Nikki Haley Denies Blogger Sex Rumors

The image is from Nikki Haley's Wikipedia entry, and looking over her biography, this is the kind of woman who speaks volumes to equal opportunity in the United States. And honestly, I have no clue as to the local happenings in South Carolina, but this is an extremely interesting story. Of course, she's a Republican woman who's endorsed by Sarah Palin, so that'll get you half way there. (Don't believe it? Well, "Caribou Barbie" at Daily Kos is hot on the trail ... and David Waldman follows up with, "South Carolina Gone Wild!"... no doubt Andrew Sullivan will be along shortly ...). Anyway, check "In S.C., ex-Sanford protege Nikki Haley denies affair with ex-Sanford press secretary":

South Carolina is in apparent need of chastity belts. Thousands of them. Unisex, and industrial strength.

Less than a year after Gov. Mark Sanford left for his hike on the Appalachian Trail, two of his former acolytes are in a public argument over whether they slept together.

One of them – the one who says nothing happened — is Nikki Haley, the Republican candidate for governor whose campaign has been surging since an endorsement by Sarah Palin. Jenny Sanford, former wife of the South Carolina governor, is also backing her – as is Georgia’s own Erick Erickson.

Today, in what was pitched as a protest against nefarious political maneuverings, former Mark Sanford press secretary Will Folks posted the following on his Web site, Fitsnews.com:

I have become the primary target of a group that will apparently stop at nothing to destroy the one S.C. gubernatorial candidate who, in my opinion, would most consistently advance the ideals I believe in. For those of you unfamiliar with the editorial bent of this website, the candidate I am referring to is S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley.

This network of operatives has made it abundantly clear that in the process of “taking down” Rep. Haley, they will also stop at nothing to humiliate me, destroy my family and take a sizable chunk out of the credibility this website has managed to amass for itself. Such is the blood sport of S.C. politics, I suppose – particularly in the wake of the scandal that consumed my former boss, Gov. Mark Sanford.

Specifically, within the last forty-eight hours several pieces of information which purportedly document a prior physical relationship between myself and Rep. Haley have begun to be leaked slowly, piece by piece, to members of the mainstream media. I am told that at least one story based upon this information will be published this week. Watching all of this unfold, I have become convinced that the gradual release of this information is deliberately designed to advance this story in the press while simultaneously forcing either evasive answers or denials on my part or on Nikki’s part.

I refuse to play that game. I refuse to have someone hold the political equivalent of a switch-blade in front of my face and just sit there and watch as they cut me to pieces.

The truth in this case is what it is. Several years ago, prior to my marriage, I had an inappropriate physical relationship with Nikki.

That’s it.

I will not be discussing the details of that relationship, nor will I be granting any additional interviews about it to members of the media beyond what I have already been compelled to confirm.

Additional information at the link. But see in particular, "Haley denies affair with blogger."

Plus, all the buzz at Memeorandum. And from R.S. McCain, "The Kind of Blog Post That You’re Thankful Someone Else Wrote."

Ali Fedotowsky is 'The Bachelorette'

She was my first pick last season to go with Jake, but the (faux?) teary drama at the end killed the magic for me. We'll see how it goes this time around, starting tonight:

Marx, Keynes, Pelosi

From William Kristol:

“It is all about a four-letter word: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. We are all about jobs.”

—Nancy Pelosi, May 4, 2010

“We see [health care reform as] a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care. You won’t have to be job-locked.”

—Nancy Pelosi, speaking to musicians and artists
in Washington, D.C., May 15, 2010

The tension between these two statements runs through the left. Pelosi’s first statement recalls the Old Left, her second the New. The first is in the spirit of the mature Karl Marx (not to accuse Pelosi of being a Marxist!), while the second echoes the young Marx, who wrote in 1846: “As soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

So which is it? Is progressivism all about providing good jobs at good pay? Or is it all about transcending the world of being “job-locked” in the name of creativity?

It’s all about both—as we can learn from John Maynard Keynes, who, halfway between the age of Marx and the era of Pelosi, wrote this in 1930:

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession—as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life—will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity. .  .  . But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.

Keynes has given us a glimpse into the heart of modern progressivism: For now, progress requires a respect for work, for jobs, for economics. So the left embraces the use of government for economic ends. But ultimately all of this is for the sake of transcending “pseudo-moral principles” like precaution. So the left embraces big government while disdaining the need for self-government.

RTWT at the link.

Sarah Ferguson Caught on Video in $750K Bribery Scandal‎

I'm still shaking my head at this one. At Times of London, "Duchess of York caught in tabloid sting":

THE Duchess of York has been filmed in a newspaper sting apparently offering to sell access to her former husband Prince Andrew.

Sarah Ferguson is alleged to have asked for a $40,000 (£27,650) golden handshake in cash from a reporter posing as a representative of an Indian company and for £500,000 to be sent to her bank.

In return she is said to have promised an introduction to Prince Andrew, who works as an unpaid special representative for UK Trade & Investment, a government agency, saying: “Look after me and he’ll look after you . . . you’ll get it back tenfold. I can open any door you want.”

There is no suggestion that Prince Andrew was ever aware of the meetings or the claims said to have been made by the duchess.

Ferguson, 50, whose American promotions company Hartmoor folded with debts of £650,000 last October, is also reported as saying: “I could bring you great business. I’d like to think that if I, for example, if I introduced you to . . . Andrew, for example . . . and he opened up doors for you which you would never possibly do. Then, depending if it was a very big deal with, I don’t know, I can’t imagine, then each deal you and I discuss the percentage of it.”

More at the link.

But it's News of the World that worked the sting. See, "CASH FOR ROYAL ACCESS SENSATION: 'Andrew said to me: 'Tell him £500,000'. Look after me and he'll look after you'; Desperate Fergie lies to make money out of Prince."

Sarah Palin on Barack Obama's BP Cash Pipeline: Deep Water Horizon Gulf Spill Cover-Up?

Via Memeorandum, Elizabeth Williamson and Victoria McGrane write:

Since 1990, oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties, with 75% of the money going to Republicans.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” couldn’t resist weighing in. “Well, Sarah Palin was involved in that election, but I don’t think apparently was paying a whole lot of attention,” Gibbs said. “I’m almost sure that the oil companies don’t consider the Obama administration a huge ally. We proposed a windfall profits tax when they jacked their oil prices up to charge more for gasoline.

“My suggestion to Sarah Palin would be to get slightly more informed as to what’s going on in and around oil drilling in this country.”

Yeah. Right.

WSJ is looking at industry totals overall, while the key issue is British Petroleum's inside graft with this administration:

Now, if this was President Bush or if this were a Republican in office who hadn't received as much support even as President Obama has from B.P. and other oil companies, you know the mainstream media would be all over his case in terms of asking questions why the administration didn't get in there, didn't get in there and make sure that the regulatory agencies were doing what they were doing with the oversight to make sure that things like this don't happen.

And as it turns out, Palin's obviously been doing her homework. See Politico, "Obama biggest recipient of BP cash":

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

And this is the quote everyone's citing, from CRP:

During the 2008 election cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with BP — a Center for Responsive Politics’ “heavy hitter” — contributed half a million dollars to federal candidates. About 40 percent of these donations went to Democrats. The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.

But Oil Price Weekly Intelligence Report, a petroleum industry newsletter, indicates a broader influence-peddling conspiracy, "The Cover-up: BP's Crude Politics and the Looming Environmental Mega-Disaster":

WMR has been informed by sources in the US Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the Obama White House and British Petroleum (BP), which pumped $71,000 into Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign -- more than John McCain or Hillary Clinton, are covering up the magnitude of the volcanic-level oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and working together to limit BP's liability for damage caused by what can be called a "mega-disaster."

Obama and his senior White House staff, as well as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, are working with BP's chief executive officer Tony Hayward on legislation that would raise the cap on liability for damage claims from those affected by the oil disaster from $75 million to $10 billion. However, WMR's federal and Gulf state sources are reporting the disaster has the real potential cost of at least $1 trillion. Critics of the deal being worked out between Obama and Hayward point out that $10 billion is a mere drop in the bucket for a trillion dollar disaster but also note that BP, if its assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes. There is talk in some government circles, including FEMA, of the need to nationalize BP in order to compensate those who will ultimately be affected by the worst oil disaster in the history of the world ....

The Obama administration also conspired with BP to fudge the extent of the oil leak, according to our federal and state sources. After the oil rig exploded and sank, the government stated that 42,000 gallons per day was gushing from the seabed chasm. Five days later, the federal government upped the leakage to 210,000 gallons a day.

However, WMR has been informed that submersibles that are monitoring the escaping oil from the Gulf seabed are viewing television pictures of what is a "volcanic-like" eruption of oil. Moreover, when the Army Corps of Engineers first attempted to obtain NASA imagery of the Gulf oil slick -- which is larger than that being reported by the media -- it was turned down. However, National Geographic managed to obtain the satellite imagery shots of the extent of the disaster and posted them on their web site.

There is other satellite imagery being withheld by the Obama administration that shows what lies under the gaping chasm spewing oil at an ever-alarming rate is a cavern estimated to be around the size of Mount Everest. This information has been given an almost national security-level classification to keep it from the public, according to our sources.

Rand Paul's Constitution

At WSJ:

A Senate campaign is not a libertarian seminar, a lesson that Kentucky Republican Rand Paul has learned the hard way since his primary victory on Tuesday. He has now renounced the doubts he expressed last week about some parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has declared the matter closed. But before we move on, it's important to understand why Mr. Paul was wrong even on his own libertarian terms.

In his acceptance remarks on Tuesday night, Mr. Paul sounded mainstream conservative themes on spending, taxes and the reckless expansion of state power. But in his first brush with national scrutiny, the eye doctor let himself be drawn into a debate over the landmark 46-year-old law. Some conservatives want to blame liberal journalists for asking the questions, but Mr. Paul agreed to appear on MSNBC, and such queries were predictable given the liberal stereotype that all conservatives are secretly racists.

Mr. Paul then handed his opponents a sword by saying that while he favored the civil rights statute's ban on public discrimination, he thought it was mistaken to prohibit private bias. Asked if a restaurant should be able to refuse service to blacks, Mr. Paul was at first evasive but eventually replied, "Yes."

Even if Mr. Paul was speaking out of a principled belief in the rights of voluntary association, he was wrong on the Constitutional and historic merits. The Civil Rights Act of 1964—and its companion laws, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965—were designed to address abuses of state and local government power. The Jim Crow laws that sprang up in the South after Reconstruction and prevailed for nearly a century were not merely the result of voluntary association. Discrimination—public and private—was enforced by police power and often by violence.

In parts of the mid-20th-century South, black men were lynched, fire hoses and vicious dogs were turned on children, and churches were bombed with worshippers inside. By some accounts, two-thirds of the Birmingham, Alabama, police force in the early 1960s belonged to the Ku Klux Klan. State and local government officials simply refused to acknowledge the civil rights of blacks and had no intention of doing so unless outside power was brought to bear.

The federal laws of that era were necessary and legal interventions to remedy the unconstitutional infringement on individual rights by state and local governments. On Thursday Mr. Paul finally acknowledged this point when he told CNN, "I think there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention."

There's more at the link, although while I mostly agree, I think it's more complicated, and because of that, Rand Paul and libertarians can't win (and thus shouldn't enter into those debates and then cry foul).

Brian Garst wrote a sharp essay on this at RWN this weekend:

The left has twisted this into a story about Rand Paul supporting racism, or possibly being racist himself. This is foolish nonsense, but it comports with the general erosion of serious thinking on the left. Discussions of constitutionality or the necessary trade-off with freedom that is made when people are not allowed to discriminate are verboten, and anyone who brings them up is reflexively labeled a racist.

We're all expected to bow our heads at the very mention of good-feeling government policies like the Civil Rights Act. Certainly we're all pleased to be living in a society in which discrimination is no longer a regular occurrence. But the idea that such is due primarily to government legislation, as opposed to changing social mores, is mistaken. Yes, the CRA did have a legitimate purpose and many constitutionally defensible parts. For instance, it prohibited racism in government run schooling and undid the Jim Crow laws. But that's just it. Those were laws. Laws are government. So when the New York Times says that "it was only government power that ... abolished Jim Crow," they are missing the forest for the trees. It was only the power of government that allowed Jim Crow in the first place. That's not an indictment of libertarianism. It's an indictment of government and proof that it poses a unique danger to our civil rights!

It is no indictment of libertarianism or small government to suggest that government was needed to overturn discriminatory government policy. Quite the opposite. It is affirmation of the views of Rand Paul and many others that it is government policy which most frequently threatens civil rights. It is discrimination of government which is both unconstitutional and cannot be tolerated. Discrimination by private citizens, while disagreeable, is neither. Private citizens are constitutionally allowed to discriminate, though of course other private citizens are free to condemn them for it. It is government which is prohibited, rightly, from discriminating. And it is primarily government discrimination which the Civil Rights Act dealt with.

Still, it's all about nuance, and on a subject like this, it's not going play well in 30-second attack ads.

RELATED: At Fox News, "Rand Paul is Learning What It's Like to Be Me, Says Sarah Palin" (via Memeorandum).

Nestlé Knuckles Under to Greenpeace? Well, Those Enviro-Nazis Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!

Well, I guess there's some benefit to following Alyssa Milano on Twitter: She's a serious environmentalist. Here's her latest, for example, "Greenpeace Social Media Campaign Forces Nestlé To Stop Using Unsustainable Palm Oil."

Seriously. Here's Nestlé's press release, "Statement on deforestation and palm oil":

Nestlé views destruction of tropical rainforests and peatlands as one of the most serious environmental issues facing us today. It is estimated that rainforest destruction contributes to around 20% of carbon dioxide emissions – more than the entire transport sector. The growing use of biofuels is a serious factor in this destruction – which we have vigorously condemned.

At the recent Annual General Meeting our Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe reinforced this position and repeated our support for a moratorium on the destruction of rainforests. He invited all concerned parties, including Greenpeace, to join this initiative.

That Greenpeace ad is gnarly, which begs the question, "Is it possible to avoid unsustainable palm oil?" Well, if they say so:

... really, why should we be driven to niche non-palm-oil products when sustainable palm oil is readily available? Yes, palm oil can be and is being grown sustainably. The global initiative that aims to bring together processors, manufacturers and NGOs known, as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), had certified enough plantations to produce 1.75m tonnes of sustainable palm oil midway through this year. The tragedy is that less than 15% of this sustainable oil has actually been sold.

Geez, this is interesting. And who knew? Help is on the way, "Palm Oil Guide to Candy & Snacks - October 2009" (via the Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Society in Colorado Springs).

And, well, I checked the guide (and then our pantry), and ... uh oh!

Wait! My wife says back off you Enviro-Nazi wackos! No way she's chucking those Ding Dongs!

And, oh, my kids are safe --- no palm oil in Nacho Cheese Doritos! What would we have done??!!

This:

Or this (cry, like Kramer):

And now that I think about it, what's in Alyssa Milano's cupboard!

Hey, that's a job for our crack investigative journalist R.S. McCain!

Hopefully I can get a retweet out all of this!

MA State Rep. Mike Moran – Tax & Spend Democrat, Pro-Abort, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Undocumented Immigrant – Rear-Ended by Drunk Illegal Alien

Massachusetts State Rep. Michael J Moran was rear-ended by a 27 year-old illegal immigrant on Friday. Boston's Fox25 reports, "State Rep. in accident with suspected illegal immigrant."

I don't see any additional reports on Moran's condition, and my thoughts go out to him.

But according to the report:

The suspect, 27-year-old Isaias Naranjo, was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, leaving the scene of an accident and driving without a valid license. According the report, when told of the serious charges he would be facing, he just laughed.

But because of action taken by Gov. Deval Patrick, state police were unable to notify immigration authorities that Naranjo might be illegal.

Three years ago, Patrick revoked an order by former governor Mitt Romney which gave state police power to investigate immigration violations.

The governor's aides are defending the measure, saying the department of correction can still pursue the violation.

The accident is bound to reverberate at the Statehouse where lawmakers just narrowly rejected a bill to crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Some folks are focusing on Governor Patrick, but this guy Moran is a number unto himself!

Checking Moran's legislative record at local news reports and Project Vote Smart, we see he voted to "delay indefinitely" a proposal to "require the state to verify that anyone over 18 who applies for state benefits is legally in Massachusetts":

The proposal would require a person seeking benefits to produce proof that he or she is here legally by providing either a valid Massachusetts driver's license or identification card, U.S. military card, Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card, military dependent’s identification card or Native American tribal document. Anyone who could not produce one of those documents would have the option to execute a notarized affidavit stating that he or she is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States.

The measure provides many exemptions from the requirement and allows people who cannot produce the necessary identification to still receive emergency medical treatment, immunization and services such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention and short-term shelter.

Some supporters of the study said that the proposal is mean spirited and anti-immigrant and noted that many illegal immigrants are hardworking people who perform jobs that most Americans would not do. Others said that the House should gather information before making a rash decision and noted that this problem really should be solved on the federal level. Some argued that there are many legal immigrants who would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents.

Opponents of the study said that it is simply another example of a sneaky way for legislators to avoid a direct vote on the proposal itself.

Not only that, Moran voted in favor of "In State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants"; to expand "Reproductive Health Clinic Buffer Zones"; for a "Cigarette Tax Increase" and "Sales Tax Increase"; and against a "Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage" between a man and a woman.

Well at least the guy's consistent!

RELATED: From Washington State, "Investigators: Edmonds rape suspect deported nine times" (via Memeorandum and at JammieWearingFool).

Hey, Don't 'Obsess' Those 'Squishy' Overseas Terror Ties – Jihadis Converting YouTube Into Terror-Recruiting Tool

Send the memo to Brilliant Barbara at Teh Mahablog, and Steve "We Need More Female Downs Syndrome Suicide Bombers" Hynd:

At WND, "Jihadis Convert YouTube into Terror-Recruiting Tool: Al-Qaida Ally Posting News, Violence-Inciting Rants Online":

Islamic terrorists plotting attacks in the U.S. are recruiting, taking credit for bombings and calling for even more violence – all with the help of a popular U.S.-based website: YouTube.

In fact, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan – a group White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan said is "closely allied with al-Qaeda; they train together, they plan together, they plot together" – maintains a YouTube channel for posting news and violence-inciting rants.

"Today, dated 19th April 2010, through media I want to convey an important message to the Muslim ummah," states a video still viewable on the group's YouTube channel, reportedly with the voice of leader Hakeemullah Mehsud to the "ummah," meaning the spread of Muslims throughout the globe.

"America, which is the biggest evil of this world, [has] savagely massacred millions of innocent Muslims," the video continues. "From now on, the main targets of our fidaeen are American cities."

The video, which begins with the words "A message to the Muslim ummah and a warning to USA and NATO allies … step back or get ready to be destroyed," then shows a map of the U.S. with explosions erupting throughout.

"America/NATO, you will pay for your crimes," it concludes.

And note this from Anwar Al-Awlaki:

And via Jawa Report, at Fox News, "American-Yemeni cleric advocates killing of American civilians in al-Qaida video":

An American-Yemeni cleric whose Internet sermons are believed to have helped inspire attacks on the U.S. has advocated the killing of American civilians in an al-Qaida video released Sunday.

Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out by U.S. officials as a key terrorist threat and has been added to the CIA's list of targets for assassination despite his American citizenship. He is of particular concern because he is one of the few English-speaking radical clerics able to explain to young Muslims in America and other Western countries the philosophy of violent jihad.

The U.S.-born al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 and is in hiding there after being linked to the suspects in the November shooting at an Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, and the December attempt to blow up a U.S. jetliner bound for Detroit.

"Those who might be killed in a plane are merely a drop of water in a sea," he said in the video in response to a question about Muslim groups that disapproved of the airliner plot because it targeted civilians.

Al-Awlaki used the 45-minute video to justify civilian deaths — and encourage them — by accusing the United States of intentionally killing a million Muslim civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

American civilians are to blame, he said, because "the American people, in general, are taking part in this and they elected this administration and they are financing the war."

He added that the Prophet Muhammad also sent forces into battles that claimed civilian lives.

The video was produced by the media arm of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, though the exact nature of al-Awlaki's ties with the group and possible direct role in it are unclear. The U.S. says he is an active participant in the group, though members of his tribe have denied that.

For its part, al-Qaida appears to be trying to make use of his recruiting power by putting him in its videos. Its media arm said Sunday's video was its first interview with the cleric.

Seriously. Not yet translated, but Awlaki's posted in full, at "Interview with Shaykh Anwar al Awlaki."

And of course, the neo-communist terror-deniers continue to tell us it's all our fault.

Added: Weasel Zippers, "US-Born al-Qaeda Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Releases New Sermon Urging Murder of American Civilians…" (via Memeorandum, with AP).

Sela Ward Weekend!

Bob Belvedere, in his Saturday Rule 5 entry, noted that "One of my favorites is the under-appreciated Sela Ward." (The inspiration is Daley Gator's "All Time #18 Sela Ward.")

I have to concur, big time. One of the most frustrating part of 1993's "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford is that Sela Ward plays Mrs. Kimble, and thus we don't have her beauty gracing the entire film:

I enjoyed Sela Ward on "Sisters" in the mid-1990s. I know, I know ... it's a ladies TV drama. But my oldest son was just born and I watched a lot of television, and "Sisters" came on on Saturday nights when not much else was playing. Ward's role in "Once and Again" was more enjoyable, and this clip catches the show's premiere with Billy Campbell, and it's just a perfect kind of romance:

In any case, she's one of the classiest ladies in film and television, and my personal policy is NOT to meet celebrities (because they disappoint you), but I'd break that rule to meet her:

Republican Charles Djou Wins Hawaii Special Election: From Obama's Home District!

William Galston, a left-leaning analyst, reiterates some points I made last week on the Critz win in PA-12, "A Single Democratic Victory in a Single Pennsylvania Race Doesn’t Change Anything."

So now that Republican Charles Djou has won in Hawaii, let's see how long it takes for the rest of the Democratic Media Complex to get honest and catch up with reality.

See, Gateway Pundit, "CHARLES DJOU WINS! First Republican to Represent Hawaii in 20 Years!" And Chris Cillizza, "Charles Djou, Republicans capture Hawaii House seat" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, at CSM, "Charles Djou: How did a Republican win in Obama's Hawaii hometown? Republican Charles Djou won the special election in Hawaii's First Congressional District – the Honolulu district where President Obama grew up. Djou is only the third Republican Hawaii has elected to Congress since statehood."

Video Hat Tip: Logistics Monster.

'Tommy' 35th Anniversary Screening

The screening was yesterday, so yeah, a little late on getting to this, "Tommy 35th Anniversary Screening: Film Based on The Who's Classic Rock Opera." But it's worth it at least for some Saturday night music jams:

Also, an e-mail interview at LAT, "Pete Townshend Discusses Filming 'Tommy'":

With an electrifying score by Pete Townshend including "Pinball Wizard," "I'm Free" and "See Me, Feel Me" and transcendent performances, the Who's seminal 1969 rock opera "Tommy" shook the foundations of the music industry.

Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Murray Lerner ("From Mao to Mozart: Isaac Stern in China") recalls that "Tommy" was a "mesmerizing" experience for those who saw it and felt it four decades ago.

Friday evening, Lerner will be hosting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' 35th anniversary screening at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater, which features a new digital cinema presentation with the original Quintaphonic soundtrack. "Tommy" was the only film ever produced in that stereophonic sound system.

Russell, who is now 82, may be known for his excessive hand on screen, but he's a man of few words when reached over the phone in England about the event. Lerner will be discussing the film with the veteran filmmaker.

When asked to explain Quintaphonic, Russell simply replied, "It was a new kind of stereo. It was rather unique."

On how he came up with the way to shoot a rock opera: "I discovered how to shoot it. It was fairly easy."

The Who's Townshend, who received an Oscar nomination for scoring and adapting the music for the film, was much more reflective in an e-mail interview ...

Follow the link for Townshend's comments.

Plus, spreading some linkage to good friends: The Astute Bloggers, Bill Dupray, The Classical Liberal, The Daley Gator, Kim Priestap, The Rhetorican, and The Washington Rebel.

BONUS: The Other McCain and Theo Spark.

MUSICAL EXTRA: PA Pundits International, "Sunday Music – It’s All Over Now Baby Blue – The Bob Dylan Series (Part 7)."

Obama's Commencement Address at West Point (May 22, 2010)

I have both read and listened to this speech. It's a serious moment for the President of the United States to deliver any commencement address, and especially that of the graduates at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It's especially interesting to listen to President Obama here, because as I noted many times throughout campaign '08, Obama was the most antiwar candidate of either party. The president's foreign policy has only moderately improved since then. A heavily reluctant warrior, Obama spent much of his first year in office touring the globe apologizing for grievances held among anti-Americans the world over. (Obama even apologized for the "imperfect" Western democracies that liberated Europe in WWII.)

But there is a pull to both the American political system and the world balance of power, and the force of both of these structures are infinitely too much for one president to resist. The world demands leadership. Aside from the United States, no other country possesses the commensurate historical attributes of liberty or the requisite material bases of power. And no other country sees its historical mission as doing right by the world, to improve the quality of life, liberty, and happiness across the globe. And these realities make it that much more difficult to comprehend this administration's abandonment of democracy and human rights in U.S. foreign policy.

CBS News has the full text of the speech. The president's stressing what theorists call a "neoliberal international order." The emphasis is on American leadership in creating and sustaining multilateral institutions of cooperation in security and economic organization. Watch starting about 17:30 minutes at the video, especially these passages:

The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone. Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power. And in the past, we've always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. We were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through World War II. We stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to endure and ultimately prevail during a Cold War.

Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation - we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't.

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.

This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times -- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country.

More than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. This is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges that we face. Our campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda is part of an international effort that is necessary and just.

Notice here the emphasis on American interests in security and cooperation. But in the next few passages, the president minimizes the threat from al Qaeda, for example:

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America. (Applause.) We are the United States of America, and we have repaired our union, and faced down fascism, and outlasted communism. We've gone through turmoil, we've gone through Civil War, and we have come out stronger - and we will do so once more.

There's a massive contradiction here, and Obama can't have it both ways while remaining intellectually coherent. On the one hand, he minimizes global jihad, which is an ideological thrust perfectly in line with the radical leftists who smear conservatives as scaredy-cats whenever we have an attack (or attempt) from a Nidal Malik Hasan or an Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab or a Faisal Shahzad. Frankly, for the left, there's really no terror threat. These are always "deranged" individuals exploited by the right's "neocon warmongers." And of course, the system always "works," so that the administration's always claims (wrongly) it's got it under control. Further, these same people see no exceptionalism in American power and values. There's no unique historical role for the United States, and hence international norms and institutions should supersede American power and leadership. So note that in his speech the president wants to have his cake and eat it too. Notice how he insists that America has no worries, because "We are the United States of America, and we have repaired our union, and faced down fascism, and outlasted communism," etc. But we have not prevailed in those crises by tucking tail, apologizing for every perceived national flaw, and capitulating to those nations and ideological factions that would destroy us. And this is where this president and this administration fails.

But the president's clever. He hits enough of the right notes to convince even some conservatives that it was a good speech. Perhaps it was good, yet not great. Compare President Barack Obama's West Point commencement address to President George W. Bush's in 2002. President Bush embodied exceptionalism, even messianism, in stressing the forward role of America in guaranteeing "a peace that favors human liberty":

In defending the peace, we face a threat with no precedent. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the American people and our nation. The attacks of September the 11th required a few hundred thousand dollars in the hands of a few dozen evil and deluded men. All of the chaos and suffering they caused came at much less than the cost of a single tank. The dangers have not passed. This government and the American people are on watch, we are ready, because we know the terrorists have more money and more men and more plans.

The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology --- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends --- and we will oppose them with all our power.

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence --- the promise of massive retaliation against nations --- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act ....

Because the war on terror will require resolve and patience, it will also require firm moral purpose. In this way our struggle is similar to the Cold War. Now, as then, our enemies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life ....

A truly strong nation will permit legal avenues of dissent for all groups that pursue their aspirations without violence. An advancing nation will pursue economic reform, to unleash the great entrepreneurial energy of its people. A thriving nation will respect the rights of women, because no society can prosper while denying opportunity to half its citizens. Mothers and fathers and children across the Islamic world, and all the world, share the same fears and aspirations. In poverty, they struggle. In tyranny, they suffer. And as we saw in Afghanistan, in liberation they celebrate.

America has a greater objective than controlling threats and containing resentment. We will work for a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.

More commentary and analysis at Memeorandum. And at NYT, "Obama Offers Strategy Based in Diplomacy," and WaPo, "At West Point, Obama offers new security strategy."

And compare especially my analysis to that of inveterate America-basher Steve Hynd at Newshoggers.

Starbucks Blogging

I'm not yet quite as skilled as Ann Althouse, where she's always got a unique café location from which to blog, for example, today "At the Living Roof Café ..."

And "café" is no metephor in my case (as is seemingly true with Ann sometimes), as I'm blogging from the Starbucks at Culver and Walnut in Irvine. The tables are a little cramped, but it's a nice spot with a lovely view from my window seat:

If you look carefully at the top picture, that's Exurban Jon's blog. He's reporting that the Lilith Fair concert in Phoenix, on July 8th, has been cancelled as part of the economic boycott of Arizona's SB 1070.

I found Jon's post via Instapundit, and while there I clicked to follow him on Twitter. He's in AZ, and I'll be out that way next weekend for the May 29th Stand With Arizona event.

I'll probably have a couple more Starbucks posts at that time as well!

Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on BP Deepwater Horizon and Offshore Drilling

It's mind-boggling when you look at the big picture sometimes. Here's my morning paper, with this lovely front-cover photograph of the oil-soaked dead bird, with the headline, "Spill's Ugly Reality Sets In":

Millions of Southern Californians will see the paper, and naturally --- like any thoughtful, caring person --- they'll be filled with revulsion at the sight of the environmental damage and loss of life. Exactly what the Times' editors hoped to solicit.

Then on top of that, the neo-communist left is working the Gulf spill for all it's worth, rekindling hardline efforts to destroy the domestic petroleum industry and empower the radical green-government takeover of America. Of course, President Obama's been getting hammered by the radical hordes, who're steadily working him back into his radical ACORN community organizing roots:

And notice how it's all coming together nicely. Never let a crisis go to waste, remember? Obama's always been partial to a state takeover of energy:

And now, conveniently, the president's completely free to exploit BP Deepwater Horizon for massive ideological impact. See, "Weekly Address: President Obama Establishes Bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling" (via Memeorandum). And here's the key open-ended commitment to "punish" big business:

First and foremost, what led to this disaster was a breakdown of responsibility on the part of BP and perhaps others, including Transocean and Halliburton. And we will continue to hold the relevant companies accountable not only for being forthcoming and transparent about the facts surrounding the leak, but for shutting it down, repairing the damage it does, and repaying Americans who’ve suffered a financial loss.

But even as we continue to hold BP accountable, we also need to hold Washington accountable. Now, this catastrophe is unprecedented in its nature, and it presents a host of new challenges we are working to address. But the question is what lessons we can learn from this disaster to make sure it never happens again.

This is how free markets --- to say nothing of democracies --- perish. Yep, behold the Democratic-left's modus operandi. And watch the upcoming feedback loop: The administration proposes more regulation, that's insufficient for the leftists, and after a couple more iterations of the policy cycle, the administration tops off the previous commission recommendations with a new beefier set of regulations.

Time for Americans to stand up and fight.

ICE Won't Enforce Arizona's SB 1070

From Glen Enloe, at Kansas City Star, "Feds might not process Arizona illegals, says ICE top official":

In an outrageous statement that may be a not-too-subtle message to the state of Arizona, John Morton, the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reportedly stated that his agency would not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

Morton also told the Chicago Tribune that “I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution.”

President Obama and DHS officials have ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law in response to Morton’s comments.

Although the administration may or may not back down from Morton’s bold words, in the early going it appears that his beliefs are more of a reflection of the administration’s own ideas concerning Arizona’s new law.

If ICE, Morton and the Obama White House continue on their current path, various pundits who refer to our government as a “regime” may be closer to the truth than we wish to believe.

Given the wishes of the American public (which don’t seem to mean much anymore), President Obama and the Democrats continue to sail dangerous political waters. Some may now stop referring to the administration as a regime and may be so bold as to call it a rogue government if it continues to not enforce its own laws and condemns states that do try to enforce them.

How Radical Leftists Draw Muhammed

Visiting Firedoglake provides the perfect window into what's happening on the extremes of the radical left. I mean, seriously, you can't make this stuff up. When neo-communists draw Muhammed, it's with the obligatory peace sign. Follow the link at the post for more. Truly otherworldly:

Winners were announced mid-week, and pressed for time, I wasn't able to get a big entry up then. One of the best lines I read was from Mark Steyn, who noted, with regard to the Muslim world's outrage at the original Jyllands-Posten Muhammed cartoons:

... the real provocateurs are the perpetually aggrieved and ever more aggressive Islamic bullies — emboldened by the silence of "moderate Muslims" and the preemptive capitulation of western media.

It always amazes me that when anti-jihad conservatives are attacked as xenophobic racists it's not like those "moderate Muslims" are storming the gates in their defense. Mindboggling. (And it's telling when not even bikini-clad Muslim hotties are considered moderate nowadays --- go figure.)

In any case, Blazing Cat Fur had outstanding coverage. And he adds this follow up, "The Voice of Islamic Reason ..."

And considering the Firedoglake laugher of the "peaceful" Muhammed, here comes the People's Cube with some art imitating life. Really, this is the best: "Everybody Draw a POSITIVE Mohammed Day":

More images at the link.

Lindsay Lohan Courthouse (Cocaine) Scandal!

Okay, here's a bit of posting on the Lindsay Lohan courthouse/bail-jumping/cocaine scandal.

TMZ posted on Lohans's hard partying in Cannes, and the gossip rags are having the ultimate field day. (And celebrities are different, I guess: "EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dina Lohan Admits Lindsay Told Not To Come Home.")

I love this headline's the best: "Lindsay Lohan is a Broke, Drunk, Debt-Ridden, Cocaine-Addicted Mess!"‎

I'm taking the cue here from Robert Stacy McCain for building some Google traffic (and Google's been real sweet lately, for example on Julio Aparicio and especially Ron Gochez ).

What the Hell Was Rand Paul Doing On MSNBC?

Joe Scarborough asks the most obvious question surrounding the whole Rand Paul affair. As I wrote at the time, you can't even debate nuanced states-rights positions with radical leftists, much less Rachel Maddow, who's basically a kook netroots blogger with her own television gig:

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.

And check the interesting roundup from Max Fischer, by the way, "Rand Paul Inspires Debate on Barry Goldwater's Legacy." As many have noted, this is a deeply intellectually --- honestly intellectual --- political debate. Indeed, that's why David Weigel has stood firm in his defense of Rand Paul (with links). I'm a big fan of Goldwater too, much more so than Rand Paul, because Goldwater was a firm advocate for a robust national defense. Frankly, I doubt I'd ever vote for Paul given his disastrous libertarian isolationism.

Interesting, in any case.

RELATED: From Lisa Graas, "Louisville Tea Party Organizers Defend Rand Paul."

Not Everyone Has Right to Live in U.S.

From Walter Williams, at IBD:

I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S. That being the case suggests there will be conditions that a person must meet to live in the U.S. Then the question emerges: Who gets to set those conditions? Should it be the United Nations, the European Union, the Japanese Diet or the Moscow City Duma? I can't be absolutely sure, but I believe that most Americans would recoil at the suggestion that somebody other than Americans should be allowed to set the conditions for people to live in the U.S.

What those conditions should be is one thing and whether a person has a right to ignore them is another. People become illegal immigrants in one of three ways: entering without authorization or inspection; staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry; or by violating the terms of legal entry. Most of those who risk prosecution under Arizona's new law fit the first category — entering without authorization or inspection.

Probably, the overwhelming majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are hardworking, honest and otherwise law-abiding members of the communities in which they reside. It would surely be a heart-wrenching scenario for such a person to be stopped for a driving infraction, have his illegal immigrant status discovered and face deportation proceedings. Regardless of the hardship suffered, being in the U.S. without authorization is a crime.

Cartoon Credit: Michael Ramirez.

RELATED: At NYT, "Immigration Law in Arizona Reveals G.O.P. Divisions" (via Memeorandum). Putting the newspaper's leftist spin aside, I'm surprised that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell opposes the Arizona law. Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin have formed a winning team on the issue, and it can only be local open-borders constituencies pulling those normally-reliable GOP stalwarts to the left. (Also interesting is the discussion of California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, who's been hammered by Steve Poizner on the issue. Whitman's flip-flopping illustrates perfectly how she'll be a Schwarzennegger clone if elected --- a likely scenario, dreadfully so.)

Friday Night Hula Hoop Blogging

Theo Spark solved the Friday night babe hunt, and boy this woman's got skills on hula hoop!

Now let's see if Stogie has some matching commentary to go with that. No doubt Bob Belvedere might be able to come up with something (not to mention Irish Cicero).

RELATED: Sir Smitty might have use for this post in his forthcoming "Rule 5 Sunday" entry.

Julio Aparicio, Spanish Bullfighter, Gored at Feria San Isidro, Plaza de Toros de las Ventas, Madrid (May 21, 2010)

At Spain's leading daily, El Pais, "Julio Aparicio sufre una cornada muy grave en Las Ventas":

More pictures here.

And from Promoción Madrid, "BULLFIGHTING: FERIA DE SAN ISIDRO":

From May 6 to June 12, the San Isidro and Aniversario bullfighting events will be held in Madrid
May is Madrid's month for bulls. The Feria San Isidro, the most important bullfighting event in the world, will take place at Plaza de Toros de las Ventas in May, and then the Feria del Aniversario takes over the celebrations.

Since Livinio Stuyck included all of the May events in the Madrid patron saint festivities in 1947, Madrid has become one of the most significant bullfighting benchmark events in the world. In the beginning, the event had five bullfights and one of the main innovations was the inclusion of a season ticket so audiences could attend all the festivities. The event has only continued to grow and the once modest festivities have expanded to 25 afternoons.

Hat Tip: iOWNTHEWORLD.

Added: More video here.