Kimberley Strassel: 'Who's Winning the Budget War?'

At Wall Street Journal:

Here's the Washington headline of the week that nobody in America got to read: Paul Ryan, 40. Barack Obama, 0.

Forty is the number of Senate votes that went in favor of Mr. Ryan's reformist budget, a tally that included nearly every Senate Republican. Zero is the number of votes President Obama got for his own tax-and-spend budget, a blueprint that not one of his own party had the backbone to support. It went down, 97-0.

Washington is in a game of high-stakes chicken over raising the debt limit, though so far only one side is flinching. According to the headlines (and Democrats), Republicans are on defense over Mr. Ryan's plan, are risking America's creditworthiness, and are delaying sensible compromise by refusing tax increases. It is only a matter of time, goes the betting, before the party swerves.

This has little relation to reality, in which it is Democrats who keep calling their own bluffs. It was Mr. Obama who first swerved, submitting a "do-over" of his initial, embarrassing budget. It is Democrats who have since swerved on the debt-limit debate, agreeing to spending-cut negotiations, then continuing to up the size of a package.

By refusing to blink, Republicans keep forcing Democrats to acknowledge a very simple political reality: Voters do want spending reform, and do not want tax hikes. That's why this debate has so far moved in the GOP's direction.

RTWT. Strassel mentions NY-26's special election, and she predicted the Democrat victory a couple of weeks ago in any case, "A New York Warning for the GOP":

Good news for a politics-weary nation: Come May 24, the debate over the Paul Ryan budget reform plan will be over—almost before it began. Democrats win. Republicans lose. Long live blowout entitlements.

That, at least, is the narrative being cast on the upcoming special election in New York's 26th congressional district. GOP candidate Jane Corwin had been handily ahead until several weeks ago, when Democrat Kathy Hochul began attacking her for supporting Mr. Ryan's plan. Polls have tightened, and Democrats and the media are now pitching the race as a "referendum" on GOP hopes to cut spending and reform entitlements such as Medicare. A Hochul victory, goes the line, will prove the Ryan plan is a bust even with conservative voters.

Fascinating, if utterly untrue. In their drive to nationalize this story, Democrats and the media are deliberately ignoring the real (if mundane) reasons why the Corwin campaign is struggling—namely, GOP infighting that has allowed a third-party candidate to siphon votes. New York 26 does offer the GOP some important lessons about the entitlement debate—just not any that Democrats are flogging.

See also, John McCormack, "NY-26: Democrat Kathy Hochul Wins with 47% of Vote."

Net-a-Porter Jumpin'

Via Harper's Bazaar:

And see Net-a-Porter while you're at it.

CWCID: Bob Belvedere.

Laura Ingraham Accepts Ed Schultz's Apology

Laura's been quite gracious though all of this.

But don't miss Dana Loesch's essay, which just hammers the progressive misogyny that animates the left, and notes that Schultz is the only one to apologize for the hate so far: "Ed Schultz: Sorry For Calling You a Slut."

I wish Schultz’s behavior was more the exception rather than the rule but sadly, it isn’t. The majority of progressive males with whom I come in contact always seem to exhibit a vicious hatred for conservative women, one I can’t explain, one that transcends rational disagreement and goes deeper than the basic chauvinistic stereotypes. It’s disturbing and it’s especially disturbing how our society, for the most part, looks the other way. I could spend a week daily highlighting the various examples here on Big Journalism but the time wouldn’t be enough.

When I heard Ed Schultz’s remarks, I heard an angry, older man lashing out at a woman because she thinks differently about politics than he. I heard in him the voice of the many progressive males who send me hatemail daily, telling me I should suffer any number of indignities, some of which I am obligated to report to the police and the cyber crimes division. It’s not just me – every conservative female of my acquaintance with a voice in politics endures the same political cat-calling. It’s despicable.

Disagreement is par for the course with this business. Sexism and outright neanderthal behavior is not.

Rae Abileah at Mondoweiss: 'Why Did I Disrupt?'

It's a regurgitation, but interesting that Abileah is posting at the reviled Mondoweiss. These people are literally insane:

Young Jews like me hear stories like Samouni’s, and we see clearly that Israel’s actions do not embody our deepest Jewish and humanistic values, which have taught us to love our neighbors and work for justice. We read in the Torah (Leviticus 24:22), “You shall have one standard (mishpat ehad) for stranger and citizen alike. . .” We also read in the Israeli equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, the Megillat ha-Atzmaut, that “[the State of Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex. . .” This rich and long Jewish commitment to social justice and equality bears no relation to Zinad Samouni’s experience of living under a crippling blockade and losing her loved ones to a brutal military onslaught that made no distinction between civilians and combatants.

It was this schism that we sought to expose during disruptions of Netanyahu’s speeches at the AIPAC conference and in Congress. Some decried our actions as “rude”, and “inappropriate.” But after countless fruitless attempts to petition lawmakers through traditional channels, we felt the time was ripe for a nonviolent direct action that would speak truth to this head of state. Netanyahu is, after all, responsible for the violation of Palestinians’ lives and human rights.

My neck pain is a small price to pay compared with the sacrifices made by numerous Palestinian, Israeli, and international nonviolent protesters who’ve risked their bodies and lives to defend the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. For example, recently the Israeli army arrested brothers Bassem and Naji Tamimi, who have organized unarmed protests in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, and they are currently imprisoned without trial. Israel sent Palestinian Abdallah Abu Rahmah of Bil’in to prison for his role in organizing nonviolent protests against Israel’s illegal, land-confiscating wall. In March 2003, the Israeli Army bulldozed 23-year-old American Rachel Corrie to death when she attempted to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. In March 2009, the army shot 38-year-old Tristan Anderson of Oakland, Calif., who was participating in a nonviolent anti-wall demonstration in the West Bank, with a high-velocity tear gas canister, causing a near-fatal head wound and brain injuries. These are only some of most egregious and visible examples of the daily violence faced by Palestinians and their supporters in their struggle to uphold human rights and international law.

There's more at the link above. Basically disinformation and propaganda, and not a single mention of terrorism against Jews, with the final solution of driving Israelis to the sea.

Recall my entry from last night, which puts anti-Zionist self-hating Jews in perspective: "B'Tselem: The World's Most Destructive Anti-Israel Organization."

(The video's an interview from Al Jazeera.)

Ratko Mladic, Bosnia War Crimes Suspect, Arrested in Serbia

At the Charleston Post Courier, "Serbia Arrests Mladic on War Criminal Charges":

BELGRADE, Serbia -- After 16 years on the run, a frail and haggard Ratko Mladic was hauled before a judge Thursday -- the first step in facing charges for international war crimes, including the slaughter of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in 1995.

No longer the fearsome, bull-necked military commander, Mladic was arrested by intelligence agents in a raid before dawn at a relative's house in a village in northern Serbia. The act was trumpeted by the government as a victory for a country worthy of European Union membership and Western embrace.

Mladic, 69, was one of the world's most-wanted fugitives. He was the top commander of the Bosnian Serb army during Bosnia's 1992-95 war, which killed more than 100,000 people and drove another 1.8 million from their homes. Thousands of Muslims and Croats were killed, tortured or driven out in a campaign to purge the region of non-Serbs.

He was accused by the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for the massacre of Muslims by Bosnian Serb forces in eastern Bosnia and the relentless four-year siege of Sarajevo.

Also, at Christian Science Monitor, "After Ratko's arrests, a look back at the Srebenica massacre."

Buy American? DNC's Debbie Wasserman Schultz Drives 2010 Infiniti FX35!

The Hill reports, "DNC chairwoman doesn't drive American" (via Memeorandum):

The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) appears to drive a foreign car, despite criticizing Republican presidential candidates for supposedly favoring foreign auto manufacturers.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama's 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.

"If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes," she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.

But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company. The car appears to be hers, since its license plate includes her initials.

The Christian Science Monitor's piece is here: "DNC chair: Without the auto bailout, we'd all drive foreign cars (VIDEO)." And see John Pitney, "Buying American."

Harvard's Stephen Walt Speaks at Code Pink's Move Over AIPAC! Summit, May 21, 2011

Alana Goodman had the heads up last month: "Move Over AIPAC, Here Come the Geriatric Anti-Semites."

It's shameful. The schedule is here. And check the group's list of ORGANIZATIONAL ENDORSEMENTS & PARTNERS. It's a one-stop shop for the global left's international solidarity movement. And of course Code Pink's the premiere fifth column organization working against both American interests and Israel's existence.

It's shameful for Stephen Walt, and it's shameful for Harvard and the political science profession.

RELATED: "Stephen Walt, Harvard's Israel-Bashing Political Scientist, Implicated in Libyan Influence-Peddling Scandal."

EXTRA: While enjoying sensational success on the anti-Israel left, Walt's book, The Israel Lobby, hasn't held up well to scholarly scrutiny. See Itamar Rabinovich, "Testing the 'Israel Lobby' Thesis."

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007

At Los Angeles Times, "'Business death penalty' for hiring illegal workers is upheld by Supreme Court." (Via Memeorandum. Also at New York Times, "Justices Uphold Law Penalizing Hiring of Illegal Immigrants.")

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.

The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.

The court's decision did not deal with the more controversial Arizona law passed last year that gave police more authority to stop and question those who are suspected of being in the state illegally. But the ruling is likely to encourage the state and its supporters because the court majority said states remained free to take action involving immigrants.

Thursday's decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose "civil or criminal sanctions" on employers.

PHOTOS: "South O.C. Patriots Rally for Arizona!"

B'Tselem: The World's Most Destructive Anti-Israel Organization

A really important piece at the new Commentary, from Noah Pollak, "The B'Tselem Witch Trials." Grab a cup of coffee. In fact, you might want to print this one for reference. I'd have to post extremely long excerpts not to do damage to the argument, but two parts stuck out for me in particular. One is the discussion of Anat Biletzsky, a Professor of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University and Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut. Here's a passage, and this is even segmented:

Biletzky’s activism reached its apogee in 2004, when she helped write what is known as the “Olga Document,” a rambling tract named for the location in Israel where it was written. Israel, the letter says, is a “death trap” and “the biggest ghetto in the entire history of the Jews”; “military operations and wars has [sic] become the life-support drug of Israel’s Jews.” It goes on to state that “we are living in a benighted colonial reality—in the heart of darkness”; and that Israel seems “determined to pulverize the Palestinian people to dust” by subjecting them to “the nightmare of apartheid, the burden of humiliation and the demons of destruction employed by Israel unremittingly, day and night, for 37 years.” Out of “racist arrogance,” the document claims, Israelis across the political spectrum “depict the Palestinians as subhuman.”

The Olga Document continues: “We are united in a critique of Zionism, based as it is on refusal to acknowledge the indigenous people of this country and on denial of their rights, on dispossession of their lands, and on adoption of separation as a fundamental principle and way of life.” Besides adopting the self-evidently racist claim that only Arabs are “indigenous” to the land of Israel, Biletzky also called for the repeal of all laws and the end of all practices that make Israel a Jewish state. This, she said, along with creating an Arab majority in Israel through the Palestinian “right of return,” would finally absolve Jews of the moral stain that is Israel.

Biletzky has also acknowledged that she has been working to end Israel as a Jewish state since the late 1960s. She stated that “Israel [today] is like the Nazis or like Germany in ’34” and that life for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza “is something that I do not hesitate to call a concentration camp.”

Biletzky is not merely an apologist for terrorism. At times, she has given terrorists moral support, as she did in the case of Azmi Bishara. He was a member of the Knesset from the Balad Party, an anti-Zionist Arab faction. In 2006, Bishara fled Israel after coming under investigation for espionage and high treason. When the gag order on the case was lifted in May 2007, it was revealed that Bishara had acted as a paid informant for Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War, apparently helping the group select targets in Israel for missile attacks. It was also discovered that he had stolen millions of shekels from Arab charities. Biletzky responded to these devastating revelations by publishing a statement of solidarity in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that read, in its entirety, “Azmi Bishara—we are brethren.”

Throughout her history of apologetics for violence and terrorism against Israel’s Jews, as well as her advocacy for the dismantling of the Jewish state, Biletzky has always been called a human-rights activist. For reasons that may be disturbing to contemplate, the journalists who eagerly report her organization’s accusations against Israel have never taken her biases into consideration when assessing the veracity of B’Tselem’s accusations. Most telling of all, perhaps, at no point did members of B’Tselem itself—its board, its employees, or its army of supporters—protest the extremism in its own ranks.

Also, Pollak's conclusion answers some questions relating to the development of the international campaign of delegitimation against Israel:

The story of those Israeli Jews who have made careers out of attacking Israel’s right to exist, such as Biletzky and [Oren] Yiftachel, illustrates the degradation of the once mighty Israeli peace movement. Originally, the movement sought legitimacy and prominence in Israeli politics, and received it for a time—and because it was part of the political process, it was constrained by the need for electoral support and popular legitimacy. Yet the collapse of the Oslo Accords in 2000 and the Palestinian terror war that followed presented the peace movement with an existential crisis: With whom, exactly, were Israelis supposed to make peace? The withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza five years later, and the entrenchment in the vacated territory of Iranian-backed terrorist groups, further disillusioned Israelis and called into question the central proposition of the peace movement: if Israel makes the right concessions, peace will follow. And so, over the past 15 years, the peace movement has fallen from a position of influence in Israeli politics to one, today, of irrelevance, an anachronism that no longer has realistic answers to Israel’s problems.

What remains of the peace movement is a white-hot core of activists who refuse to acknowledge their failure and yet cannot gracefully recede from the political stage. They have discovered an innovative formula for rebuilding their political relevance completely outside the democratic political arena: reconstitute themselves as NGOs and conceal their political agenda in the apolitical rhetoric of human rights and international law. In this guise, the peace movement no longer has any need to win elections or offer a serious platform for governance. The NGOs instead position themselves as a blunt opposition force working against mainstream Israeli society, which is viewed as unsophisticated, provincial, racist, and stricken with “security hysteria.” This “human-rights community” has thus not only opposed every consensus Israeli security measure—Operation Defensive Shield during the
intifada, the security fence to stop suicide bombers, the targeted killings of terror-group leaders, the Lebanon War, and the Gaza War—but has branded them war crimes and human-rights violations for which Israel should be punished.

In these circumstances, where there is no point in trying to succeed at the ballot box, leftist Israeli activism now directs itself internationally in the hopes that fomenting a narrative of Israeli criminality will invite enough sanction and condemnation from Europe, the United Nations, and America to force Israel to accede to the demands of these otherwise powerless radicals.

The policies they support would constitute nothing less than Zionism’s destruction. And they apparently have no compunction about seeking its destruction from without, since they have learned to their disappointment and rage that Israel is too strong a nation to allow itself to be destroyed from within.

The full article is here. At top is a recent B'Tselem video. The destruction of Israel. Once again, that's what all of this is about.

John Edwards Facing Indictment for Alleged Campaign Law Violations Tied to Affair Cover-Up

At ABC News, "John Edwards: U.S. Green-Lights Prosecution for Alleged Campaign Law Violations Tied to Affair Cover-Up." Also, at Los Angeles Times, "John Edwards 'did not break the law,' attorney says."

And excellent commentary from TigerHawk, "The Poetic Prosecution of John Edwards":

I have long thought that the media's disparate treatment of John Edwards and Sarah Palin was the most powerful evidence of structural bias toward the left. Edwards was having an affair and the media turned a blind eye. Palin was pregnant by her husband, and the media accused her of faking it and swarmed Alaska with investigators. Edwards had no useful experience -- he was a trial lawyer, which is training for essentially nothing important, and a one-term Senator -- and nobody in the press questioned his qualifications. However one might weigh Palin's resume, she was no less experienced than Edwards (that would be difficult) and the press hammered her constantly for it. Edwards was vain as can be and the press did not even suggest that he was a narcissist (which he obviously is). Palin bought some better looking clothes for campaigning and the whole press pool jumped on it. Edwards could not make a speech without reminding us he was the son of a "mill worker" who had gotten rich and the media ate it up as evidence of humble beginnings. The Palins actually built a successful small business and the media mocked it as a stunt. One could go on.

KINDA RELATED: I saw this the other night at Michelle's: "How to become a leading Democrat’s blogmaster; Updated/Correction–and more wit and wisdom of Amanda Marcotte." And more at the "Amanda Marcotte" search. A really bad woman. Reminds me of Carl Salonen.

Hosni Mubarak Facing Murder Charges

At WSJ, "Murder Trial for Mubarak: Egypt's Ex-Leader Could Face Death Penalty in Historic Case":

CAIRO — Egypt's former President Hosni Mubarak will become the first Arab head of state to face trial after being deposed by his own people, marking a pivotal moment in the revolutions that have swept across more than half a dozen nations since the start of the year.

Mr. Mubarak and his two sons, Alaa and Gamal, will face charges of "intentional murder, attempted murder of demonstrators, abuse of power to intentionally waste public funds and unlawfully profiting from public funds for them and for others," Egypt's attorney general said Tuesday.

If found guilty of murder charges, Mr. Mubarak could face the death penalty, said Nasser Amin, an Egyptian lawyer and member of the International Criminal Court.

The date for the trial hasn't been announced. But the decision to try Mr. Mubarak, who ruled Egypt for nearly 30 years, raises the stakes for uprisings in Libya, Syria and Yemen.

For the U.S., the spectacle of a trial could prove embarrassing and will likely complicate its diplomatic efforts in the region. Mr. Mubarak was for decades one of America's staunchest allies in the Arab world and a leading recipient of U.S. aid. Prosecution of an Arab leader who agreed to step down and hand over power is likely to undermine U.S. efforts to persuade other Arab leaders to give up power peacefully.

Check the Google page if WSJ's behind the paywall.

A really interesting development.

'Sanctimonious Jackass Brad DeLong vs. Political Philosopher Chris Bertram'

From Brian Leiter, going after "Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at U.C. Berkeley" (c/o Instapundit).

Leiter slams DeLong as a "a dishonest scumbag." And, while yeah, there's plenty of those, looks like DeLong's got the upper hand, actually.

Follow the links at Leiter's place, especially to DeLong: "'Washed-Up, Marginal, Authoritarian, and Unappealing Leftist Watch: "Castro Did Lots of Good and Humane Things, Despite Being a Dictator; but the Bottom Line Is U.S. Hatred of Castro Had Nothing to Do with His Being a Dictator...'"

And you know, it's an intra-progressive debate, so they're all pretty much scumbags. Frankly, Leiter himself comes off the epic prick, and truth be told, strip away Bertram's fancy bullshit parsing, the commie dicks at Crooked Timber are a bunch of social justice "sick fuck"* losers.

* Birds of a feather. See Amy Alkon, "sick fuck adult losers ..."

Ed Schultz Apologizes for 'Vile' Attack on Laura Ingraham

Not something you'd ever see from the Sadly No! clowns, or the commies at Lawyers, Guns and Murder. Frankly, the sick freaks'll be throwing the likes of Ed Schultz under the bus:

Previously: "MSNBC's Ed Schultz Suspended After Attacking Laura Ingraham as 'Right-Wing Slut'." And lots at Memeorandum.

Palin May Run

At New York Times, "Signs Grow That Palin May Run" (via Memeorandum).

Also, at NewsMax, "Palin Fundraiser, Home Purchase Fuels Speculation of 2012 Run." See also, "Townhall Magazine Cover Story: Is She In or Out?"

I'll believe it when I see it.

MSNBC's Ed Schultz Suspended After Attacking Laura Ingraham as 'Right-Wing Slut'

Here's this from the network: "STATEMENT FROM MSNBC REGARDING ED SCHULTZ." (Via Memeorandum.)

Brian Maloney broke the story, "DEPRAV-ED: Libtalker Ed Schultz Uses Vulgarity to Attack Conservative Host":

Michelle reported on Schultz this morning, before he was suspended, and she's updated, "More misogyny at MSNBC: Neanderthal host attacks Laura Ingraham as a “slut;” Update: Schultz off air one week, apologizes":

In January, I published “The progressive ‘climate of hate:’ An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.”

Review it here.

Part IV was a section on anti-conservative female hate, with tons of links on the sexist rhetoric of the Left.

You’ll recall that the “M” in MSNBC stands for misogyny.

Here’s a new entrant in the race to the bottom, from syndicated radio host and MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz, via Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney ...

RTWT.

Also, Ingraham's responded quite succinctly on Facebook.

Typical progressives. At least Ed Schultz isn't anonyomous, like the cowards at Sadly No!, who match this misogyny on a daily basis, "sick fuck adult losers."

Benjamin Netanyahu on Sean Hannity's Show

At Fox News, "Cable Exclusive: Israeli PM Netanyahu Talks Candidly About Mideast Conflict, Relationship With U.S.":

Code Pink Activist Rae Abileah Accuses Israel of War Crimes on Democracy Now!

And she says that the United States is "not the kind of democracy I want to live in."

Well, duh. These idiots hate Western liberal democracy and are doing the damned-well best to bring an end to it.

I think that the act I took of courageously standing up in front of Congress doesn’t—the opportunity to do that doesn’t come along very often. But every day, as Americans, we have an opportunity to stand up. And whether it’s putting our money where our hearts are, by participating in economic pressure against Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or calling our Congress people or taking other actions, it’s time for us to say no to this terrible policy that, just as Dr. Barghouti has illustrated, will not bring about peace. Netanyahu proved yesterday that he is the primary obstacle to peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians. And to see our Congress giving away three billion of our tax dollars every year to Israeli war crimes, while our economy suffers, while our kids can’t go to college, while our needs aren’t being met here at home, is absolutely an outrage ...

I just wanted to say that the people that were sitting around me in the gallery of Congress yesterday were mostly wearing badges from the AIPAC Israel lobby conference. And I did not expect that people holding such power and representing such a huge lobby group would respond so violently to my peaceful disruption. And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, "This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia." And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.

Alas, another Islamofascist tool. Israel Matzav has more: "The Moron Who Heckled Netanyahu." And Weasel Zippers, "Leftist Who Heckled Netanyahu Whines: Da Joooos Tackled Me And Now I’m In The Hospital Draped With a Protest Flag Mugging For The Camera With a Concerned Looking Dr. And a Neck Brace On."

PREVIOUSLY: "Code Pink Disrupts Netanyahu Speech to Congress."

Obama's Mideast Plan Strains Jewish Ties

At LAT, "Obama's Jewish backers on edge over his Mideast peace plan."

Well, you know, perhaps LAT's got a skewed sample. Folks at the Times should check with M.J. Rosenberg and his Jewish pro-terror allies.

And ICYMI, Bret Stephens, "An Anti-Israel President."

Stephens is also at the video and just destroys Simon Schama:

RELATED: At Haaretz, "Israel preparing itself for Twitter war over Palestinian state: Foreign Ministry bracing for a flood of pro-Palestinian tweets ahead of the UN session on a Palestinian state."

Looking Back at the Apollo Mission, 50 Years Later

At New York Times:

It was the spring of 1961. President John F. Kennedy, speaking of new frontiers and projecting the vigor of youth, had been in office barely four months, and April had been the cruelest.

On the 12th, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth — one more space triumph for the Soviet Union. Though the flight was not unexpected, it was nonetheless deflating; it would be more than a month before Alan Shepard became the first American in space, and that was on a 15-minute suborbital flight. On the 17th, a force of anti-Castro exiles, trained by the C.I.A., invaded communist Cuba at the Bay of Pigs — a fiasco within 36 hours. Mr. Kennedy’s close aide Theodore Sorensen described him on the 19th as “anguished and fatigued” and “in the most emotional, self-critical state I had ever seen him.”

At one meeting, his brother Robert F. Kennedy, the attorney general, “turned on everybody,” it was reported, saying: “All you bright fellows. You got the president into this. We’ve got to do something to show the Russians we are not paper tigers.” At another, the president pleaded: “If somebody can, just tell me how to catch up. Let’s find somebody — anybody. I don’t care if it’s the janitor over there.” Heading back to the Oval Office, he told Mr. Sorensen, “There’s nothing more important.”

So, 50 years ago, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience, declaring: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth.”

There it was, the challenge flung before an adversary and to a nation on edge in an unconventional war, the beginning of Project Apollo.

RTWT.

We had good Democrats back then.

(I wasn't quite born yet, but I'll be 50 later this year.)

Scott Eric Kaufman Awards Students Who Like to Say F**k!

Well, it's no big f**king deal if you're a scumbag postmodern academic like UCI Composition Lecturer Scott Eric Kaufman. Nope. No qualms about it. See: "Fuckity fuck fuck. Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. Q.F.E.F.D. (F.F.)." I guess that's where Dolt Douche Thers gets HIS oeuvre. But hey, five'll get you ten SEK calls his buddies "cocksuckers" in private, or well, maybe that'd be more of Carl Salonen's patter.

In any case, check Scott "F**kity f**k" Kaufman's winning submission for the comic Scott McCloud assignment, "Every quarter I present my students with five panels from McCloud..." And get this: The winner "wishes to remain anonymous." Well, yeah. Scoring GPA points for profanity probably isn't the highlight of the grad school/law school apps (or, well, it's been a while since I took the GRE, so who knows?). The student's a beam in SEK's eyes, apparently: "Congratulations! I hate you! You're awesome!" At least he didn't say "I'll end you"!!

Freakin asshat.

Cynthia McKinney Statement on Libya: 'NATO – A Feast of Blood'

Longtime readers will recall that McKinney spoke at LBCC a few years back. I've been on her list-serve ever since. Normally I delete these, but she's been getting sensational coverage of late, so her latest communique is worth sharing (below).

See also Michelle, "Cynthia McKinney: Islamofascist Tool," and Gary Fouse, "Cynthia McKinney Speaks Out for Ghaddafi":

NATO – A Feast of Blood

While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was founded by the United States in response to the Soviet Union's survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.

NATO is a collective security pact wherein member states pledge that an attack upon one is an attack against all. Therefore, should the Soviet Union have attacked any European Member State, the United States military shield would be activated. The Soviet Response was the Warsaw Pact that maintained a "cordon sanitaire" around the Russian Heartland should NATO ever attack. Thus, the world was broken into blocs which gave rise to the "Cold War."

Avowed "Cold Warriors" of today still view the world in these terms and, unfortunately, cannot move past Communist China and an amputated Soviet Empire as enemy states of the U.S. whose moves any where on the planet are to be contested. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an accelerated opportunity to exert U.S. hegemony in an area of previous Russian influence. Africa and the Eurasian landmass containing former Soviet satellite states and Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the many other "stans" of the region, have always factored prominently in the theories of "containment" or "rollback" guiding U.S. policy up to today.

With that as background, last night's NATO rocket attack on Tripoli is inexplicable. A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night, rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel.

I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.

I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus. If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?

Women carrying young children ran out of the hotel. Others ran to wash the dust from their eyes. With sirens blaring, emergency vehicles made their way to the scene of the attack. Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people.

Sporadic gunfire broke out and it seemed everywhere around me. Euronews showed video of nurses and doctors chanting even at the hospitals as they treated those injured from NATO's latest installation of shock and awe. Suddenly, the streets around my hotel became full of chanting people, car horns blowing, I could not tell how many were walking, how many were driving. Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?

Whatever the military objectives of the attack (and I and many others question the military value of these attacks) the fact remains the air attack was launched a major city packed with hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I did wonder too if the any of the politicians who had authorized this air attack had themselves ever been on the receiving end of laser guided depleted uranium munitions. Had they ever seen the awful damage that these weapons do a city and its population? Perhaps if they actually been in the city of air attack and felt the concussion from these bombs and saw the mayhem caused they just might not be so inclined to authorize an attack on a civilian population.

I am confident that NATO would not have been so reckless with human life if they had called on to attack a major western city. Indeed, I am confident that would not be called upon ever to attack a western city. NATO only attacks (as does the US and its allies) the poor and underprivileged of the 3rd world.

Only the day before, at a women's event in Tripoli, one woman came up to me with tears in her eyes: her mother is in Benghazi and she can't get back to see if her mother is OK or not. People from the east and west of the country lived with each other, loved each other, intermarried, and now, because of NATO's "humanitarian intervention," artificial divisions are becoming hardened. NATO's recruitment of allies in eastern Libya smacks of the same strain of cold warriorism that sought to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow the Cuban Revolution with "homegrown" Cubans willing to commit acts of terror against their former home country. More recently, Democratic Republic of Congo has been amputated de facto after Laurent Kabila refused a request from the Clinton Administration to formally shave off the eastern part of his country. Laurent Kabila personally recounted the meeting at which this request and refusal were delivered. This plan to balkanize and amputate an African country (as has been done in Sudan) did not work because Kabila said "no" while Congolese around the world organized to protect the "territorial integrity" of their country.

I was horrified to learn that NATO allies (the Rebels) in Libya have reportedly lynched, butchered and then their darker-skinned compatriots after U.S. press reports labeled Black Libyans as "Black mercenaries." Now, tell me this, pray tell. How are you going to take Blacks out of Africa? Press reports have suggested that Americans were "surprised" to see dark-skinned people in Africa. Now, what does that tell us about them?

The sad fact, however, is that it is the Libyans themselves, who have been insulted, terrorized, lynched, and murdered as a result of the press reports that hyper-sensationalized this base ignorance. Who will be held accountable for the lives lost in the bloodletting frenzy unleashed as a result of these lies?

Which brings me back to the lady's question: why is this happening? Honestly, I could not give her the educated reasoned response that she was looking for. In my view the international public is struggling to answer "Why?".

What we do know, and what is quite clear, is this: what I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention."

Many suspect it is about all the oil under Libya. Call me skeptical but I have to wonder why the combined armed sea, land and air forces of NATO and the US costing billions of dollars are being arraigned against a relatively small North African country and we're expected to believe its in the defense of democracy.

What I have seen in long lines to get fuel is not "humanitarian intervention." Refusal to allow purchases of medicine for the hospitals is not "humanitarian intervention." What is most sad is that I cannot give a cogent explanation of why to people now terrified by NATO's bombs, but it is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." Where is the Congress as the President exceeds his war-making authority? Where is the "Conscience of the Congress?"

For those of who disagree with Dick Cheney's warning to us to prepare for war for the next generation, please support any one who will stop this madness. Please organize and then vote for peace. People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs. Libyans don't need NATO helicopter gunships, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and depleted uranium to settle their differences. NATO's "humanitarian intervention" needs to be exposed for what it is with the bright, shining light of the truth.

As dusk descends on Tripoli, let me prepare myself with the local civilian population for some more NATO humanitarianism.

Stop bombing Africa and the poor of the world!

RELATED: At New York Times, "NATO Bombs Tripoli in Heaviest Strikes Yet." And at National Journal, "Heavy NATO Action in Libya, While Rebels Invited to Open D.C. Office."

Code Pink Disrupts Netanyahu Speech to Congress

At Haaretz, "Heckler yells 'stop Israeli war crimes' during Netanyahu's speech to Congress: Jewish-American activist identified as Rae Abileah, a 28-year-old of Israeli descent and member of the group CODEPINK."

And see Move Over AIPAC!, "Protester disrupting Netanyahu in Congress arrested at hospital." Medea Benjamin's press release is at Code Pink's homepage.

Also, at The Blaze, "CODEPINK TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR NETANYAHU HECKLER — CLAIMS SHE WAS HURT." (And Director Blue, "Highlights of Netanyahu's Address to Congress With Special Non-Appearance by Rand Paul and Prayers for a Balkanized Jerusalem by Joe Biden.")

RELATED: From the comments at that YouTube thread:

He is a war criminal and mass murderer, also a liar, and a pathetic excuse for a human. Listen to all those retarded people clap for him. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. We are supposed to be a Republic. Fuck Netanyahu piece of shit ass.

Sounds like one of Charli Carpenter's commenters at Lawyers, Guns and Murder.

FULL VIDEO: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speech to United States Congress

Did you watch it? The text is at Facebook (via Memeorandum).

Netanyahu beats Obama on standing ovations, and that's without a teleprompter.

BONUS: If you haven't yet, be sure to check out M.J. Rosenberg on Twitter. The dude slurred Netanyahu as a "terrorist" the other day, but that tweet went down the memory hole. No worries though. Rosenberg's going all out at Talking Points Memo, "Congress to Palestinians: Drop Dead." And there's more anti-Jewish slurs on Twitter.

This is What Happens When You Trade Land for Peace

From Israel: You're Not Alone:

Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

At WSJ, "Netanyahu Maintains Firm Stance on Mideast," NYT, "Netanyahu Repeats Stiff Criteria for Peace," WaPo, "Netanyahu, Addressing Congress, Lays Out Vision for Mideast Peace."

Also, Jonathan Tobin, "Netanyahu’s Triumph," and Jennifer Rubin, "Bibi Does Not Disappoint, Rocks the House."

And video at The Right Scoop: "Benjamin Netanyahu's Epic Speech Before Congress." And from WaPo, "Transcript: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Address to Congress."

'The Best Part of Easy Rider is the Last 20 Seconds'

See Kathy Shaidle, "Leftists strangely silent about Peter Fonda’s death threat against Obama."

Well, actually Joe Gandelman sees an opening to slam the "fringe" right-wing: "Further Proof that Not All Nuts are in Stores or on the Right."

Full story at Telegraph UK, "Cannes 2011: Peter Fonda encourages his grandchildren to take up arms against President Barack Obama" (via Memeorandum). Says Fonda: "I’m training my grandchildren to use long-range rifles," with Barack Obama in mind.

BONUS: An amazing flashback. Exactly two years ago, I attended a 40th anniversary screening. Hey, great flick, "'Easy Rider' in 40th Anniversary Screening at L.A.'s Nuart Theatre."

Move Over AIPAC! Protests Netanyahu Speech

It's a Code Pink joint.

See Weasel Zippers, "Code Pink Does The Islamists Bidding at AIPAC: Continuously Interrupts Netanyahu’s Speech…"

IN THE MAIL: Subversion, Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers

From Matthew Vadum, Subversion, Inc.

It's a great read. I'll post some passages later ...

An Anti-Israel President

From Bret Stephens, at Wall Street Journal:

Say what you will about President Obama's approach to Israel—or of his relationship with American Jews—he sure has mastered the concept of chutzpah.

On Thursday at the State Department, the president gave his big speech on the Middle East, in which he invoked the claims of friendship to tell Israelis "the truth," which to his mind was that "the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace." On Friday in the Oval Office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered his version of the truth, which was that the 1967 border proposed by Mr. Obama as a basis for negotiating the outlines of a Palestinian state was a nonstarter.

Administration reaction to this reciprocal act of friendly truth-telling? "That was Bibi over the top," the New York Times quoted one senior U.S. official, using the prime minister's nickname. "That's not how you address the president of the United States."

Maybe so. Then again, it isn't often that this or any other U.S. president welcomes a foreign leader by sandbagging him with an adversarial policy speech a day before the visit. Remember when the Dalai Lama visited Mr. Obama last year? As a courtesy to Beijing, the president made sure to have the Tibetan spiritual leader exit by the door where the White House trash was piled up. And that was 11 months before Hu Jintao's state visit to the U.S.

When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year's greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.

The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Let's count the ways ...

RTWT.

Netanyahu v. Obama

Some folks might not know, but Benjamin Netanyahu is a former Israeli commando and military hero who took part in a rescue operation for Sabena Flight 571, in 1972, which had been hijacked by terrorists from the Black September organization. The Bloodthirsty Liberal has the story, "The Rescue Of Sabena Flight 571."

IMAGE CREDIT: Theo Spark, " Netanyahu vs. Obama, at the same age ..."

PREVIOUSLY: "Netanyahu at AIPAC."

Netanyahu at AIPAC

At Jerusalem Post, "PM: 'Israel cannot return to indefensible 1967 lines'." And, "Prime Minister Netanyahu's AIPAC Speech."

Also, from Joel Rosenberg, at National Review, "Netanyahu to AIPAC: Stop Iran or Israel Will":

After the worst week in U.S.-Israel relations in 35 years, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington Monday and gave a powerful and effective speech at the AIPAC gala dinner at the Washington Convention Center, warning the world to stop Iran — or Israel will – and respectfully but directly challenging the Obama administration on Jerusalem and the peace process.

Netanyahu received scores of standing ovations from the 7,800 guests in attendance, the biggest event in the history of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). More than half of the members of the U.S. House and Senate were there, as were ambassadors from more than fifty countries and many top Israeli officials, including defense minister Ehud Barak and opposition leader Tzipi Livni. The longest and most sustained came when the prime minister firmly resisted the policy of President Obama, who seeks to divide Jerusalem and stop Israel from building “settlements” in East Jerusalem.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement,” said Netanyahu. “It is our capital.”

More at the link.

RELATED: At WSJ, "Palestinian Statehood Vote Looms Over U.S.-Israel Rift."

Defund the Orange County Human Relations Commission

I received this e-mail today:

The most important thing that we may do this year is urge the Orange County Board of Supervisors to pull funding for the unconstitutional Human Relations Commission.

Also, please urge every OC taxpayer to write the Board of Supervisors to ask them to defund the Orange County Human Relations Commission. The simple message is that no government sponsored group should criticize or condemn any exercise of free speech. This group is not accountable to voters, has no legal or political power and has no business passing judgment on exercise of constitutional rights. This is crucial since free speech is the key to all of our other freedoms and the only tool we have to challenge groups that want to veto our speech rights. The very fact that this group dares to censor speech based upon their view of what "creates an environment of hate" is shocking. They have become a law unto themselves and their subjective judgments must stop.

Please write the supervisors below and tell them that free speech means exactly that: FREE speech. Our First Amendment does not say that speech is free unless a county commission thinks that it is offensive!!

bill.campbell@ocgov.com
john.moorlach@ocgov.com
shawn.nelson@ocgov.com
patricia.bates@ocgov.com
janet.nguyen@ocgov.com

A sample of the commission's anti-speech campaign: "OC Human Relations Commission Calls for a Return to Civility in Reaction to Muslim Charity Speakers and Protests."

The background, of course, is the manufactured outrage of political correctness that followed the protests by some breakaway activists in Yorba Linda in February, at an Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) fundraiser. The event was ruthlessly exploited by the Muslim Brotherhood's Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its neo-communist allies at George Soros' Center for American Progress. Gary Fouse has the background: "What Happens When Political Correctness Runs Wild."

RELATED: If folks have been reading Blazing Cat Fur, then what's happening in Orange County might sound familiar. Frankly, the O.C. commission sounds like a clone of the Canuckistan version, or vice versa: The Canadian Human Rights Commission. Or, some might remember the case of Mark Steyn: "The Kafkaesque Show Trial of Mark Steyn." (And some of Steyn's offending material, "The future belongs to Islam.")

Complaints were also filed against Ezra Levant for publishing the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons. Blazing Cat Fur has more on that today, "You only have to give "average" head to get a job at the CHRT...":

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor at AIPAC Policy Conference: VIDEO

At Weasel Zippers, "GOP Leader Eric Cantor Rips Obama at AIPAC Conference, Says Arab “Hatred” of Jews to Blame For Lack of Peace…" (Via Memeorandum.) And at Weekly Standard, "Eric Cantor: 'It Is Not About the '67 Lines'."

Plus, a long analysis from Jennifer Rubin, "Reaction to Obama’s AIPAC Speech."

Added: From Ron Radosh, "Eric Cantor Gives AIPAC Delegates a Lesson on Which Political Party Really Supports Israel and America’s Alliance with the Jewish State."

Joplin, Missouri, Tornado: VIDEO

Robert Mackey has a video roundup, "Video Shows Missouri Tornado Damage."

And at ABC News, "Tornadoes Rip Across Midwest; 89 Dead in Joplin, Mo."

ALSO: A first-person video, riding out the storm, here.

Dr. Charli Carpenter and the Laws of War

Charli Carpenter is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She's also a progressive Israel-hater at Lawyers, Guns and Murder. I wrote previously on Charli's entry on Palestine. See, "Israel-Bashing Progressives Paint Iran/Syrian-Backed Border Incursion as 'Martin Luther King-Style Non-Violence'." Not only is Charli's post itself a disgraceful bit of anti-Israel propaganda, the anti-Semitic comments therein are shocking, as I noted:

It's like a bloodthirsty mob that's mainlined a toxic zombie cocktail of Noam Chomsky and the Hamas Charter's genocidal jihad. Seriously. It's Western Jew hatred condensed in netroots fever-swamp form, available on an ostensibly responsible academic political science blog.

I tried to generate serious discussion at the thread (who knows why?), but Robert Farley childishly scrubbed my link and replaced it with his favorite jail-bait pop songster. Che's chicken, I guess. Manchild loser.

Anyway, Charli's an expert on civilian protection in international conflict, and her writing is quite conducive to the extreme left's campaign of delegitimation of Israel as an apartheid state. In two recent essays at Foreign Affairs, Charli utilizes the widely discredited Goldstone Report as a launchpad for a theoretical and legalistic discussion on reducing civilian casualties through international law. See "Fighting the Laws of War: Protecting Civilians in Asymmetric Conflict," and "War Crimes Reporting After Goldstone: Filling the Geneva Regime's Gaps Through Monitoring." Charli shifts to a more systemic focus, but, especially in the first essay, which is a book review, the abstraction at the argument ends up leaving her case missing the most important problems when applied to Israel's recent wars. One of the more inane points she makes (or not inane, if we understand it as essentially a crude Code Pink-style gambit), is that the U.S. should actually abjure precision-guided remote weapons technology in favor of sending in boots on the ground. Basically, if nation-states had skin in the game they wouldn't kill civilians. Rebutting a point made by Michael Gross, in Moral Dilemmas and Modern War, she argues:

In outlining the limitations presented by the laws of war in addressing modern conflicts, Gross argues that the current legal framework for civilian protection must change to meet state interests. He is sympathetic to the new tendency among Western states to broaden the scope of acceptable military targets to include civilians who assist insurgents. Yet this is a deviation from the existing norm by states seeking to pursue their interests outside the bounds of the law. Were this trend adopted as a new legal standard, it would be nothing less than an abandonment of the current rules, weakening civilian protection rather than strengthening it.

Moreover, underlying Gross' belief that the laws of war must change to meet states' needs is the historically flawed notion that modern combat presents unique challenges. The kinds of asymmetries in the warfare he writes about are hardly unprecedented. The laws of war have in fact already adapted to many of the questions that, according to Gross, have been raised for the first time by recent wars. The current framework distinguishes, for example, between civilians who support warring factions by providing food and shelter, who are not automatically rendered legitimate targets, and civilians who take up arms themselves, who do lose their immunity. Gross points out that these rules place critical restraints on the actions of state militaries. But he overstates the case when he suggests that the laws of war tie their hands completely. To Gross, there seem to be only two options for state forces engaged in asymmetric wars: bend the rules by fighting guerrillas with an expanded notion of legitimate targets, or prepare to lose.

Yet a third option exists: militaries can choose to place their uniformed men and women in harm's way rather than cede the moral high ground by placing civilians in greater danger. When Gross describes the fundamental dilemma of asymmetric war as "who do we bomb when there are no more accessible military targets?" he assumes that states must deploy aerial firepower to defeat their unconventional enemies. But this is not the only tool in the arsenals of Western states. To combat insurgents and protect civilians simultaneously, governments could choose to use ground troops, which are arguably better equipped to discriminate between innocent bystanders and insurgents and their accomplices. Although militaries risk significantly higher casualties by deploying their troops rather than dropping precision bombs, this sacrifice is precisely what the logic of just war requires: that civilians not become more expendable than a country's armed forces.

Three points: Charli's reflexively resistant to an expanded definition of combatants (at the highlighted passage above), which is an odd thing considering that from Afghanistan to Iraq, and most definitely in the case of Israel's wars against state-backed Islamist movements, it's increasingly non-conventional combatants who are waging war against states. Such fighting forces aren't generally paying attention to the Marquess of Queensberry niceties of supranational legal institutions. And while true that ground units would be more likely to avoid killing non-combatants, the argument goes explicitly against trends in anti-insurgency toward unmanned high-technology warfare. Americans don't necessarily tolerate casualties, especially over time and when victory in war in unassured. Thus making a case for increasing the number of engagements with boots on the ground is sneaking in an antiwar argument to increase the political costs of war and perhaps reduce military effectiveness in some cases.

Also, it's basically dishonest to begin analysis of civilian casualties with the Goldstone Report. Even before Richard Goldstone renounced his own investigation in the Washington Post, the legitimacy of the Goldstone Report was highly contested (it's an international solidarity hit piece). In her most glaring omission, Charli neglects mention of the use of human shields by irregular forces, which was one of the most important aspects of Palestinian war fighting during the 2008 war. See the Jerusalem Post, "'Hamas Used Kids as Human Shields'":

Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF.

The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

The IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) cooperated with the report’s authors and declassified hundreds of photographs, videos, prisoner interrogations and Hamas-drawn sketches as part of an effort to counter the criticism leveled at Israel in the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report.

Work on the Malam report began immediately after former judge Richard Goldstone issued his damning report of Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip in September.

One example of the material revealed in the Malam report is an-until-now classified sketch of the village of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza discovered by IDF troops during the operation, that details the extensive deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and snipers inside and adjacent to civilian homes.

The sketch was discovered in a home of a Hamas operative together with several IEDs and Kalashnikov rifles.

“The Goldstone Report is one-sided, biased, selective and deceptive, since it simply accepts Hamas claims at face value and presents everything through Hamas’s eyes,” Erlich said.

The Malam report also provides an analysis of another sketch found during the offensive in the Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza City that Erlich said proves Hamas’s culpability for the ensuing death and destruction.

“By placing all of their weaponry next to homes, by operating out of homes, mosques and hospitals, by firing rockets next to schools and by using human shields, Hamas is the one responsible for the civilian deaths during the operation,” Erlich said.

More at the link, and see also the full report, "Response to the Goldstone Report: Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip; The Main Findings of the Goldstone Report Versus the Factual Findings."

Finally, Charli Carpenter has long exhibited an anti-American streak in her research under the guise of scholarly inquiry. It was blatantly obvious during her writing on WikiLeaks, although perhaps less so in her writings on civilian protection. But reading over her second piece cited, "War Crimes Reporting After Goldstone," one finds a confidence in the effectiveness of international law that's hardly warranted in the case of Israel. Charli argues for the creation of a new monitoring agency centered at the United Nations. But of all places in international politics, the U.N. is without a doubt the most hostile to the existence of Israel, and thus it goes without saying the the Jewish state would never get a fair hearing in such monitoring activities so long as investigative power rests among the anti-colonialist majority at the world body. (The essential discussion is Dore Gold's, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos.) Again, even if we take her analysis as abstracting to the system level, Charli's ineluctable referent is the Israeli case: "The hubbub over the Goldstone report raises the question of whether the UN is capable of independent human rights investigations." It's thus easy to see why Charli would post a lame piece of anti-Israel propaganda (on the ridiculous notion of the May 15th Nakba border incursions as "non-violent"). And soon enough the bird-brained LGM commentariat started spouting off about Israel's "apartheid state" now oppressing those poor Palestinians who enjoy more rights in Israel than in any Arab regime in the region.

IMAGE CREDIT: Serr8d's Cutting Edge.

The Case for Voter ID

From Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, at Wall Street Journal:

Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in American elections. To offer a few examples, a 2010 state representative race in Kansas City, Mo. was stolen when one candidate, J.J. Rizzo, allegedly received more than 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The Somalis, who didn't speak English, were coached to vote for Mr. Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. The margin of victory? One vote.

In Kansas, 221 incidents of voter fraud were reported between 1997 and 2010. The crimes included absentee-ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter, and a host of other violations. Because voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect and is usually not reported, the cases that we know about likely represent a small fraction of the total.

My office already has found 67 aliens illegally registered to vote in Kansas, but when the total number is calculated, it will likely be in the hundreds. In Colorado, the Secretary of State's office recently identified 11,805 aliens illegally registered to vote in the state, of whom 4,947 cast a ballot in the 2010 elections.
Evidence of voter fraud is present in all 50 states, and public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low. In the Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2008, 62% of American voters thought that voter fraud was very common or somewhat common.

Fear that elections are being stolen erodes the legitimacy of our government. That's why the vast majority of Americans support laws like Kansas's Secure and Fair Elections Act. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that 82% of Americans support photo ID laws. Similarly, a 2011 Survey USA poll of Kansas voters showed that 83% support proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

Kobach is pictured above speaking at the David Horowitz West Coast Retreat. After than panel (video here) the secretary and his wife met with a small group of participants for a meet-and-greet session. He's a great guy. Friendly and down to earth, I expect he'll be a rising star in Kansas and national politics for some time.

Full Video: President Obama's AIPAC Policy Speech

Debate continues over the president's speech today in Washington.

Obama more than once said that the United States will not stand by while Israel is delegitimized. And he sounded forceful. But he remains committed to a Palestinian state that would cut through territory Israel needs to maintain its security from hostile neighbors. Contiguity for Palestine means dividing Israel geographically where there's been no basis in negotiations previously. Israel will be required to relinquish a corridor from Gaza to the West Bank that divides the county on the map. See, "Obama’s ‘Contiguous’ Palestinian State Could ‘Split Israel in Half,’ Says Middle East Expert." That will open up Israel's strategic vulnerability and impede transportation corridors necessary for national defense. It's absurd. Besides, I doubt there's any realistic chance for the old-time "two-state solution." The demand for Palestinian right of return is the dominant theme. The "Nakba" the basis for historical grievance, despite the myths behind it. The administration should be pushing the other way, against the Fatah-Hamas alliance committed to Israel's destruction, and against the Muslim anti-Semitism that's darkened the region like a terminal malignancy. This is why the AIPAC speech is a lost opportunity.

Barbara Efraim at UCLA: 'David Horowitz and Noam Chomsky Deserve Equal Coverage'

My former student and friend, at the Daily Bruin:

Bruin Republicans held an event May 11 that demonstrated the tolerance and civility of the UCLA community. David Horowitz, a former radical leftist and now conservative activist, gave a speech, followed by a Q&A, titled “Intellectual Terrorism: The Left’s War on Free Speech.”

In the past, he has gotten pies thrown at him, and his speeches at universities across the nation are regularly interrupted by hecklers from various student organizations. But this time, there were no outbursts during the speech.

The civility Horowitz received is exceptional, but it does not belie the pressure Bruin Republicans and the David Horowitz Freedom Center received prior to the event. Such were the pressures that the group was advised to hire armed campus security officers to be safe. The event nearly filled Moore 100 and while I’m glad it ran smoothly, I wonder where the dissenting voices went.

It’s remarkable that conservative groups have to use enhanced security measures to ensure events are uninterrupted. On May 7, I attended Noam Chomsky’s lecture hosted by Students for Justice in Palestine in Young Hall, CS 50.

There was a long line, formed hours before the start of the event, and people were waiting to take a seat and listen to a lecture that would attack American foreign policy and compare the Israeli democracy to South African apartheid. I agree that Chomsky has the liberty to speak, just as I expect someone who shares my beliefs would have a right to make his views heard.

But as opposed to Horowitz, Chomsky did not have any security guards at his side.

More at the link above. The full video at FrontPage, "David Horowitz at UCLA."

Also, Barbara's at AIPAC in D.C. and just tweeted: "Obama showed that he's still his arrogant, demagogue-like self."

No doubt.

Obama at AIPAC

Pamela reports: "AIPAC 2011: OBAMA'S SPEECH TO JEWS."

Also, from Jennifer Rubin:

The president just finished speaking to a packed convention room at the AIPAC policy conference. He was not booed when he entered; most stood and offered brief applause. Still, the crowd during the speech had long periods of stony silence, and audible boos were heard when he brought up his plan to base an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal on the 1967 border lines. President Obama took nothing back from his foreign policy speech on Thursday and blamed the press for any controversy. He doubled down, making this upcoming presidential election a time for choosing for friends of Israel.

See also, Elliott Abrams, "Obama at AIPAC: Correcting Some Errors, Compounding Others." Plus, from Bruce Kesler, "Reactions to President Obama at AIPAC" (via Memeorandum and Power Line).

If You Believe That Anyone Like Me Within a Song...

Flashback to 1981.

The Psychedelic Furs, "Into You Like A Train":

'Carrie' Remake in the Works?

People are talking about it. But why? Hard to improve on a classic:

The 12-Step Plan to Make Amanda Marcotte's Head Explode

And other feminists too, of course.

From Gavin McInnes, at Taki's (via FFOF). The whole thing's riot, for example, "Step 10" to restore femininity:

DON’T CUT YOUR HAIR

As Steve Sailer has made very clear, the traits we find attractive in the opposite sex are based on exaggerating our differences. Men can’t grow hair as long as women can, so prove you’re a woman and let it grow to the floor. American women seem to think that once they give birth, they have to visit Rachel Maddow’s barber for the rest of their life. This is tantamount to rape, because when we have sex with you from behind, we look down and see this weird smirking Boy Scout getting drilled. Thanks for that.

Interestingly, Amanda's Saturday post is inspired by Sadly No!, although it's anybody's guess whether the essentials of McInnes' 12-step plan would bear the slightest bit of interest to Carl "Young & Hung" Salonen, ringleader of the Sadly comment threads. (Yo, that's comedy!)