Syrian Forces Open Fire on Anti-Government Protesters

At NYT, "Syrian Troops Open Fire on Protesters in Several Cities" (via Memeorandum). And at WSJ, "Syria Regime Rocked by Protests":

Thousands of protesters demanding political liberalization marched in cities across Syria on Friday, an unprecedented display of public dissent that prompted violent clashes with security forces and left dozens dead and injured, according to witnesses and media reports.

The protests, once unthinkable against a regime believed to have an unshakable grip on security, came a day after President Bashar al-Assad's government announced economic and political concessions aimed at appeasing protesters and getting them off the streets.

Some U.S., European and Israeli officials saw the potential weakening of Mr. Assad's government—a close ally of Iran and key player in regional politics— as an important opening to significantly undermine Tehran's role in the region.

But there remained concerns that the turmoil could usher in more wide-scale bloodshed or, should Mr. Assad fall, another regime hostile to the West.

You don't say?

At Neocon Express, "Syrian Regime Mowing People Down in the Streets - Obama Silent":

The top video was available on YouTube just as this entry went live. The middle video c/o Neocon Express. And at bottom, protesters destroy a statue of the late Syrian strongman Hafez Assad.

Obama is Awesome!

"I don't care!"

Hey, cool and awesome, like JBW!!

Libya and the Anti-Intervention Left

From Jamie Kirchick, at World Affairs Journal:

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson argues that the campaign against Muammar Qaddafi represents the height of hypocrisy. Because the United States is abstaining from taking military action against other regimes in the region that are also using force to quell domestic uprisings—namely, Bahrain and Yemen—“all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms” are bunk. The war in Libya “isn’t about justice,” Robinson says, “it’s about power.” Far from arising out of some neoconservative impulse to spread democracy, he argues, the military action against the Libyan regime is rather an example of “realism” ...

The guiding principle of American foreign policy should be to support freedom overseas, when we can, where we can, and however we can. There are no firm rules by which this principle can be implemented. Libya, however, presented a rather obvious case: a murderous dictator who had the blood of many thousands of innocent people—including American citizens—on his hands, who had fomented instability in his region, and who had for many years been a leading sponsor of international terrorism, was suddenly confronted by a mass domestic insurgency. He reacted violently, in a way that rendered moot whatever economic benefit he was providing to the West. He all but announced his intention to commit genocide against his own people, stating that he would “cleanse Libya house by house,” practically rendering international intervention a legal imperative due to the stipulations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the United States is a signatory. Furthermore, from a basic practical standpoint, and unlike in Yemen and Bahrain, Libya is located on the periphery of Europe, meaning that continued strife would have resulted in a mass refugee exodus onto the shores of NATO states. By assisting an indigenous revolt, and not partaking in the dread warfare of the sort that liberals like Robinson so fervently opposed in Iraq, the United States and its allies were given a prime opportunity, the sort of opportunity that arrives once in a blue moon, to overthrow a despicable regime and implement something better in its stead.

More at the link.

Kirchik is a great writer.

Republican Party of Wisconsin Seeks E-Mails From UW-Madison Professor William Cronon

This is fascinating.

The background's at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "GOP seeks e-mails of UW-Madison professor." The state GOP wants History Professor William Cronon's e-mails --- those sent on university servers --- going back to January 1st. It's a legitimate open-records request, and the university also has a policy against the use of institutional resources for partisan purposes. I'd personally like to see Cronon's communications. I read his super long response to the party's request this morning: "Abusing Open Records to Attack Academic Freedom." Cronon published an op-ed at the New York Times last weekend: "Wisconsin's Radical Break." I read this at the time and was unsurprised by his progressivism. But check Cronon's blog post. He suggests that the GOP open-records request is pure intimidation, and perhaps it is. But I'd think anyone doing some serious writing and organizing on these issues would be exceedingly careful to segregate teaching and research functions (on university equipment) from political activism likely to raise questions of controversy. Ann Althouse writes on this, suggesting that she's careful to use private e-mail for political advocacy, although she posts a defense of Cronin from UW Chancellor Biddy Martin.

And on top of all this comes Nobel Prize-winning economist and blogging Princeton Professor Paul Krugman, "Academic Intimidation" (via Memeorandum):

Cronon has a wisconsin.edu email address — but nobody, and I mean nobody, considers such academic email addresses something specially reserved for university business. Actually, according to Cronon he has been especially careful, maintaining a separate personal account — but nobody would have considered it out of the ordinary if he mingled personal correspondence with official business on the dot edu address. And no, the fact that he’s at a public university doesn’t change that: when my students take jobs at Berkeley or SUNY, they don’t imagine that they’re entering into a special fishbowl environment that they wouldn’t encounter at Georgetown or Haverford.

But then, we know perfectly well what’s going on here. Republicans aren’t looking for some abuse of Cronon’s position; they’re hoping to find some statement that can be quoted out of context to discredit him. At the very least, they hope that other academics will henceforth feel intimidated.

What I'm loving about this is not that Cronon's getting hassled, but the beautiful hypocrisy that's raised by the obvious counterfactual hypothesis: Had Cronon been a conservative professor and tea party activist, progressives would be cheering the perfect justice of a state Democratic Party open-records request. But Cronon's a big-time leftie, so the big guns like Paul Krugman are coming out in his defense. It's predictable and pathetic. And of course there's nothing secret about leftist professors and union organizers abusing public facilities for their political activities. Warner Todd Huston had a report this morning: "Michigan: Teachers Trying to Hide Union Activism in School Email Accounts."

At my college political communications on the district's server had long been routine, but after progressive faculty members successfully lobbied against my office bulletin board (to censor a GOP campaign bumper sticker), which later resulted in a full-blow investigation, I stopped looking the other way. Here's the policy at the California Community College Chancellor's Office (via):

"The use of district resources to support or oppose ballot measures or candidates is restricted. The fundamental reason for the restriction is that public money cannot be used for partisan activities. Put another way, resources that have been obtained for the district's support from all taxpayers must not be used "to take sides." Therefore, district employee time, equipment, supplies, or other public resources may not be used in advocating for either side of a ballot measure or to support or defeat any candidate. These restrictions are largely set out in an article in the Education Code entitled "Political Activities of School Officers and Employees" that encompasses sections 7050 through 7058."

It pisses the hell out of my communist colleagues, but I'll no longer stand for the despicable double standards. It used to be live and let live regarding campus political activities. But it's to the point of intimidation now. Progressives are thugs --- especially union-backed college professors --- and I'm hardly one to take it lying down.

RELATED: See William Jacobson, "Strange What Gets Them Excited in Wisconsin."

Botched Neocon Wars? Hardly

Ideological simplification is one of the biggest problems we're seeing with all the intense debate over Libya and the wider "Arab Spring." One example is Andrew Sullivan's little piece that stops just short of slamming neocons as fascist. Sully draws on C. Bradley Thompson's recent book on neoconservatism, but amplifies the implications without the theoretical context. For background, see Thompson's recent piece, "Neoconservatism Unmasked." It's pretty abstract, but if Thompson's right, there's a lot in my personal philosophy that's at odds with the neoconservative program hypothesized there. That said, much of the current debate over intervention in Libya hinges on the argument that the Iraq war was a colossal blunder of world historical proportions. It's the progressive meme that the Bush administration blew the mission after the initial post-conflict phase of operations. The photo-op on the USS Abraham Lincoln came to symbolize the hubris of an administration many argued was hell-bent on war and profanely dismissive of international norms. There's no convincing ideological partisans otherwise, of course, so it's probably not worth it to make the effort. Yet real-world events have repeatedly shown that the Bush administration's foreign policy was frequently masterful and often quite successful. There's been a long slide in Afghanistan's political efficacy, which is why we're still there today, after ten years of war. But in Iraq, the lodestar for progressive attacks on the "Bush-Cheney cabal," the revolutionary changes in the Middle East have elevated Baghdad to regional diplomatic prominence. See New York Times, "Ready or Not, Iraq Ascends to Take Helm of Arab Bloc":

BAGHDAD — After Libya was suspended from the Arab League last month, de facto leadership ended up coincidentally in the hands of Iraq, the Arab nation with the most experience — much of it painful — with a foreign-led military campaign against an unpopular dictator.

For all of that still unsettled pain, the foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari — in his new capacity as head of the Arab League — rushed off to Paris last Friday evening to join Western and Arab allies, where he argued passionately in favor of action against Libya, citing the American no-fly zone in northern Iraq that protected the Kurdish population from Saddam Hussein in the years before the American invasion here, according to a senior official who took part in the Paris deliberations.

And soon, Iraqi leaders, who are facing their own protest movement, plan to use their own troublesome democracy, still bloody and inchoate, as a showcase for Middle East countries. Iraq is taking on a larger diplomatic role in regional affairs as host of the group’s annual summit meeting — while assuming the rotating presidency of the league — in May.

“If there’s a political message, it’s that Iraq is back to play a major and positive role in the Arab region,” said Labid Abawi, the deputy foreign minister who has led a committee to prepare Baghdad for the summit meeting.

“We take pride in that Iraq has already exceeded all these other Arab countries in establishing a democratic regime,” he said. “Now, we can say yes, we are on the right track, and other Arab countries can follow suit in establishing a democratic regime.”

There's more at the link, but I want to reiterate the point above: No amount of evidence, not even Iraqi testimony on the country's democratic consolidation, will wrest from idiot progressives the claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was a debacle. It's all they have, along with endless allegations of racism and the demonization of Israel. And to respond to simpleton Mike Tuggle, who asked if I'd lost my "'neo-conservative illusions' as a result of the botched Neocon Wars?," the answer is no --- because I don't have any illusions to lose.

The Muslim Student Association — 'A Virtual Terror Factory'

Patrick Poole is interviewed at the clip. He indicates that the Muslim Students Association "has been a virtual terror factory." No doubt. And if you call these mofos out on it they go ballistic, as I learned at UCLA. Via Blazing Cat Fur. Watch it all the way through. David Horowitz's exchange with UCSD's Jumanah "For It" Albahri is toward the end:

Communist Medea Benjamin: 'Put Israel On a Leash'

I didn't think this was much of a debate to begin with. Seton Motley's first comments on Libya resembled paleoconservative talking points. But get a load of the discussion of Israel, at about 8:00 minutes. Motley gets suckered into defending Israel for "stealing" Palestinian land. He does better at about 10:00, but Benjamin's non-metaphorical line that Israel "needs to be put on a leash" is over the top. And run the clip all the way through. Benjamin is the perfect communist Jew-bashing useful idiot. No doubt she cheered Itamar:

Conservatives and the Libyan War

One thing I believe in firmly is the universal desire for human freedom. It's an American thing, you could say, univeralistic in the Jeffersonian sense of "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Believing in universal principles doesn't mean we throw off our more studied inclinations toward realism. And by this I don't mean the perverted realism of Stephen Walt and the neo-isolationist Israel-bashers. No, it's the realism for holding up interests to the light of pragmatism over idealism. With the Egyptian revolution, for example, the hopes for liberation engendered powerful emotions of solidarity with people breaking the chains of their poverty and oppression. The problem, of course, is that the nature of the Mubarak regime was to elevate the most extreme forces in society as the bogeyman to justify authoritarian rule. At the same time the tempering forces of civil society were suppressed to prevent pluralistic impulses that might threaten the regime. And when the spontaneous outpouring of revolt hit the streets the Obama administration's incompetence and indifference worked to let slip the opportunity for shaping a pro-democratic wave that might have limited the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Attention has moved away from Cairo as new developments elsewhere have captured the news. But Egypt's election on constitutional reform a few days ago was said to favor Islamist forces in the country. And because those same forces will be less committed to peace with Israel, and perhaps to an extreme fundamentalism domestically, it's clear that democratic change in Egypt hasn't seen the coming of a freedom-producing utopia.

I'm reflecting here in light of David Horowitz's essay, "Why I Am Not a Neo-Conservative." Folks should read it all. There's little I disagree with, especially on the dangers of democratic elections in totalitarian cultures. It's hard to be bullish on democratic change when the key principles of constitutional order include the extermination of the Jews, as it is with the Hamas Charter. But there's more to neoconservatism than foreign policy and war, which is a point that I keep stressing, since it's getting lost in the fog of Obama's foreign policy. Horowitz even calls for folks to abandon the "neo" and return to being just conservatives. To do that, of course, is to abandon the long tradition of moral-based conservatism that been shaping cultural debates in the U.S. since at least the 1960s. A larger understanding is required. It's appropriate to recall that neoconservatives aren't currently unified on change in the Middle East. Refer to Matt Lewis' recent article as well, "Abusing and Misusing The ‘Neo-Con’ Label," where he notes how the term's been bastardized by critics.

In any case, Victor Davis Hanson ---whose work was extremely influential in the top circles of the Bush administration during the runup to the Iraq war and beyond --- puts things in perspective at National Review, "Let Us Count the Ways ...":

Why are many conservatives against the Libyan war? Is it, as alleged, political opportunism — given their prior support for the 2001 and 2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. Most of us support wholeheartedly our troops now that we are in, but opposed the intervention for reasons that were clear before we attacked, and are even clearer now. Among them ...

Be sure to read it all.

Poll Shows Declining Support for Jerry Brown Budget Fix in California

At Los Angeles Times, "Poll shows public support for Brown's budget plan is slipping."

And see the press release at PPIC, "Support Slips for Special Election."

RELATED: At SF Gate, "Brown signs off on billions worth of state cuts."

The unions are mobilizing. I should have lots on California's Big Labor thugs in the weeks and months ahead.

Authorities Shut Down San Gabriel 'Birthing Tourism' Maternity Center

This ought to feed the debate on birthplace citizenship. And these women are Chinese!!

At LAT, "'Birthing tourism' center in San Gabriel shut down":

From the outside, they looked like other recently built San Gabriel townhouses — two stories, Spanish style, with roofs of red tile.

Inside they were maternity centers for Chinese women willing to pay handsomely to travel here to give birth to American citizens.

Southern California has become a hub of so-called birthing tourism. Operators of such centers tend to try to blend in, attracting as little attention as possible.

But on quiet, residential Palm Avenue, neighbors had noticed an unusual number of pregnant women going in and out, and some complained about noise.

On March 8, code enforcement officials shut down three identical four-bedroom townhouses functioning as an unlicensed birthing center.

Israel Strikes Gaza Following Palestinian Rocket Fire‎

At Jerusalem Post, "IDF strikes Gaza after barrage of rockets hit country."

Also, "The PA's Empty Condemnation of Terror":

Shortly after the explosion of the bomb packed with steel balls, nails and screws that killed Briton Mary Jane Gardner and wounded 50 people – including two critically – Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad publicly condemned what he specifically called a “terror attack.”

Unfortunately, but not uncharacteristically, the prime minister detracted from that condemnation by adding that the act was “despicable,” particularly in light of the huge damage such attacks have inflicted on the Palestinians in the past. The implication from Fayyad, the ex-IMF economist touted by both local and international media as a “moderate reformer,” was that were it not for the potential negative ramifications for Palestinians resulting from the attack, beginning with possible restrictions on Palestinian movement, the attack would not have been quite so despicable.

Still, at least Fayyad admitted that the death, pain and destruction caused Wednesday unmistakably constituted terror. That was more than what Reuters was willing to concede. In a news report describing the incident, the news agency noted that “Police said it was a ‘terrorist attack’ – Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike.” Apparently, for Reuters, the intentional, indiscriminate murder of civilians with the purpose of terrorizing might constitute something other than terrorism when it is directed against Israel.

RTWT.

Death Threats Against Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly

Deborah Pauly, a local conservative councilwoman from Villa Park, spoke at last month's Yorba Linda rally against Islamic jihad. She criticized Muslim support for terrorism as "pure, unadulterated evil." Since then she's been the target of a growing protest campaign, with ANSWER communists leading a protest on Tuesday night. The story's now front page news at today's Los Angeles Times, "Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly ignites controversy with speech at Islamic charity event." Naturally, the initial viral video, which was edited out of context, was circulated by CAIR, with the help of the Soros-financed smear-merchants Think Progress.

And it's no surprise that the Times' front page report omits this very important detail:

In a related development, a 27-year-old San Pedro man was arrested Tuesday and charged with making death threats against Pauly by sending her a message on Facebook.

Also, "CA councilwoman threatened over remarks at protest":

27-year-old man pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of threatening a councilwoman over remarks she made at a protest outside a gathering of Muslims last month in Yorba Linda.

Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly contacted authorities after Paul Dean Andrews, of San Pedro, sent her a message on Facebook on March 3 threatening violence against her with weapons, prosecutors said ...

Andrews, who was being held on $100,000 bail, was angry at Pauly over her comments, which many interpreted as anti-Muslim, at a February protest outside a charity fundraiser held by Islamic Circle of North American Relief USA, authorities said. Andrews was scheduled for a pretrial hearing March 30, prosecutors said.

How Progressives Talk About Israel Behind Closed Doors

I'm a much more intelligent political scientist than I was five years ago. And amazingly, I owe this to blogging --- that is, to being online and reading the subterranean filth of progressive anti-colonialism (among so much else, unfortunately). It's been developing, but I've had one of those life awakenings in which you say to yourself, "If I had this to do over again ..." Mostly, though, I just shake my head and look forward to a chance at sabbatical, when I can do something more formal in the way of writing. Anyway, five years ago, when I first read Walt and Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby" I looked at it mostly from the perspective of pluralist theory in political science. Had I known more about the left's drive to a new Jewish Holocaust I no doubt would have been more discerning in my appraisal. But it's all come together over these last fews years, and I can see things in a new light. There's a moral inversion in the world, and an individual's stance on Israel is a pretty good indicator of one relationship to universal right. I keep telling myself that perhaps it's not so bad, that the screaming demons of contemporary evil are a blip of reality. Nothing to worry about in the long run. Truth and justice will prevail. But again and again I'm taken aback, and not just on Israel and the Middle East. Abortion politics and the normalization of social deviancy on cultural issues want to drive me to drink. But as we've seen with Itamar and Jerusalem, rarely is the immediacy of moral bankruptcy so powerful as in the militant annihilationism facing Israel.

At any rate, I'm going off like this after reading Scott McConnell's essay at Mondoweiss, "Five years ago today, Walt and Mearsheimer gave Americans the vocabulary to discuss a central issue." The piece has something of a hush-hush feel to it, like we're allowed to peek inside the redoubts of conspirators. Here's this for example:

What stood out from the first page was the tone—measured but firm, uncompromising but not strident. Every assertion seemed precisely weighed, put forth without exaggeration, flamboyance, or polemical excess. Also striking was the absence of gratuitous deference towards the opponent. There was no pulling of punches, no telltale signs of anxiety about the consequences of an argument taken too far, or indeed made at all. Such was my first reaction to reading John Mearsheimer’s and Steve Walt’s Israel Lobby paper, posted five years ago today on the website of Harvard’s Kennedy School, and published in shorter form in the London Review of Books. It had arrived at the opening of business one morning in an email from Michael Desch, then a professor at Texas A&M’s George H. W. Bush School of Government. I sent it across the hall to my colleague Kara Hopkins, a woman a generation my junior, somewhat less engaged than I by the Middle East, and certainly less persuaded that a coterie of neocons had gotten George W. Bush on a leash and were leading him this way and that. Three minutes later I walked into her office, where she had the paper up on her screen. “This is exactly what I believe,” said Kara, words that I had never heard from her before on any subject, much less this one.

That's some significant moment, that Kara Hopkins realized that she wasn't alone in her suppressed anti-Israel sentiments. No doubt it was a relief, and I'm sure this happened in history, political science, and sociology departments around the country, if not further across the academy. But keep reading McConnell's piece, and keep in mind that he's publishing this at Mondoweiss, which is the progressive left's most aggressive anti-Israel blog on the web. Omar Barghouti's publishing there as well, which gives you and idea of eliminationist pedigree of the roster. But back to the essay. See the further discussion and how it's an explication of un-closeting anti-Semitism in elite circles:

Save a handful of exceptions, mainstream dissent from the special relationship with Israel has taken the form of the dry aside or the understated sentence or two published amidst a lot of other stuff, almost as if the author hoped it would not be noticed. Occasionally public figures at the end of their careers made remarks that more resembled outbursts, the parting shot of the seventy- five year old senator or aging general. But more often than not, ever sensitive to the perils of anti-semitism, Americans let their fears of contributing to injustice shut off necessary debates ...

The reasons differed for every individual, and were composite. There was the worry about offending close Jewish friends or colleagues, concerns over possible adverse professional consequences, or the general inhibitions associated with the Jewish power/leading to anti-Semitism/leading to the Holocaust nexus.* The result was that critical analysis of the special relationship was shoved to the margins of American political discourse. The discussions may have been richer and more involved on the Marxist and anti-imperialist Left than on the quasi-isolationist Old Right, but in neither case did they much influence the political mainstream. Even in the wake of the Iraq disaster, with the looming prospect more American wars in the Middle East, Israel’s role was alluded at most in passing, but seldom really pursued.

Seriously. McConnell's just admitting that the kind of anti-Semitism found on the fringes of ideological extremism in earlier decades is now mainstream. Those who follow these questions wouldn't be surprised. The problem is that it's not just the academy. Yesterday Reuters described the Jerusalem bus attack with terrorism in quotation marks --- as in "terrorist attack" --- to indicate that this was some made up meme fostered by Israeli officials. It's despicable. But this is the kind of whitewashing of evil that passes for mainstream reporting.

More later ... (and keep reading that Mondweiss essay ... it's like another world).

RELATED: From Lawrence Auster, "What cheers Scott McConnell?"

Moral Bankruptcy in Media Coverage of Jerusalem Bombing Attack

Omri Ceren has the background, at Commentary, "Media Coverage of Bus Bombing Emphasizes Settlements, “Palestinian Victims”." But see especially, Melanie Phillips, "Terror and Moral Imbecility":

Clearly, there is currently a huge upsurge in murderous violence by Arabs from the disputed territories, of which this bus bombing is but the latest example. It therefore takes a particular degree of bone-headed malevolence to view this latest attack instead as a ‘tit-for-tat' response to Israeli violence. But then, the BBC and other British and western media have all but ignored the rocket attacks, and minimised the Fogel massacre. As usual, Israeli victimisation is thus denied in an obscene moral equivalence – which invariably turns Israel from a victim attempting to defend itself into the aggressor.

But the media’s culpability does not end there with its mere perversion of journalism. The fact that it can be relied upon to blame the Israelis for their own slaughter means that the slaughterers believe they can murder Israelis with impunity – better still, that the more Israelis they murder, the more Israel will be blamed; and if Israel should take military action to stop the attacks, the world will punish Israel and reward its attackers even more.

ClaireAir

At New York Times, "Democrats Can’t Afford Mistakes Like McCaskill’s Plane":

Democrats in the Senate face steep odds in 2012. They are defending more than 20 seats against an energized Republican party, which only needs to pick up four seats to win the majority. Five Democratic incumbents are retiring from the Senate, making their seats instantly more vulnerable to Republicans.

In short, Senate Democrats can’t afford to make any mistakes.

Which makes the scandal in Missouri over Senator Claire McCaskill’s private plane the kind of unforced error that could come back to haunt the national party in the days after the 2012 election.

Love it!

Also, at The Blog Prof, "Irony: Clair McCaskill, caught not paying $287k in taxes, ran campaign ad touting paying of taxes."

Tamar Fogel Speaks Out: 'Everything That Happens to the Jewish Nation Won't Break Us'

This was the interview just after her family was murdered. Only 12 years-old and now the responsibility to look after her younger siblings:

"Whenever someone talks about 'the quality of the discourse', you know they're full of sh*t."

From the comments at Althouse, where folks had a whale of a time after Rob "Moral Abomination" Farley banned Meade. Also:

No big loss for Meade. I gave up on those shitbirds after one day. It didn't take 5 minutes for Koch/Halliburton/Truther/AGW-insanity to dominate any given thread.

Humorless and with no command of the language is no way to run a blog, LG&M.

I'm enjoying this one. Almost all of the evil LGM regulars are implicated, including DocAmazing, DrDick, and Malaclypse. CUND Gulag also haunts the threads, and Demon Dirtbag TBogg just loves Lawyers, Gays and Marriage, although I'd rather not wade through the effluence to find those freaks. The cowardice is exquisite, that's for sure.

Benjamin Netanyahu Promises Swift Response to Wave of Palestinian Terrorism

At Ynet, "Netanyahu vows 'firm, wise' response to terr or: PM says IDF has 'iron will' to defend Israel, apparently approves series of Gaza strikes":

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened an emergency session at Ben-Gurion Airport Wednesday, ahead of his departure to Russia, apparently approving a series of strikes in Gaza following the recent wave of terror.

"Ever since the government's establishment, we set clear policy – a firm response to any attempt to harm Israeli citizens, coupled with methodical, firm preventative steps against terror," Netanyahu said following the meeting. "This policy prompted two years of quiet and security, and all of Israel's citizens became familiarized with this blessing, enjoy the fruit of this quiet, and walk the streets fearlessly.

"We will act forcefully, responsibly and wisely to preserve the calm and security that have prevailed here over the past two years," Netanyahu said.

RELATED: At NYT, "Rockets From Gaza Hit Deep Into Southern Israel."

The Hate-America Left Mobilizes for Revolution

From Liz Blaine, at FrontPage Mag, "Organizing for Revolution: The Final ‘Push’ To Transform America."

“A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” ~ Mao

We are currently in the midst of a battle for the heart and soul of America. This war is being waged at our schools, the workplace and in our communities. States struggling to moderate impossible debt and balance budgets are examining ways to free themselves from the fiscal and political shackles imposed by labor unions whose exorbitant pensions and benefits comprise the bulk of their debt. With the economy tanking and the fight over public union benefits and collective bargaining spreading across the United States, a totalitarian minority recognizes this as their make-or-break moment – their time to seize control of the social and economic environment by force rather than individual choice.

Hiding behind the labels of progressive, labor and social justice, this totalitarian minority is intrinsically linked with Communist, Socialist and Marxist ideologies. Their goal is to dismantle the foundations of our government and force the revolutionary transformation of America into their worldview. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose membership parallels the Congressional Progressive Caucus roster, describe their objective,

“To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy.” [Sound familiar?]

To accomplish their goal Socialists infiltrated leftist organizarions to the highest levels of leadership. The U.S. labor movement has a strong history of Socialist leadership but in recent decades members of the DSA gained control of the largest U.S. labor unions, AFCSME, SEIU and the AFL-CIO, creating a resurgence of militant communist/socialist views among their ranks. AFL-CIO Chief Richard Trumka recently admitted his main goal is using unions to fundamentally change America into his progressive vision.

The enemy is within and poised to destroy America. While speaking this past weekend in a closed session at the 2011 Left Forum, an annual gathering of Marxists and hard-left radicals that included Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, and Frances Fox Piven, former SEIU banking director Stephen Lerner detailed the Left’s secret plan to “destabilize” the country. The full length video below reveals the depths to which the left are willing to go to seize control over the American economy. [H/T to The Blaze and Business Insider.]

Click through for the full video. The excerpted clip is at top.

RELATED: At The Blaze, "Rush Slams Bank Plot Author: ‘Pure 100% Anti-Capitalist‘ Who ’Despises America’."

Eric Cantor Slams Obama on Response to Jerusalem Terror Attack

At The Hill, "After bombing, Cantor hits Obama admin. handling of Israel." Also, at Israel Matzav, "Cantor statement on suicide bombing nails Obama." And from the Office of Rep. Eric Cantor, "Leader Cantor's Statement on Violence in Israel":

“Today’s bombing in Jerusalem is another chilling reminder of the obstacles Israel faces in its quest to live in peace with its neighbors. Israel is a true friend to the United States and a vital strategic ally in an unstable region. In the face of unremitting terror, Israel can count on the continued support of the United States as exercises its right to defend its people.

“Within the past two weeks, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have launched dozens of unprovoked rocket attacks at innocent Israelis, while in the West Bank a terrorist brutally murdered a family as they slept in their home. These attacks must not be downplayed as mere episodes in a game of tit-for-tat between Israelis and Palestinians. There is absolutely no justification for deliberate and deadly attacks on innocent civilians.

“This kind of violence does not emerge in a vacuum; it is incubated through education and nurtured by popular culture. The sooner the world comes to grips with this reality, the sooner that there will be peace in the region. That’s why we must use the recent attacks to address the root cause of this violence: anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian mosques, schools and media – and the blanket refusal on the part of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist that it has created.

“The Administration has called on Israel to make sweeping concessions that I believe will endanger its security, but it doesn’t seem to demand similar from the Palestinians. That’s why I support bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate that call on the White House to put an end to anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian territories. No matter how much we desire Mideast peace, it will remain a pipe dream so long as Palestinian culture makes martyrs of terrorists who target innocents.”

Britain's Royal Air Force Jet Fighters Refuel in Skies Over Cyprus on Wednesday

This one's for Theo Spark, a blogging buddy and coalition partner:

Also, live blogging at Telegraph UK, "Libyan air force destroyed, RAF commander says."

Terror in Jerusalem: Bus Bombing Kills One, Injures Dozens, in Sign of Escalating Campaign Against Israel

Bare Naked Islam has the winning headline: "THIRD INTIFADA HAS BEGUN: Bomb explodes on Jerusalem bus." Also at Pamela's, "Islam Attacks: Explosion Rocks Jerusalem bus stop; 25 wounded, Dead unknown." And the New York Times reports, FWIW: "Deadly Blast Strikes Outside Jerusalem’s Central Bus Station."

See also Jihad Watch, "Time for Muslims to hand out candy in Gaza: Woman dies of wounds in Jerusalem jihad bombing." And Jerusalem Post, "1 dead, 39 injured in Jerusalem bus station bombing" (via Memeorandum).

Expect updates ...

Woman Dragged Nearly Three-Quarters of a Mile in Tustin

Dragged to her death.

See: "Tustin woman dragged for blocks after being struck by motorist."

Notice the Red Hill Avenue sign at the clip. I pass that off ramp every morning, northbound, on my way to the college. Sad.

No Rally 'Round the Flag Effect on Libya Airstrikes

This is strange. One of the most common phenomena of public opinion and war is for the public to rally dramatically behind the president upon the commitment of U.S. troops to action. But according to polls on President Obama's use of force against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, this administration's action is seeing the lowest "rally 'round the the flag" effect compared to at least nine military operations since President Reagan's bombing raid against Gaddafi in 1986. See Gallup, "Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%." Today 47 percent back Obama's authorization of force against Libya, whereas in 1986 a whopping 71 percent supported President Reagan's decision to strike Gaddafi's compound during Operation El Dorado Canyon. As Gallup notes:

Support for the current involvement in Libya is also much lower than support for U.S. airstrikes against Libya in 1986 in response to the Libyan bombing of a German nightclub that killed two American servicemen.

The president is also not benefiting from a personal "rally 'round the flag effect," which is the surge of approval for the president's job handling during the use of military force. David Weigel reports, "No Obama Poll Bounce from Libya." And progressive pollster Nate Silver does his best to put Obama in good standing, "Poll Finds Tentative Support, Potential Risks for Obama on Libya." The explanation for Obama's lackluster numbers could be war fatigue, but the president's indifference and relatively muted public statements can be contrasted unfavorably with previous administrations more comfortable with the projection of U.S. military power. In other words, presidential leadership matters and this White House is lacking.

That said, CBS News has an outlier with some higher levels of support: "Nearly 7 in 10 support air strikes in Libya, CBS News poll finds." It's probably a flawed sample, given the wide discrepancy, but at least Obambi will have something on which to pin his hopes.

Obama Cuts Short Latin American Sight-Seeing Tour

You can't make this stuff up.

Barack Hussein was planning to tour some Mayan ruins? No doubt that'll play well across the shores of Tripoli, to say nothing of the American midwest. At New York Times, "Obama to Head Home a Bit Early":

For Mr. Obama, who was traveling with his wife, daughters, mother-in-law and a family friend, Wednesday was to be mainly a day of sight-seeing — to Mayan ruins and to the cathedral where Archbishop Oscar Romero is buried, on the anniversary of his assassination during the nation’s civil war of the early 1980s.

And at USA Today, "Global crises overshadow Obama's 2011 agenda":

President Obama returns to the White House today after a six-day trip to Latin America that was intended to focus on jobs, trade and the economy — but the world just wouldn't cooperate.

A partial nuclear meltdown in Japan, a U.S. military operation in Libya, a looming budget showdown in Washington and more have overwhelmed Obama's agenda, raised risks for the nation's fragile economic recovery and opened him to criticism from not only the emerging Republican presidential field but also some congressional Democrats.

Welcome home, Mr. President.

CAIR, Unindicted Hamas-Financer, Sought Millions From Muammar Gaddafi

Nothing to see here. Move along.

From Atlas Shrugs, "Muslim Brotherhood Hate Group CAIR Sought Gaddafi's Money." And IPT, "CAIR Officials Sought Gaddafi Money."

This is despicable. And note this: Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR, used a different identity when establishing the Muslim Peace Foundation, a financing group:

The foundation was created in May 2008, corporate records filed in Washington, D.C. show. Officers include Shaw and Awad, who is listed as Nehad Hammad. Awad also used the name Nehad Hammad in CAIR's founding articles of incorporation in 1994. During a 2003 deposition in a civil lawsuit, Awad acknowledged his "full and complete name is Nihad Awad Hammad."

Regime Change the Only Viable Solution in Libya

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "We're (Almost) All Neocons Now." After a primer on the surging popularity of neoconservatism --- from French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Princeton Political Scientist Anne-Marie Slaughter --- Stephens reminds us:

It's easy to forget that Iraq was a war many liberals—Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton among them—once supported, when they could bring themselves to hate Saddam more than they did the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. The latter passion overwhelmed the former for a few years, but eventually the initial logic of their position was bound to reassert itself in some similar scenario.

So it has been with Libya. The moment the Libyans revolted, the U.S. could not have remained silent without doing violence to bedrock American values. And so President Obama said Gadhafi must go. The moment Mr. Obama said that, the administration could not be indifferent to the outcome without risking the wrath of a vengeful Gadhafi, as well as a wider Arab audience that would have felt profoundly betrayed by empty U.S. promises. And so Mr. Obama crossed his fingers that the rebels would win, and win fast.

The moment Gadhafi turned the tide and threatened to massacre his opponents, the administration was bound to try to stop him for purely humanitarian reasons. And so Mr. Obama pressed for international action, even as he hoped the U.S. would not have to be directly involved. The moment it became clear that there would be no such intervention without U.S. involvement, the U.S. became involved.

Now the administration is again at a crossroads as it ponders what to do next. Sooner or later it will figure out that any road that doesn't lead to Gadhafi's death, imprisonment or exile is a cul-de-sac that can only mean the de facto partition of Libya, or Gadhafi's survival, or a long civil war from which the West cannot easily disentangle itself.

Put simply, regime change is the only viable option for resolving the crisis in Libya, a point most sentient observers are beginning to grasp. And regime change is only going to come about if the U.S. presses the matter. So why is the administration so reluctant to acknowledge the obvious?

Compare to Stephen Walt's, "What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance." Walt sounds more and more like a Paulbot. And he's long given realism a bad name. Not only that, his analysis is riddled with clichés. The United States hardly wields its military like hammer, obviously, since untold nails of humanitarian crises remain un-pounded. Indeed, the lost souls of Rwanda haunt the conscience of the West today. Americans can't intervene everywhere, but that's not a likelihood anyway. Walt --- and the anti-military paleocons before him --- simply raves against robust U.S. engagement in the world. It's isolationist and morally bankrupt.

Coalition Airstrikes Hit Libya Again: Tripoli and Surroundings Targeted in Fourth Barrage in Last Several Days

The main story's at LAT, "Coalition Airstrikes Target Tripoli." Reports of civilian causalities at both videos, with the U.S. denying the allegations:

RELATED: There's all kinds of commentary at Memeorandum, but too little hours in the day. Still, I'll try to post on Stephen Walt's essay later.

VIDEO: Sarah Palin Meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

More at Cubachi and Gateway Pundit.

F-15E Fighter Jet Crashes in Libya

Developing news, from New York Times, "American Warplane Crashes in Libya as Ground Fighting Continues." Also at Memeorandum.

Obama Has Thrown American Interests to the Wayside

The best as ever, Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post, "America’s descent into strategic dementia" (via Memeorandum). She pulls no punches, and puts "realists" like Stephen Walt to shame. This is one of those essays best read in full. The second passage on Obama's anti-American foreign policy is classic, but this section below reaffirms the point I made here earlier on the need to be wary of the Libyan opposition:

One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi’s former ministers.

But while these men – who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle – are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC’s 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi’s opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Also, from David Horowitz, "The War Against Israel Has Begun."

Robert Farley Banned Meade? Meade!! Bwahahahaha!!!

OMG this is too rich!

Robert "Moral Abomination" Farley of Lawyers, Gays and Marriage banned Meade, Ann Althouse's husband. Not only did he ban him, he deleted his comments! "Candy-assed" is putting it mildly! As Ann notes:

I don't link to them anymore, but I'll note that they are getting challenged about deleting all of Meade's old comments. They are trying to argue that all those comments were spam that needed to be removed. But the bloggers and commenters over there had interacted with Meade. You don't interact with spam. A step up from spam is "troll." But everyone knows not to feed the troll. Why did they go back and forth with Meade if he was a troll? Their interaction is the evidence that he was not a troll. Robert Farley simply became exasperated and embarrassed when Meade outwrote him, and he destroyed the material that made him look bad. He's like a scientist who destroys his data after his conclusions are questioned. The obvious presumption in the case of destruction of evidence is that it hurt your case. Of course, the evidence of their interaction with Meade is still there, and that evidence also, as I've just explained, is evidence against them. What colossal losers!

And here's Jason Van Steenwyk in the comments at LGM:

Bad form.

Petty, amateurish, juvenile and unprofessional. Particularly the vindictive deletion of Meade’s old posts.

What are you, an obnoxious 15 year old girl or something?

And the “pedigree” remark.

Geez.

Follow the links back and check out the pathetic rationalization from Moral Abomination Farley. This is really just wow!

Sarah Palin Meets With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Yid With Lid has the video from Governor Palin's visit to the Temple Mount yesterday.

And just in from Los Angeles Times, "Sarah Palin, in Jerusalem, Affirms Her Support for Israel":

Laying a foundation for a prospective presidential bid, Sarah Palin wrapped up an abbreviated tour of India and Israel on Monday, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and declaring her fidelity to the Israeli people.

Earlier in her two-day sojourn to Israel, Palin toured the sacred Western Wall and its adjacent tunnels in Jerusalem's Old City, and appeared to contend that Israelis were too deferential to Arab concerns.

"Why are you apologizing all the time?" the former Alaska governor asked her guides at the wall, according to the Jerusalem Post, after being told that Jews were not allowed to pray openly on the Temple Mount and about the Arab riots that followed Netanyahu's opening of an exit from the tunnels in 1996.

Palin's drive-by trip to Asia and the Middle East were viewed as a means to bolster her foreign policy credentials at a time when the 2012 Republican landscape is beginning to take some shape. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced the formation of an exploratory committee Monday.

RTWT.

Media Ignores Union Thuggery

Glenn Reynolds has an essay at the New York Post, "Uncivil Disobedience."

And a vlog from Ann Althouse, "What I think of the threat against me, blogging the protests, and how the recall elections can benefit the GOP." Ann compares union thugs to terrorists just after 40 seconds. Yeah, they're "just like al Qaeda," although how about Hamas or the Taliban --- they'll slit your effin' throat given the chance:

RELATED: At Wisconsin State Journal, "Analysis shows emails to Walker favored budget repair bill" (via Memeorandum and Nice Deb).

Obama's Liberal Internationalist Intervention

Ross Douthat is getting to be like his old self! This is an excellent essay, "A Very Liberal Intervention." The key to remember here is that "liberal" has some dual usage in this piece. Most folks think of "liberal" as referring to left-of-center politics domestically, but in the discourse of international relations, "liberal" is construed more in the classical economic sense of markets and institutions. Political liberals at home promote liberal institutionalism abroad, which means a reliance on international institutions and the submission of U.S. power to the constraining effect of multilateral organizations. The United Nations is the epitome of "liberalism" in both senses of the word. It supports a leftist agenda through an internationalist regime of supranational power. If that's at all confusing then folks will understand why "progressive" is a far superior label for leftists. The power of the individual or the autonomy of states is reduced either way. In any case, check out Douthat's argument:

In its month-long crab walk toward a military confrontation with Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Obama administration has delivered a clinic in the liberal way of war.

Just a week ago, as the tide began to turn against the anti-Qaddafi rebellion, President Obama seemed determined to keep the United States out of Libya’s civil strife. But it turns out the president was willing to commit America to intervention all along. He just wanted to make sure we were doing it in the most multilateral, least cowboyish fashion imaginable.

That much his administration has achieved. In its opening phase, at least, our war in Libya looks like the beau ideal of a liberal internationalist intervention. It was blessed by the United Nations Security Council. It was endorsed by the Arab League. It was pushed by the diplomats at Hillary Clinton’s State Department, rather than the military men at Robert Gates’s Pentagon. Its humanitarian purpose is much clearer than its connection to American national security. And it was initiated not by the U.S. Marines or the Air Force, but by the fighter jets of the French Republic.

This is an intervention straight from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, in other words, and a stark departure from the Bush administration’s more unilateralist methods. There are no “coalitions of the willing” here, no dismissive references to “Old Europe,” no “you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Instead, the Obama White House has shown exquisite deference to the very international institutions and foreign governments that the Bush administration either steamrolled or ignored.

Keep reading at the link above. Douthat lays out a nice analysis of the pros and cons, although he misses one key objection to the administration's policy: dithering. The month-long delay of action is not the result of the need to build consensus with allies. It's the result of Obama's indecisiveness and indifference. And readers should not read this as a blanket endorsement of the intervention. Like Egypt, it's not clear what what kind of government is likely to come to power. Extremists groups are on the rise globally, and it's radical Islamism at the state level that's going to be our biggest challenge over time (not just transnational terrorist groups). Had Obama acted sooner the U.S. would have had more opportunity to promote democrats over Islamists. By now though, Islamist extremists have endorsed the rebel action and made plans for regime change. Here then is where the White House is failing American security, and it's a good bet that Hillary Clinton announced her eventual departure for this very reason.

In any case, I don't normally credit him, but Josh Marshall has a thoughtful piece on all of this, so what the heck? Some additional thoughts to consider, at the least: "Just a Bad, Bad Idea" (via Memeorandum).

Rule 5 Veena Malik

Well, here's a chance to get in some Rule 5 hotness along with some counter-jihad blogging.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Hot Chick Rips Mufti A New One!":

And the ladies are putting in an excellent Rule 5 showing:

* American Perspectives, "Rihanna looks gorgeous in Vogue. Well done, Annie Leibovitz."

* Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Natalie Gulbis and March Madness Sweater Puppies."

* Teresa's Blog, "Rule 5 - Kisses with Grace Kelly."

And see the other friends of American Power: Amusing Bunni's Musings, Astute Bloggers, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Eye of Polyphemus, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, Pirate's Cove, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, Yankee Phil, and Zion's Trumpet.

Plus, top it off with Theo's Bedtime Totty.

And also a big thanks to Proof Positive, who once again has been doing some great roundups.

BONUS: PA Pundits International has some great breaking news and analysis.

As always, drop your link in the comments to be added to the roundups.

Ralph Nader, Formerly America's Premier Consumer Advocate, Now Just a Run-of-the-Mill Obama-Hating Antiwar Communist

I'd say "Bush-hating antiwar communist," but G.W. long ago split the scene. This is Obambi's war, and he's starting to rouse the deeper layers of the neo-communist contingents. And if it were just Daniel Ellsberg that'd be one thing. He's been known as a fellow-traveler for some time now. But Nader was the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, winning something like 3 million votes nationwide. He's a reformer who's purportedly done much to improve life for Americans. Say it ain't so Ralph! You're making Noam Chomsky proud with that rant about war crimes, sheesh! Just don't go nuclear on Israel, will ya? Consistency might at least help your legacy. But if you go aggro Jew-hater on Jerusalem that's it. You'll be remembered by anti-Semitism instead of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Or wait, been there already, Ralph? "Criticizing Israel is Not Anti-Semitism." Okay, fine. I can see why you're so well liked over at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!

Anyway, see the full report at The Hill (via Memeorandum):

Obama Plays Soccer While Allies Launch Second Day of Airstrikes on Libya

Thinking ahead, the GOP's 2012 presidential hopefuls should have a mother load of material to hammer Obambi's foreign policy. Seriously. On Brazil, I can't see how this is good. Maybe the White House might hire some non-homosexuals for social protocol. Firm up the messaging, you know. This just doesn't seem to be setting the right tone. At Marooned in Marin, "While Attacks Are Made Against Libya, Obama Plays Soccer With Kids in Rio," And Weasel Zippers, "President Obama Plays Soccer in Rio":

And here's the word, on Twitter:

Where would John F. Kennedy be right now? In his office at the White House surrounded by his advisers.

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "Bombing campaign in Libya targets Kadafi's air, ground forces," and also Memeorandum.