic boycott against Arizona's SB 1070 (see the neo-communist Firedoglake, "Boycotting Arizona: A Conversation With Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director of LULAC"). More from KTRK-TV Houston, "LULAC denounces immigration law in Arizona":

BONUS VIDEO: Additional clips of Mary Helen Berlanga advocating the radical revisionist open-borders school agenda:

Imagine There's No Countries

A great laugh. Andrew Klavan knocks it out of the park, or, umm, over the border:

And listen to John Lennon's "Imagine" as well. Not something I'd normally post, but given the circumstances, peacenik lefty trolls might enjoy it: "Imagine all the people ... Sharing all the world..."

World's Fastest Memory Hole: Washington Times Yanks Dale Robertson Column!

Just in, from Tommy Christopher, "Washington Times Pulls Dale ‘N-Word Sign’ Robertson’s Tea Party Column."

And, just a few minutes earlier, from Tabitha Hale at Red State, "Dear Washington Times: Seriously?":

The Washington Times has managed to give credibility to this delusional racist who claims to be the founder of the Tea Party. As Tommy Christopher points out, they’ve consistently quoted him as a Tea Party leader, and now they’re showing no qualms about him signing up to write on their Tea Party Report blog. I shouldn’t even have to say this out loud, but for the sake of argument I will: Dale Robertson is not the founder of the Tea Party movement. He happened to register TeaParty.org. It probably cost him $9 on GoDaddy. That does NOT a Tea Party leader make. In fact, many Tea Party players have shunned him and uninvited him from any related events. However, none of this seems to matter to Dale.

Plus, from David Weigel, "From the 'N-word' to the Washington Times."

Added: "Epic FAIL: TeaParty.org fraudster-in-chief Dale Robertson." More at Memeorandum.

PHOTO CREDIT: Houston Tea Party.

Bashing Arizona: House Democrats' Standing Ovation for President Felipe Calderon's Open-Borders Lawlessness!

What an ass. Blaming Mexico's problems on the U.S. See, "Calderon Urges Congress to Ban Assault Weapons." And, "Calderón Again Assails Arizona Law on Detention."

Plus, at Fire Andrea Mitchell, "What a disgrace! House Democrats stand and cheer on Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he bashes Arizona’s law":

Plus, Juanell Garrett, "My nominee for 'Hypocrite of the Week' - President Calderon":

RELATED: "Unions to spend $100M in 2010 campaign to save Dem majorities." Figures. The open-borders lobby opens the union-thug checkbook.

Five Masterpieces Stolen From Paris Museum of Modern Art

At Washington Post, "In Paris, a $100 Million Heist":

In a brazen display of stealth, cunning and cool nerves, a thief using a sharp cutting tool opened a gated window and sneaked into the Paris Museum of Modern Art.

Three security guards were on duty at the time, but the thief -- or perhaps thieves -- detached five major cubist and post-impressionist paintings from their frames without being detected and slid back into the night with a rolled-up treasure worth well over $100 million.

The embarrassing heist -- of paintings by Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, Henri Matisse, Amedeo Modigliani and Fernand Léger -- was discovered just before 7 a.m. Thursday, Paris officials said, probably long after the celebrated canvases had disappeared.

The operation was "a serious loss for the national patrimony" and one of the most damaging art thefts in recent years, said Christophe Girard, a city hall cultural attache.

"I am saddened and shocked by this theft, which is an intolerable attack on the universal cultural heritage of Paris," Mayor Bertrand Delanoe said in a statement. The museum was closed temporarily, he said, to allow police to investigate unhindered by art lovers.

Officers descended on the museum, in the tony 16th Arrondissement, just across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower, seeking to determine how anyone could have entered the museum without setting off an elaborate security system. Wearing rubber gloves and surgical masks, the officers powdered the gilded frames in an effort to gather fingerprints, and they examined the pried-open gate and the fractured glass window to see how it was isolated from the alarm system.

But the mystery remained, particularly concerning what the security guards were doing while the paintings were being stripped from their frames and hauled away. Responding to news reports, Delanoe said the alarm system had been malfunctioning since late March.

Smart theives with good taste --- now that's a thought!

Photos at the link.

SHOWN ABOVE: Pablo Picasso, The Pigeon with Green Peas (1911).

Debating the Right to Discriminate

My motivation on this issue, first, is to pushback against the radical left's "racist" Rand Paul meme. I do, second, appreciate the free speech claims that underlie the libertarian argument. And no one is talking about going back to pre-1964 American politics (despite what the nihilists at Firedoglake and elsewhere would have).

Besides, Megyn Kelly looks great:

Previously: "Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight," and "Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow: 'IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM'."

Added: From Melissa Clouthier, "The Predictable Treatment of Rand Paul."

Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight

I commented previously on this controversy: "Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow: ‘IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM’." Clearly, it's the moment leftists have been waiting for. As was clear last night, Rachel Maddow approaches attacking conservatives as extremists the same way a gluttonous child approaches the cotton-candy stand at the county fair: with indescribable abandon. And as I noted earlier, "I won't be surprised if Rand Paul decides he needs to issue a retraction and public apology in order to save his campaign." And this comes pretty close to it, from earlier today, "Rand Paul Sets the Record Straight":

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws ....

“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.

“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

As noted, my reading of Rand Paul is an intellectual one --- and no doubt, racial equality wasn't going to happen without the force of federal power:

We are 46 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it certainly seems difficult --- given the crises of that era --- to envision progress in eradicating that kind of Jim Crow racism in the absence of federal intervention. But to even discuss that possibility today is emotionally polarizing. So what ends up happening is leftists win on emotion.

Interestingly, James Taranto adopts a position close to mine:

Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws.

According to Taranto, that's Rand Paul's "rookie mistake." Or part of it. Paul should know as well that intellectualism on race will summons the left's victimology lynch mobs, for example, Representative James Clyburn on MSNBC today:

And let's not forget Amanda Marcotte, who rejects any attempt --- on the left or the right --- to clear Dr. Paul of the racism charge:

... I’m bothered ... by the way that some liberal pundits approach libertarian arguments as if we’re all in some debate club or in a court of law at worst, and this is a matter of everyone presenting arguments to be judged on their supposed rigor and the implications of which don’t fall on the person making the arguments. Conservatives particularly benefit from this mindset, which is why all of them come fully equipped with a willingness to scream “ad hominem” the second you suggest that making asshole arguments is evidence that the person making them is an asshole.

Paul isn’t arguing for a debate team or even in the court of law. He’s a politician who is seeking national office that would allow him to write and vote on legislature. The standards by which we evaluate his arguments must be very different indeed. That he supports racist policies is something that we the opposition should highlight without caveats about ideological rigor that is frankly lacking. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s a principled man is counterproductive and missing the point. From the perspective of a voter, Paul’s associations with racists and the anti-social, racist results of arguments matter way more when assessing whether he’s a racist than his claims of ideological rigor. And we should address our arguments to that.

And compare Marcotte to Digby:

Obviously, libertarians in general are not necessarily racists. But their ideology inexorably leads to a society in which racism is normal and tolerated and where those who have the social power and economic clout are able to rig the game in their favor. You know --- the America of 40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act. It's not like we never gave Rand's libertarianism a chance to work.

Well who needs the disclaimer that "Obviously, libertarians are not necessarily racist ..." Logically, if libertarianism "inexorably" leads to an America "40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act," well, that's certainly not a welcomed position from the progressive mindset (i.e., "racist").

I may or may not have more on this, since I was right that Rand Paul would backtrack in the face of the leftist onslaught. But Robert Stacy McCain's got the perfect summation, "Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul: Intellectual Terrorism and ‘Civil Rights’":

What is at work here is a sort of intellectual terrorism, not just an effort to portray Rand Paul as a bigot, but to wield the accusation of racism as a weapon to intimidate anyone who dares challenge the progressive worldview.

Here is where wise men must perceive the totalitarian implications of political correctness, the Orwellian “memory hole,” the demand for conformity of thought, Trotsky airbrushed from the old Bolshevik photos. This argument is not really about racism, and it is not merely about Rand Paul or a single Republican campaign in Kentucky. Rather, it is about defending intellectual freedom from the bullies of the Left who arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what people can or cannot say in public discourse.

Conservatives must resolve to stand united against this kind of bullying treatment — to denounce it as an intellectually dishonest enterprise — or they shall eventually find that there is no remainder of the American tradition worth conserving.

Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow: 'IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM'

It's a long video, but compelling --- and the very best segment is near the end, where Dr. Rand Paul states one more time, as unequivocally as can be, that he abhors and rejects government-sponsored "institutional" racism, but that for leftists the "totality" of his views are irrelevant to the debate they want to have. It's a political debate, not an intellectual one, the Democratic race-grievance activists will push, and one, frankly, they're likely to win. It's a sad state of affairs that a conservative Republican can't talk about federal-state relations --- and the scope of federal power into the private business decisions of individuals --- without being pilloried as an "extremist" and "racist." What's especially interesting is that Dr. Paul knows exactly what's happening, and he stands his ground. This is the point David Weigel makes in his entry, "Rand Paul, Telling the Truth." And I'm not a big fan of Weigel, but both he and Rand Paul have gained points in their favor on my account.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You see, as America enters its second decade of the 21st century, political competition is essentially a postmodern battle of ideas and meaning. Ron Paul says he opposes any official institutional racism, and we can take that to include any local "black codes" or similar ordinances to segregate the races. Paul wants government out of enforcing behaving among individuals, consumers, and places of business in the economy. We are 46 years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it certainly seems difficult --- given the crises of that era --- to envision progress in eradicating that kind of Jim Crow racism in the absence of federal intervention. But to even discuss that possiblitity today is emotionally polarizing. So what ends up happening is leftists win on emotion. And the more rigorously argued political positions are attacked as extremist. That's what radical Ezra Klein does in his piece, "Rand Paul May Not Be a Racist, But He is an Extremist." I don't like Ezra Klein, and I particularly don't like this argument, because anyone knows that to be attacked as an "ideological extremist" on racial issues is tantamount being attacked as racist. Leftists don't do nuance on conservative ideology and race. Frankly, Rachel Maddow says the same thing at the end of the clip, so we can come up with a simple equation that's going to dog Rand Paul's campaign going forward: IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM = RACISM.

I'm not sure how Dr. Paul prevails here. I do know that it takes either a tremendous amount of courage or a tremendous amount of stupidity to take such a firm yet thoughtful stand on the left's signature bludgeon of political demonology. This is the top issue at Memeorandum today. And it's an issue that's not likely to go away soon. Frankly, as the political heat --- leftist, unrelenting, and opportunistically polarized -- escalates, I won't be surprised if Rand Paul decides he needs to issue a retraction and public apology in order to save his campaign. And just to recall how totally FUBAR all this is, all one has to do is remember that neither Rachel Maddow or Ezra Klein (to say nothing of their neo-communist cohorts) repudiated the racial extremism of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

And that is totally messed up.

Arizona Utility Cmmissioner Calls Out Los Angeles on Immigration Boycott

At Weasel Zippers, "Arizona Threatens to Pull Plug on LA’s Energy Supply if They Go Through With Boycott Over Immigration Law ..." (NBC Los Angeles story at the link, via Memeorandum.)

Plus, notice the angle at KABC-TV Los Angeles below (but see Ed Morrissey for the big picture, "Villaraigosa sends non-sequitur reply to AZ Corporation Commissioner on boycott challenge"):

RELATED: At Moonbattery, "Arizona May Turn Out the Lights on La-La Land Moonbats."

Democratic November Hopes Hang on Thin Reed of PA-12

It's fascinating that most of the election attention this afternoon is focused on yesterday's special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district.

The New York Times wasted no time to advance the left's meme going forward, "Democrats See Hope for Fall in Victory in House Race." And not to be outdone is CSM, "PA-12: A template for Democrats in November election?" Plus, I already commented on the partisan chest-thumping from Steve Benen and Matthew Yglesias ("the world's dumbest blogger"), although I missed Daniel Larison's whiney screed attacking the GOP as "the more unpopular, discredited party." I'll admit Larison has a point that Republicans ought to be careful about "nationalizing" congressional elections. For example, as I wrote in April:

... congressional elections aren't generally national referendums. The president almost always loses seats in the midterms. And this year will be no different ... we're talking individual House and Senate races around the country ... It's a tough political environment for both parties, which is something the tea parties frequently remind stupid RINOs.

Contrast my comment to Tim Burns' electoral message:

Doesn't sound quite so attuned to local constituency preferences, although to be fair, I wasn't doing shoe-level reporting on the ground either.

Still, Larison --- inveterate America-basher that he is --- is not to be trusted with any meaningful "big picture" takeaway from the Mark Critz victory.

What stuck me as most fascinating is the registration differential in Murtha's old district (said to be a 2-1 Democratic advantage). As Michael Barone notes, "the electorate in the 12th special election consisted of almost twice as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans." And what's especially striking is the fact of PA-12 super-favorable partisan gerrymandering, obviously boosting Democratic opportunities. Or as Ruby Slippers notes:

Murtha's district had been carved up and served on a platter to ensure his continual re-election. The District's R+1 rating comes only because the district voted for McCain in 2008 while it voted for Kerry in 2004. Democrats would have us believe the District has trended Republican over those four years while the rest of the country had their fill of Bush and the GOP. The Democrats and the cheerleading media want us to forget they believed Obama lost this district because it was filled with racist rednecks.

I'm not familiar with the territory, but just looking at the map, the burghs in this district look like big steelworker-union towns, and hence heavily Democratic in orientation. Elbridge Gerry would be proud. Seriously, look at that thing. It's almost a joke for the national press corps to trumpet a GOP collapse. Tim Burns had his work cut out for him, and frankly, perhaps he misread the tea leaves.

That said, while there's no doubt Democrats can take some heart here, I'd refer folks over to The Monkey Cage, "What do Tuesday's elections tell us about November?":

My quick answer is that you can’t learn much from primary elections. They can be important in their effects—both directly on the composition of Congress and indirectly in how they can affect behavior of congressmembers who might be scared of being challenged in future primaries—but I don’t see them as very informative indicators of the general election vote. Primaries are inherently unpredictable and are generally decided by completely different factors, and from completely different electorates, than those that decide general elections.

It's a given that the GOP can take some lessons from PA-12 (and I doubt the NRCC's $1 million spent on behalf of Burns was a wise investment). But on the whole, my sense is that the overall anti-incumbency backlash continues, the Dems are totally freaked, and they're looking for some comfort in Critz's victory. It's a thin reed, but it's about all they've got.

Leftists Spin 'Huge' Victory for Mark Critz in PA-12

There's some attention this morning on the Tim Burns loss in PA-12.

Steve Benen, hoping to play down this year's anti-Obama fever, is pumping up the win by former John Murtha crony Mark Critz as "arguably the most important election" of the day. And "the world's dumbest blogger" Matthew Yglesias is working the same beat:

Former John Murtha staffer Mark Critz’s win in the PA-12 House election is just straight-up embarrassing for Republicans. The Democratic strategy was straight out of the 2006/2008 playbook. Find a moderately conservative House district and run a somewhat heterodox Democrat ... To see a Democrat win an open seat in a district that went for John McCain will be a welcome sign to a large number of House Democrat incumbents from red districts.

In response, William Jacobson quips, "Dem Path to Victory in 2010 - Run As Conservative Republicans."

Robert Stacy McCain was on the ground in PA-12 and he was exuberantly boasting Tim Burns' chances. But my good friend Skye, a hot blogging pol in the Keystone State, had this from her election day preview yesterday:

CD-12 John Murtha’s district. Houston, we’ve got a problem. Tim Burns is PA GOP Chairman Rob Gleason’s golden boy. Rob Gleason an integral part of the GOP party machine who was a close friend and business partner with John Murtha. Despite rallying calls of Burns being the next Scott Brown, the race is polling dead even. The district is gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats with a 2:1 Dem voter registration lead. If Burns wins, don’t cry to me when he turn RINO. RS McCain, love you but we will have to agree to disagree on Tim Burns.

So, if you have a 2-1 Democratic voter registration advantage and run as a Republican you might be able to pull off a 53-45* percent victory in a district held by the Democrats for decades. (And that's not counting Democratic Party voting irregularities in Fayette County and who knows where else?) Yeah, that ought to bode well for the Dems in November.

Also, commentary and video from Allahpundit:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And check C. Edmund Wright for additional perspective, "Another Very Bad Night for Obama, Democrats and the Media." Plus, more at Memeorandum.

* Corrected figures.

ACLU, NAACP, Other Rights Groups File Suit Against Arizona's SB 1070

Jeez, how frightening for the left that Arizona takes the law seriously. See CBS News, "Arizona Immigration Law Faces New Legal Fight":

The developing legal fight over Arizona's sweeping immigration law escalated Monday as major civil rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's constitutionality.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People were among groups that filed the latest challenge.

They filed the case in U.S. District Court on behalf of plaintiffs that include labor unions, a Tucson church, social-service organizations and numerous individuals.

The new suit, the fifth legal challenge filed since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation, asks a federal judge to declare the measure unconstitutional and block it from taking effect in late July. The cases could be consolidated, and no court hearings have been scheduled.

Key provisions of the law include requiring police enforcing other laws to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States. It also makes being in the country illegally a state crime and prohibits seeking day-labor work at roadside.

The lawsuit alleges that the law is unconstitutional because the federal government has responsibility to regulate immigration, and because enforcement of the law will violate protections for due process and equal treatment under the law.

The suit argues that enforcing the law will subject U.S. citizens and others to racial profiling and other harassment, interfere with delivery of social services, and deter people from approaching law enforcement to report crimes.

"This law is shameful and un-American and will undermine public safety," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

Blah, blah ...

These people are way outside the mainstream, and they're freakin'. Katie Couric's citing the New York Times poll from early this month, "Poll Shows Most in U.S. Want Overhaul of Immigration Laws."

And check Pew Research as well, "Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law: Democrats Divided, But Support key Provisions."

And not only that, the Obama administration has yet to overturn a 2002 legal opinion holding that "state police officers have 'inherent power' to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law." Naturally, the left's radical open-borders fanatics are already going bonkers over it.

Hugh Hefner: Moral Arbiter of Our Age

It's true, or at least that's what Algis Valiunas argues at Commentary, "The Playboy and His Western World":

Most every man in the known world has at least glimpsed a Playboy centerfold, and thereupon has vowed to go out and get himself something similar in a real live girl, or perused the luscious goods until the magazine has fallen into tatters, or run to confess his pollution to unsympathetic religious personnel, or cried “Death to America” and placed his hope in the eternal succor of 72 virgins, each of whom is the spitting image of the whorish temptress in the picture. Hugh Hefner, the inventor of Playboy, has sold his idea of what sex should be with the winning fervor of a true believer, and while not exactly everyone has bought into it, he has enticed multitudes into his fold with the promise of as much pleasure as a body can manage in a lifetime, all of it perfectly innocent, of course. And what sensible person, playboy or playgirl, could possibly want anything better?

He has written, “In this century, America liberated sex. The world will never be the same.” Hefner himself is the Great Emancipator and the most influential figure that American popular culture has produced; no actor or movie director or singer or athlete has moved the life of our time as potently as he. Indeed, one is hard pressed to name more than three or four figures from the more serious precincts of our modern public life who have had an effect of comparable magnitude. Only in America can a man whose declared ambitions were to bed innumerable beautiful women and get rich in the process make a mark deeper than those left by great writers or leading thinkers or most presidents. That this should be so might well appall writers and thinkers and most presidents, but they would have to acknowledge that Hefner got hold of the fundamental American longing as no one else had before. Americans have always pursued happiness, usually without any clear idea of what they were after; Hefner demonstrated that it could be not only pursued but also captured, and he posted photographs of the quarry for proof. The sexual revolution, the defining uprising of our time, is his brainchild; others stand at his shoulder in the leadership, but he is the founding father of the orgasmic republic.

My dad kept Playboy at home, and that was some endorsement --- my old man was conservative! I guess that's why I'm a bit of a libertarian on these things, although like R.S. McCain, obviously, I tell my teenage boy to hold the horses until he's older.

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

Hefner was seducing his readership with a wholenovel way of life. To fulfill “modern man’s need for a new, more realistic, rational, human, and humane sexual morality” was his grand aim, as he would state in “The Playboy Philosophy,” a series of 25 turgid essays that ran from 1962 to 1965. The new practice would have a prolix if not exactly profound theoretical foundation. Hefner wanted to restore the primal innocence of the two things Americans had endowed with the glamour of wickedness: sex and money. Sex outside of marriage was to become the norm; the playboy was to be a materially successful man who knew how toenjoy his wealth, largely by spending it on delicious playgirls. Hef sought to save other men from the trap in which he had been caught. The nude centerfolds, called Playmates, served the project handsomely: the subjects were “the freshest, most all--American looking girls we can find,” “the photographic dream girls for a large part of our male population,” and their eagerness to expose themselves to public view proved that “nice girls like sex, too.”

FOOTNOTE: At first I was going solo with the screencap, but checking Wikipedia turned up the picture of Hef with Holly Madison and Bridget Marquardt.

BONUS: Don't you just love neocons!

John A. Ward, Former Tucson High School Teacher, Supports Arizona Ethnic Studies Law

John A. Ward, a former history teacher with the Tucson Unified School District, offers a devastating account of the radical La Raza indoctrination program he was forced to teach. He's no longer with the district. Amazing that only Fox News is willing to get the facts out there.

From Greta Van Susteren, "Why One Former Ariz. Teacher Supports the Ethnic Studies Law":

And here's Ward's 2008 essay from the Tucson Citizen, "Guest Opinion: Raza Studies Gives Rise to Racial Hostility." Also at Grizzly Groundswell, "Tucson Teacher Exposes "Raza" Studies In TUSD":

As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.

During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.

Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.

I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.

I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.

Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.

Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.

The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.

In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.

This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos."

It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.

It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.

It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.

As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.

When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."

The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.

The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.

It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.

Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.

The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.

The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.

Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.

Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.

Evolving Standards of Decency? Supreme Court Limits 'Harsh' Terms for Minors

The editors at NTY are calling it "A New Standard of Decency," but yesterday's ruling on juvenile sentencing is just one more in a string of leftist decisions designed, ultimately, to chip away at capital punishment. How do we know? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, as he did for the disastrous Roper v. Simmons (2005).

Joan Biskupic has a report, "Court limits harsh terms for youths":

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes other than murder, in a significant 5-4 decision that says imposing such sentences violates the Constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
The court's 5-4 decision — which says that an automatic life sentence for a young offender who has not committed murder violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment — wipes out laws in 37 states.

It means that the 129 juveniles now serving time under such laws will, at some point, have an opportunity to make a case for parole.

Most significantly, the decision — signed by the nine-member court's four more liberal justices and Anthony Kennedy, the conservative who votes with the liberals the most — emphasizes that young criminals are different from adults. And not just when it comes to the death penalty, which the court made off-limits for juveniles in 2005.

"A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity," Kennedy wrote for the majority in the decision that found life without parole disproportionally harsh.

The decision immediately generated debate over where the court would go in the future regarding juvenile rights, including the possibility that it could strike down life-without-parole for juvenile murderers.

I can't imagine much public support for such a position, and it's going to get worse if Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down next year, giving President Obama a chance to appoint a third radical leftist to the court during his first term. Frankly, here's a hint that the radical majority on the court won't stop the campaign of "evolving decency" with juvenile defendants:

In Kennedy's opinion for the majority, he highlighted the limited culpability of young offenders and said the usual justifications for harsh sentences, such as deterrence, do not hold up for those under age 18.

Baylor University criminal law professor Mark Osler said Monday's decision arises against the backdrop of a broader national re-examination of harsh sentences, but it is most significant in how it views offenders who are under age 18.

RTWT at the link. (And Kennedy's appeal to international legal standards is especially appalling.)

Actually, it's an Anti-Obama Election

Sean Trende's always worth reading, and his piece today is no exception, "2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal, or Anti-Democrat?" I like this passage, on PA-12:

If Mark Critz pulls out a win by a healthy margin, then it could be a good sign that a generalized anti-Democratic mood isn’t materializing. This doesn’t rule out the anti-liberal scenario described above by any means, since Critz is running as a fairly conservative Democrat, but it does indicate that voters in marginal districts are still willing to listen to Democratic candidates who promise to vote against health care reform and the like.

But if Critz loses or barely wins, it would be an ominous sign. Democratic turnout on Tuesday will be driven by the Democratic Senate and gubernatorial primaries occurring that day, narrowing the enthusiasm gap with Republicans in a way that won’t be likely in November. If a conservative Democrat running in a conservative Democratic district with upticket races driving turnout can’t win this year, it bodes poorly for the sixty or so Democrats running in districts that vote even more Republican at the Presidential level (I’d guess there’s eighty or ninety districts represented by Democrats that vote more Republican when you look at the state and federal levels).

But I'm with Charles Krauthammer, who says the current electoral environment is marked by an "anti-big government, anti-Obama, and anti-left-wing agenda." Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Law Professor Kris Kobach on Arizona's Immigration Law

I meant to post on Kris Kobach last week, when the Los Angeles Times reported on him, "A voice for Arizona's immigration law: Law professor Kris Kobach is a popular defender of the state's strict new immigration law, which he helped write. Both the law and Kobach are targets of public outcry."

And now, from last night on Greta's, "The Man Behind Arizona's Immigration Law":

Also, at Washington Post, "Memo from 2002 could complicate challenge of Arizona immigration law" (via Memeorandum):

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) last month, makes the "willful failure" to carry immigration documents a crime and empowers police to question anyone if authorities have a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. It has drawn words of condemnation from President Obama and intense opposition from civil rights groups, who on Monday filed what they said was the fifth federal lawsuit over the legislation.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the department is considering a lawsuit against Arizona, and Civil Rights Division lawyers have been studying the law and consulting with some civil rights groups.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, "Leadership by the Wilfully Ignorant."

1,000 Americans Dead in Afghanistan

And naturally, New York Times is fast out of the gate with the news. See, "Grim Milestone: 1,000 Americans Dead":

On Tuesday, the toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1,000, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five United States service members. Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two. A resurgent Taliban active in almost every province, a weak central government incapable of protecting its people and a larger number of American troops in harms way all contributed to the accelerating pace of death.

The mayhem of last August, coming as Afghans were holding national elections, provided a wake-up call to many Americans about the deteriorating conditions in the country. Forty-seven American G.I.’s died that month, more than double the previous August, making it the deadliest month in the deadliest year of the war.

The Times focuses on the death of Private Patrick Fitzgibbon, who stepped on an IED in August 2009. But readers should check the slideshow at Knoxville News, "Remembering Patrick Fitzgibbon: Knoxville soldier killed in Afghanistan."

The main story is here, "Suicide Bomber Hits U.S. Convoy in Afghanistan":

A man driving a Toyota minivan crammed with explosives steered into an American convoy Tuesday morning here, killing 18 people, including five American soldiers and one from Canada. At least 47 people were wounded, nearly all of them civilians caught in rush-hour traffic.

The blast sent a fireball billowing into the air, set cars aflame and blew bodies apart. Limbs and entrails flew hundreds of feet, littering yards and walls and streets. The survivors, many of them women and children, some of them missing limbs, lay in the road moaning and calling for help.

In a passenger bus, an Afghan woman lay dead in her seat, cut in half; with her baby still squirming in her arms. Fifty yards away, a man’s head lay on the hood of a truck.

“I just dove on the ground to try to save myself,” said Mahfouz Mahmoodi, an Afghan police officer. “And then I got up, and I saw the terrible scene.”

The assault demonstrated anew that the Taliban can still strike the capital — if not every day, then with regularity.

The Taliban took responsibility for the attack in a posting on its Web site, saying the group had dispatched a young man named Nizamuddin, a resident of Kabul. The Taliban said that Nizamuddin carried more than 1,600 pounds of explosives in his van.

See Jules Crittenden as well, "Forever War" (via Memeorandum).

Elvis Costello Stabs Israeli Fans in the Back

The New York Times reports, "Elvis Costello Cancels Concerts in Israel."

And at Blazing Cat Fur, "Elvis has left.... my record collection."

Elvis Costello boycotts his own concert in Israel. What's so funny bout' peace love and jihad?

And notice the "peace and understanding" flourish to Costello's statement:

It has been necessary to dial out the falsehoods of propaganda, the double game and hysterical language of politics, the vanity and self-righteousness of public communiqués from cranks in order to eventually sift through my own conflicted thoughts.

I have come to the following conclusions.

One must at least consider any rational argument that comes before the appeal of more desperate means.

Sometimes a silence in music is better than adding to the static and so an end to it.

I cannot imagine receiving another invitation to perform in Israel, which is a matter of regret but I can imagine a better time when I would not be writing this.

With the hope for peace and understanding

Down with jihad. Damn. Good music too, but I guess moral cowardice is the true meaning of "peace, love, and understanding."

'Super Tuesday' Primaries Today: PA-12 is Bellwether for November Elections

Robert Stacy McCain's been doing on-the-ground reporting on Republican Tim Burns' campaign in Pennsylvania's 12th District. The big meme is that Democrats need a win in PA-12 if they're to have any chance of avoiding a bloodbath in the November midterms. See, "Pennsylvania Race May Show Democrats Which Way Midterm Winds Blow":

WAYNESBURG, Pa. — Sam Boyd has been a Democrat his entire adult life, just like many here in this mostly rural, economically impoverished southwestern corner of the state, where the party’s roots run as deep as the coal underfoot.

But in Tuesday’s closely watched special election to succeed the late Representative John P. Murtha in the state’s 12th Congressional District, Mr. Boyd, 65, is leaning toward casting his vote for the Republican candidate, Tim Burns, a millionaire former software entrepreneur who got involved in politics through the Tea Party movement.

“I’m for Burns for the reason I was for Obama,” said Mr. Boyd, a retired general contractor who served as an unpaid campaign liaison for Mr. Murtha in his county. “I want change.”
Whether or not Mr. Burns pulls off a victory over his Democratic opponent, Mark Critz, in what polls suggest is a competitive race, voters like Mr. Boyd embody the nightmare scenario for Democrats nationally: that even committed Democrats will turn on their party.

David Weigel reports on the right's excitement over PA-12, "The conservative media go all in for Tim Burns." And see Chris Cillizza, "Incumbent Armageddon?: What to watch for" (via Memeorandum). See also Dan Balz, "Primaries may help foreshadow November elections."

RELATED: At Politico, "What to watch in Tuesday's primaries." (Via Memorandum.)

Blumenthal Exaggerates Vietnam Record: Linda McMahon Takes Credit for 'Oppo Research'

God, I love this story!

"Blumenthal Exaggerates Vietnam Record," from Linda McMahon for Senate (double-click to watch):

And at Politico, "GOP takes credit for New York Times hit" (via Memeorandum):

Pulling back the curtain on journalistic sausage-making usually hidden from voters, a Republican Senate candidate is taking credit for the front-page New York Times story accusing Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of “plainly untrue” remarks about Vietnam service.

But a New York Times spokeswoman said: "[A]nyone reading it can tell that it was the product of extensive independent reporting — including our FOIA of his military records."

The campaign of World Wrestling Entertainment co-founder Linda McMahon, who is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Blumenthal, is doing little to discourage suggestions it provided the sort of opposition research to The Times that is known around campaigns as an “oppo dump.”

Shawn McCoy, a McMahon spokesman, told POLITICO: “As we have researched Dick Blumenthal's record, we've discovered some very troubling disparities between what he's said and the facts. This is a serious blow to his credibility.”

Making the claim more explicitly, McMahon's campaign website has re-posted, as an "In Case You Missed It," a blog entry by Kevin Rennie of South Windsor, a lawyer and a former Republican state senator and representative:

“McMahon Strikes Blumenthal In NYT Article ... The piece, fed to the paper by the Linda McMahon Senate campaign, is accompanied by a chilling 2008 video of Blumenthal blithely making the false claim. ... The Blumenthal Bombshell comes at the end of more than 2 months of deep, persistent research by Republican Linda McMahon's Senate campaign. It gave the explosive Norwalk video recording to The Times. This is what comes of $16 million, a crack opposition research operation.”

It's true. "Candidate’s Words Differ From His History" is posted right there at McMahon's home page. In fact, it's the first thing I saw while checking out the story.

And man, is this scandal burning up the web. Love it!

Also, at Hot Air, "Bombshell: Democratic Senate candidate lied about serving in Vietnam; Update: Blumenthal responds, sort of."

In Defense of Arizona's Ethnic Studies Law

An essential essay, from Stanly Fish, "Arizona: The Gift That Keeps On Giving":

The loud debate over the recently passed Arizona House Bill 2281, which bans from the public schools ethnic studies courses that promote race consciousness, is a clash between two bad paradigms.

The first paradigm is embedded in and configures the bill’s targeted program, the Mexican American Studies Department of the Tucson Unified School District, which, its Web site tells us, adheres to the Social Justice Education Project model. That model includes “a counter-hegemonic curriculum” and “a pedagogy based on the theories of Paolo Freire.” Freire, a Brazilian educator, is the author of the widely influential book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.”

Freire argues that the structures of domination and oppression in a society are at their successful worst when the assumptions and ways of thinking that underwrite their tyranny have been internalized by their victims: “The very structure of their thought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential situation by which they were shaped.” If the ideas and values of the oppressor are all you ever hear, they will be yours — that is what hegemony means — and it will take a special and radical effort to liberate yourself from them.

That effort is education, properly reconceived not as the delivery of pre-packaged knowledge to passive students, but as the active dismantling, by teachers and students together, of the world view that sustains the powers that be and insulates them from deep challenge. Only when this is done, says Freire, will students cease to “adapt to the word as it is” and become “transformers of that world.”

To say that this view of education is political is to understate the point, although that descriptive will not be heard by its adherents as a criticism. The Social Justice Education Project means what its title says: students are to be brought to see what the prevailing orthodoxy labors to occlude so that they can join the effort to topple it. To this end the Department of Mexican American Studies (I quote again from its Web site) pledges to “work toward the invoking of a critical consciousness within each and every student” and “promote and advocate for social and educational transformation.”

If the department is serious about this (and we must assume that it is), then there is something for the citizens of Arizona to be concerned about. The concern is not ethnic studies per se — a perfectly respectable topic of discussion and research involving the disciplines of history, philosophy, sociology, medicine, economics, literature, public policy and art, among others. The concern is ethnic studies as a stalking horse or Trojan horse of a political agenda, even if the agenda bears the high-sounding name of social justice. (“Teaching for Social Justice” is a pervasive and powerful mantra in the world of educational theory.)

It is certainly possible to teach the literature and history (including the history of marginalization and discrimination) of ethnic traditions without turning students into culture warriors ready to man (and woman) the barriers. To be sure, the knowledge a student acquires in an ethnic studies course that stays clear of indoctrination may lead down the road to counter-hegemonic, even revolutionary, activity; you can’t control what students do with the ideas they are exposed to. But that is quite different from setting out deliberately to produce that activity as the goal of classroom instruction.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: Victor Davis Hanson, "How Could They Do That in Arizona!"

Elena Kagan: Unsupportive of the Men and Women Who Are Fighting to Protect Us

The White House is going on the offensive big time to tamp down the growing backlash to High Court nominee Elena Kagan.

Newt Gingrich hammered Kagan over the weekend, highlighting her anti-military record and calling for President Obama to pull her nomination.

And in case you missed it previously, Bill Kristol launched a devastating attack on May 10th, "An Anti-Military Justice? Do Ask, Don't Confirm":

For me, the key obstacle to Elena Kagan's confirmation is pt. 5 in Ed Whelan's NRO post, which is also the question raised by Peter Berkowitz in these pages several years ago and by Peter Beinart just recently: Her hostility to the U.S. military.

Hostility? Isn't that harsh? Kagan has professed at times her admiration for those who serve in the military, even as she tried to bar military recruiters from Harvard Law School. But how does one square her professed admiration with her actions --- embracing an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment that was rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court --- and her words?

Consider these words in particular from her letters to "All Members of the Harvard Law School Community": On Oct. 6, 2003, Kagan explained that she abhorred "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy....The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order." On Sep. 28, 2004: "...the military's recruitment policy is both unjust and unwise. The military's policy deprives..." etc. And on March 7, 2006: "I hope that many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court's invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military's discriminatory employment policy. As I have said before, I believe that policy is profoundly wrong -- both unwise and unjust...," etc.

Notice, time and again: "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy," "the military's policy," "the military's recruitment policy," "the military's discriminatory employment policy."

But it is not the military's policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Government, based on legislation passed in 1993 by (a Democratic) Congress, signed into law and implemented by the Clinton administration, legislation and implementation that are currently continued by a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress. It is intellectually wrong and morally cowardly to call this the "military's policy." Wrong for obvious reasons. Cowardly because it allowed Kagan to go ahead and serve in the Clinton administration that enforced this policy she so detests, and to welcome to Harvard as Dean former members of that administration, as well as Senators and Congressmen who actually voted for the law--which is more than the military recruiters whom Kagan sought to ban did.

RTWT and check the links.

Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard Supports Arizona SB 1070!

Morgan Elizabeth Woolard took the runner-up prize at last night's Miss USA 2010 pageant after answering a politically-loaded question on Arizona's SB 1070. At Fox News, "Miss Oklahoma Named First Runner Up in Miss USA Pageant After Answering Immigration Question":

Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard lost the crown to Miss Michigan Rima Fakih.

An unhappy crowd booed Miss USA judge Oscar Nunez when he asked Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard a question about Arizona’s immigration law on Sunday night’s pageant.

But could Woolard's answer have cost her the crown?

The "The Office" star asked Woolard if she supported Arizona’s right to enforce the law, which requires police to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.

Woolard said she supports state's rights, adding that she is against illegal immigration, but is also against racial profiling.

"I'm a huge believer in states' rights. I think that's what's so wonderful about America," Woolard said. "So I think it's perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law."

The night's events mirrored last year's pageant, when gossip blogger Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean if she believed in gay marriage. Prejean said she didn't, and a media firestorm ensued, with many arguing that it cost her the Miss USA title.

And that's what's so interesting: Miss Woolard certainly anticipated the possibility of a politically loaded question, and boy did she get one. And without missing a beat she smacked a home run over the stadium walls. My bet is that a year from now Morgan Elizabeth Woolard will be a household name while disaster winner Rima Fakih will be an afterthought.

Also interesting is how leftists are up in arms over the conservative reaction to Miss USA's Muslim affirmative action beauty contestants, but it's no problem when "The Office" star Oscar Nunez launches a torpedo shot at Miss Oklahoma. Nope. Everybody's down with that, just like last year.

Also at Gateway Pundit, "Figures. Miss Oklahoma Places Second in Miss America Contest After Saying She’d Support Arizona Immigration Law (Video)."