California Unemployment Rate Falls to 11.3 Percent! Break Out the Champagne!

I'm being facetious.

But I can't help it. Look at this ridiculously enthusiastic headline at the Los Angeles Times: "California's Jobless Rate Falls for Fourth Month in a Row! The State Unemployment Rate Declines to 11.3% in November, a Sign That the Labor Market is Slowly Recovering!"

That's the real headline. All I've added is the exclamation point! But seriously. You'd think it's HAPPY DAYS AGAIN! by the looks of the newspaper, and remember I still get the rag in hard copy!

And it only takes a quick glance at Google to see that the state's still mired in depression-like conditions in many parts for state, the California Central Valley, for example. See the Turlock Journal, "Good news, bad news in local unemployment rates":

The latest figures from the Economic Development Department reflect some good news for Stanislaus County and some not so heartening news.

Stanislaus County posted an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent in November, just slightly up from the revised October rate of 15.3 percent. This marked the third month in a row that the county has had an unemployment rate below 16 percent, something that has been a rarity during these troubled economic times.

A small uptick in November's unemployment rate hasn't been seen since November 2007, and bucks the trend of the past few years, said EDD labor market analyst Nati Martinez.

In November 2007, the unemployment rate went from 8.2 percent to 8.8 percent. In 2008, it rose from 11.2 percent to 12.1 percent in November. In November 2009, the rate grew from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent and last year it jumped from 16.1 percent to 17.2 percent in the same time frame, according to the EDD.

Stanislaus County's November unemployment rate for this year was well below the year-ago estimate of 17.2 percent.

However, the gains reflected in the EDD's report are tempered by the fact that less people are reporting that they are looking for work. Stanislaus County's labor force, which stood at an estimated 237,300 in October, fell to 233,200.

I added the italics, since for all the "great" news about declining unemployment --- nationwide and in California --- the fact is huge numbers of people are discouraged and remain so unhappy about their prospects that they've simply given up looking for a job. When that happens, they drop off the statistics for the "active" labor force, and in fact the unemployment rate improves. As always, official unemployment statistics systematically undercount the unemployed.

More on all of this later. When the national unemployment rate falls to 6 percent I'll pop a bottle of champagne. And 8 percent in California would be worth a little celebration.

RELATED: At New York Times, "As Wars End, Young Veterans Return to Scant Jobs."

Russia Seizes Radioactive Materials Bound for Iran

At Washington Post, "Russian customs seize radioactive metal from Iranian's luggage bound for Tehran."

Also, at San Francisco Chronicle, "Iran's endgame is long overdue":

The International Atomic Energy Agency released documents last month that finally removed nearly all doubt that Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. And yet, as the world angrily reacts, all we hear from Russia and China, Iran's consistent defenders, is shameful bleating.

In fact, two days after the atomic energy agency released its report, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's nuclear-energy corporation, announced that Russia was prepared to begin building new civilian nuclear reactors in Iran. Then Russia's U.N. ambassador declared: "The sanctions track in the Security Council has been exhausted." 

He offered instead the ludicrous observation that "negotiations should continue with Iran." A couple of weeks earlier, a new WikiLeaks disclosure showed that China has been facilitating shipments of ballistic-missile components from North Korea to Iran. And China's foreign ministry offered similar sophistry: resolve the problem with "dialogue and negotiations."

Even after all that has happened, those two states are still threatening to wield their veto in the Security Council. So it's imperative that the United States and Europe act on their own.

Israel's defense minister told CNN last month that Iran is less than a year away from completing work on a bomb. Some American officials say Israel's estimates are often exaggerated. Still, the fact remains that this dance with Iran has been under way for almost 10 years. It's well past time to bring it to a close.

Planet of the Apes Marathon!

HBO Family Channel is showing some of the original "Planet of the Apes" films this month. I watched the first three films yesterday: "The Planet of the Apes," "Beneath the Planet of the Apes," and "Escape from the Planet of the Apes."

It was good. I'm sure feminist heads explode at Nova, the beautiful primitive woman who's a love interest for Charlton Heston.

Sir Lord Thomas has a Rule 5 roundup of Nova photos: "OH NOVA!!!"

The Paulbots Are Back!

This is just like old times!

I  had some guy commenting at my post, "Why Ron Paul Can't Win," mouthing the same old lines about getting the "facts" straight and all that. And it was just yesterday that Lisa Graas was ribbing me on Twitter about how the Paulbots were going to be coming after me. I laughed a little bit.

But I was seriously ROTFLMFAO seeing Lisa's post, "“To the Paul Supporters”." The links there take us to yet more damaging revelations on the racist newsletters, and then Lisa adds a post script: "P.S. to the Paul supporters":

Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away. Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away. Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away. Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away.

Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.

Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.

Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.

Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.

Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn’t make the above facts untrue.

Lisa's linking to the Conservative News Network, "Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof."

And Pamela has a post as well, "BOMBSHELL! RON PAUL'S RACIST NEWSLETTERS." And then checking the comments, we see this from the commenter posting as "This Site Sucks":

Fuck off troll!

And then the very next comment:

This is R I D I C U L O U S ! ! Sure he wrote some of the newsletters. They were his. He has NEVER denied that. He just denied writing some of the NONSENSE that you vile people are accusing him off... You ready to bomb Iran already? What are you waiting for?

And the next...

Well, you get the picture.

Obama Applauds Vote to Extend Payroll Tax Cut

At ABC News, "Obama ‘Pleased’ About Payroll Tax Cut Extension," and New York Times, "Senate Votes to Extend Payroll Tax Cut" (via Memeorandum):

Boycott Chiquita Bananas!

Sounds crazy, but this is serious business.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Follow @BloodBananas and @Boycott Chiquita on Twitter for all your Boycott Chiquita Banana News."

And at Instapundit, "BOYCOTTING CHIQUITA BANANAS over Conflict Oil."

Rooney Mara's Hot Punk Lisbeth Salander in 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo'

At Los Angeles Times, "Dressing the goth-punk heroine of 'Dragon Tattoo'."

Britney Spears Engagement Party Photos

At London's Daily Mail, "A bit too much revelry? Britney Spears emerges from engagement celebration looking a little worse for wear."

Let the lady have some fun, sheesh.

The Basis of Left and Right, Part 3

The next installment from Steven Hayward, at Power Line, "THE BASIS OF LEFT AND RIGHT, PART 3: EQUALITY":

The Marxist-inspired radical who sees property as the ultimate illegitimate convention to be swept away need not concern us here. Of more interest and relevance is the moderate liberal who argues two related and compelling points: first, from a view harmonious with conservatism’s bias for social stability, large inequalities in wealth, or a static distribution of wealth, undermine society’s social cohesion. As a consequence, second, unequal wealth distribution should be measured by its utility to all classes (Rawls’ argument). Both of these concepts elude convincing and unequivocal empirical demonstration, let alone obvious policy responses. But one can observe the least amount of friction between left and right when policy choices regarding opportunity are on the table.

This leads inevitably to an important corollary of the right-left split over the nature of equality, concerning the efficacy of government itself, not only on direct distributional questions, but also on subsidiary matters regarding the “playing field” of opportunity. Liberals believe in using government—through regulatory and ameliorative means—to correct market failures, which liberals perceive as occurring on a wide scale. Conservatives are much more prone to wariness about government failure, often going so far as to attribute political intervention as the final cause of all market failures—often with good reason: the role of multiple government mistakes in bringing about the housing bubble and subsequent crash is hard to minimize. The arguments about the nature and reasons for both government failure and market failure are serious and extensive, but suffice it here to note that the extreme libertarian position ironically shares in common the same utopian expectation as Marxism: the belief in the possibility of the withering away of the state.

Again, it's a great discussion. My problem is that the idea of the "modern liberal" is a concoction of progressives to hide their statist, inherently totalitarian, ideological convictions. High-brow theory can explain all these minute nuances of theory and ideology, but in practice the deceit of left-wing politics always ends with the destruction of human agency and individual liberty. The left is the cancer of modern societies.

Michele Bachmann Hates Muslims?

Politico reports, "Paul on Bachmann: 'She hates Muslims'."

And lots more at Memeorandum.

Also, on Bachmann attacking the Gingrich campaign for alleged vote-buying in South Carolina? At The Other McCain, "‘Shorter Ace: Bitches Lie’."

Typhoon Kills Hundreds in Southern Phillipines

At Telegraph UK, "Hundreds die as tropical storm Washi sweeps across Philippines":

At least 430 people have died and hundreds more have gone missing after the tropical storm Washi swept across the southern Philippines.

Officials said 20,000 soldiers had been mobilised in a huge rescue and relief operation across the stricken north coast of the island of Mindanao. The major ports of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan were worst hit, and an estimated 100,000 people had to flee their homes.

Lawrence Cruz, mayor of Iligan, said: "It's the worst flood in the history of our city. It happened so fast, at a time when people were asleep."

Television pictures showed dramatic pictures of a family escaping out of the window of their home in the town as the flood waters rose, and rescue workers in orange vests shepherding survivors to safety. Water levels rose three feet in less than an hour, forcing thousands on to their rooftops to try to escape.

Ron Paul's Ground Game in Iowa Could Be Decisive

I mentioned this possibility at my essay this week at PJ Media.

See New York Times, "Paul’s ‘Ground Game,’ in Place Since ’08, Gives Him an Edge":

ANKENY, Iowa — It was four years ago that Ross Witt, a soft-spoken electrical engineer at John Deere, overcame his natural discomfort with knocking on hundreds of his neighbors’ doors during dinnertime as a precinct coordinator for Ron Paul’s campaign.

But when Mr. Paul dropped out of the national race in June 2008, Mr. Witt did not stop, because, in a sense, neither did Mr. Paul: Mr. Witt and many other supporters here joined the Iowa branch of an independent political group Mr. Paul established after the race. They carried on his libertarian message, and picked local organizers. And when Mr. Paul announced that he was running for president this year, Mr. Witt and others jumped back onto his campaign, a force more motivated and efficient than before.

Alone among the Republican field, Mr. Paul, a Texas congressman, has a built-in network from 2008 that gives him a decisive organizational edge. Iowa Republicans say that advantage is an important reason some polls show him within striking distance of a victory in the Jan. 3 caucuses, with a battle-tested ground game poised to take advantage of a lack of passion for the rest of the candidates, a stark contrast to 2008, when evangelicals rallied around Mike Huckabee.

“This isn’t a year-and-a-half campaign,” Craig Robinson, a former Iowa Republican Party political director during the caucuses four years ago, said of Mr. Paul’s organization. “This is a five-year campaign.”

More at the link.

RELATED: At ABC News, "Ron Paul Takes Swipes at GOP Rivals, Says Michele Bachmann ‘Hates Muslims’." (Via Memeorandum.)

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers on 'The Kudlow Report'

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers discusses the U.S. role in the European debt crisis:

And see John Gizzi, at Human Events, ""Exclusive: IMF Chief Lagarde, Rep. McMorris Rodgers in Sitdown," and at Telegraph UK, "Christine Lagarde: European financial crisis is too serious for eurozone countries to solve alone."

National Review Writers Dissent on Editors' Stealth Mitt Romney Endorsement

William Jacobson has this, "One brave soul at National Review stands up for Newt." And from Pundette, "Andy McCarthy dissents." Linked at the latter's is Jonah Goldberg The Editorial — My Take, " and Mark Steyn, "Include Me Out."

 Here's Steyn on Bachmann:

Congresswoman Bachmann has fought a principled, conservative campaign with only one significant misstep — her overreach on the Gardasil business. Again, that shouldn’t be a disqualification. Nor should having more chiefs of staff than she has foster children (I speak as a guy who believes citizen-legislators shouldn’t have chiefs of staff, anyway). To be sexist about it, President Bachmann at her best would be another Thatcher and at her worst another Merkel — and Chancellor Merkel currently presides over the least worst Western economy. What’s not to like? Go, Michele!

I like it!

BONUS: Linkmaster Smith links to my essay from yesterday the state of the race: "Sean Hannity Flummoxed By Michelle Malkin."

Gingrich of Freddie Mac

An editorial, at Wall Street Journal.

Check that link. The piece reviews the allegations of corruption against Gingrich, and takes issue with the Speaker's defense of the mortgage institution as an essentially "conservative" GSE, a "government-sponsored enterprise."

The Journal's editors roll their eyes at Gingrich's elaborate defense of his actions, and then say:

Where to begin? One problem is the lack of candor. In Thursday's Sioux City debate, Mr. Gingrich repeated his claim that he had never done a favor for Fan and Fred. But as Speaker in 1995, according to news reports at the time, Mr. Gingrich helped to kill an effort by then House Budget Chairman John Kasich to impose user fees on Fannie and Freddie. The fees were intended to offset the cost advantage provided to the companies by their implicit government guarantee.

Mr. Gingrich also knows that many Republicans were fighting against furious opposition, and at great political risk, to reform Fan and Fred in the early and mid-2000s. The heroes included then Congressman Richard Baker, Senator Richard Shelby and Bush White House aide Kevin Warsh. We were at the barricades too, and Mr. Gingrich was never seen in the rear of the reform camp, much less on the front lines. The Georgian could only have been on the payroll because Freddie thought he could help influence other Republicans against reform.

As for the destructive duo's business model that Mr. Gingrich said he didn't want to change, this was precisely their problem. Far from a private-public partnership, they were private companies with a federal guarantee against failure. Their model was private profit but socialized risk. This produced riches on Wall Street and for company executives. But taxpayers bore the risk of loss—to the tune of $141 billion so far. Why does the historian think they were called "government-sponsored enterprises"?

More at the link.

Occupy Wall Street: A Movement Custom-Designed to Make Democrat-Socialists Look Like a Bunch of Freaks

See Noemie Emery, at Weekly Standard, "Occupational Therapy":

"God, I love ’em,” wrote Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post not long after the glorious dawning of Occupy Wall Street, saying that the protests “arise at just the right moment and are aimed at just the right target” to grow into something quite big. Apparently, the stench from McPherson Square (the Washington, D.C., equivalent of Zuccotti Park in Manhattan) had not yet wafted the two blocks north to the Post building, for he was back a week later to praise it again, along with his stablemate E.J. Dionne and many other liberals who read into the Occupy movement numerous virtues that never existed, while wholly ignoring the vices that are only too real. And why would these clean, polite, well-mannered people, for whom an overdue library book would most likely seem like a major infraction, embrace a collection of ne’er-do-wells who are causing a public-health crisis in the midst of their city? Because they and the rest of the left are desperate for any kind of jolt to jump-start their party, which has been in a coma since the air seeped out of Obamamania sometime in 2009.

So what if the occupiers have no idea what they want, and no plans for getting it? “Liberals need a tea party, damn it,” writes Jonah Goldberg, and thus “have embraced the movement in principle with the understanding that they’ll worry about the details later, if at all.” For similar reasons, labor and assorted left-wing organizations are also circling, hoping to connect to the “99 percent” the occupiers say they are speaking for. They hope to repeat the success of the civil rights and the Tea Party movements. But there are reasons this may not work out.
The problem with Occupy is that it involves occupation, which gets it off to a very bad start. The Tea Party asked people to show up for a few hours on weekends, march, listen to speeches, perhaps call upon members of Congress, pick up their trash, and go home. Occupy by contrast asks people to leave their homes (should they have them) and live in a tent in a park for an indefinite period, for goals that are hard to explain.

What kind of people move into a tent for an indefinite period? Those without strong connections to professions or to other people, without obligations, routines, and responsibilities; without children or clients or jobs. This self-selects against the 90 percent of the population that is productive and grounded, that supports itself and works hard, not to mention the part of the population that votes. Even before the camps were heavily infiltrated by homeless and/or criminal elements, the composition was tilted to those on the fringes, frequently by choice as well as necessity, which made it more like a cultural event such as Woodstock than like the Depression-age Hoovervilles, which were peopled largely by those who once had middle-class standing and were then down on their luck....

The civil rights and Tea Party movements addressed specific concerns—a cosmic injustice, and fiscal policies believed to be ruinous—that had means of redress through political remedies, which they pursued by legal, nonviolent means. The Occupy forces by and large have problems that do not admit of political solutions. The civil rights and Tea Party movements sprang from the middle of middle America; Occupy Wall Street from the fringe. Its happy embrace of a “communal”—and rag-tag and dirty—lifestyle was bound to alienate that much larger part of society that likes soap and water; clean clothes, sheets, and towels; indoor plumbing and sleeping in beds. The people who claimed to speak for the 99 percent who aren’t rich managed to repel the 98 percent who want order and cleanliness.

Emery mentions New York Magazine's John Heilemann, who published a piece about those holding out for a resurgence of Occupy in the spring and summer. Turns out there's some planning to occupy the national party conventions: "Yes, tent cities teeming with lice, rape charges, and piles of excrement (200 pounds of it in Santa Cruz, California) are just the thing to rally swing voters."

Yep, that's exactly the movement that James Walter "Occupy" Casper III endorsed with his exhortation: "Occupy wherever you are." Freakin' scumbag.

Criminal Hatesac3's even more stupid than the doltish union idiot at the video. Man, Cavuto reams her a new one. That's gotta hurt.

Winning!

The Basis of Left and Right, Part 2

Steven Hayward's series continues, at Power Line, "THE BASIS OF LEFT AND RIGHT, PART 2: (HUMAN) NATURE, CONVENTION, AND LIBERTY":

The left-right divide begins to become more comprehensible when differing understandings of individual liberty and its political postulates are probed further. The starting point of liberalism offered here (individuals should be free to pursue their self-chosen purposes) leads liberals to challenge conventions that constrain individual autonomy—to “question authority” in the popular graffiti. The logical consequence of the imperative to expand the domain of individual autonomy naturally compels liberalism to be reformist, to embrace progress as the essential process to accomplish reform, and to employ reason to guide the progressive reform process. Above all, the imperative of individual autonomy necessarily places the principle of equality at the center of liberal thought. Conventional social structures that maintain artificial or arbitrary inequalities between individuals attract the most ire from reform liberalism, because such inequalities constrain or reduce the sum total of individual self-fulfillment across society. These four postulates of liberalism find their apotheosis in the impressively argued synthesis of John Rawls.

I wrote previously on the series here. It's going to take a bit more development to resolve some of the tensions I discussed there, although by mentioning equality Hayward is getting closer to the true nature of today's left.

Glenn Reynolds Interviews Joel Kotkin: 'Myths and Realities of the American Cities and Suburbs'

Kotkin sounds very optimistic about things, which is somewhat surprising given some of his other writings I've read. See his piece about the decline of California, for example, "The Golden State is Crumbling."

The Generic Republican Will Beat Obama

Reliapundit and I are having a friendly exchange on our favorite GOP candidates. He's fully on board for Romney. I like Romney too, especially for the electability argument. I don't care for Newt but I'd obviously vote for him enthusiastically over the Usurper. I think around the time of the Horowitz West Coast Retreat I mentioned that Michele Bachmann was my favorite candidate and I was going to support her so long as Sarah Palin stayed out of the race. And I haven't changed my positions. I'm just not making that big of a deal out of it. I think the generic Republican will beat Obama, with the exception of Ron Paul. And apparently, Rush Limbaugh thinks so too. And Michelle Malkin responds:

Kelly Brook Wishes You a Merry Christmas!

Boy, she's working it for the holidays!

Previously: "Kelly Brook Without Makeup."

'Police Oppression'

More Angelic Upstarts:

I just cant take much more of this oppression
I’m going out of my head and its getting that impression
I’m gunna go out for a walk
I’m gunna sit down and have talk
There asking me how, and they’re asking me why, have you ever seen grown men cry?

police police police oppression, police police police oppression

really find it hard even walking round the streets
hey i know u son ill knock u off ur feet
same number a million times before,
shut ur mouth son or ill knock u on the floor

police police police oppression, police police police oppression

I just cant take much more of this oppression
I’m going out of my head and its getting that impression
I’m gunna go out for a walk
I’m gunna sit down and have talk
There asking me how, and they’re asking me why, have you ever seen grown men cry?

police police oppression police police oppression

Lying in the cells is really no fun
Cutting the bricks learning some tricks
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies
Is being different really a crime?

police police police oppression
police police police oppression
police police police police police...

Britney Spears Engaged

Good for her.

She excited!

See MTV: "Britney Spears Is Engaged."

Also, at London's Daily Mail, "Vegas, baby! Delighted Britney Spears and Jason Trawick head to Sin City to celebrate engagement."

Doom: Newspapers to Go Extinct Within Five Years, USC's Annenberg School Predicts

At L.A. Weekly, "Newspapers Dead Within Five Years, USC Predicts."

Pirelli Calendar 2012

Via Kathy Shaidle:

BONUS: At London's Daily Mail, "She's at it again: Veteran exhibitionist Kate Moss never tires of stripping for Pirelli calendar":

Since it's inception in 1964, Pirelli has instructed leading photographers to capture the world's most beautiful women on film for the exclusive calendar solely as a gift for royalty, celebrities and VIP customers.

Muslim Countries Target Free Speech

Well, Muslims worldwide are squelching debate at home, but Professor Jonathan Turley focuses on efforts at the United Nations to "criminalize intolerance," with the blessing of none other than U.S. President Barack Obama.

At Los Angeles Times, "Criminalizing intolerance":

This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled "Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18." The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to "deter" some speech in the name of human rights.

"While the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify the prosecution of those who speak against religion." Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.

This year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton invited nations to come to implement the resolution and "to build those muscles" needed "to avoid a return to the old patterns of division." Those "old patterns" include instances in which writers and cartoonists became the targets of protests by religious groups. The most famous such incident occurred in 2005 when a Danish newspaper published cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. The result were worldwide protests in which Muslims reportedly killed more than 100 people — a curious way to demonstrate religious tolerance. While Western governments reaffirmed the right of people to free speech after the riots, they quietly moved toward greater prosecution of anti-religious speech under laws prohibiting hate speech and discrimination.

The OIC members have long sought to elevate religious dogma over individual rights. In 1990, members adopted the Cairo Declaration, which rejected core provisions of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed that free speech and other rights must be consistent with "the principles of the sharia," or Islamic law. The biggest victory of the OIC came in 2009 when the Obama administration joined in condemning speech containing "negative racial and religious stereotyping" and asked states to "take effective measures" to combat incidents, including those of "religious intolerance." Then, in March, the U.S. supported Resolution 16/18's call for states to "criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." It also "condemns" statements that advocate "hostility" toward religion. Although the latest resolution refers to "incitement" rather than "defamation" of religion (which appeared in the 2005 resolution), it continues the disingenuous effort to justify crackdowns on religious critics in the name of human rights law.

The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of "intolerance." Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of "respect and empathy and tolerance." One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people. In September, a Kuwaiti court jailed a person for tweeting a message deemed derogatory to Shiites. In Pakistan last year, a doctor was arrested for throwing out a business card of a man named Muhammad because he shared the prophet's name.

Ah ha!

Truth. The new "hate speech.

But continue reading at the link.

Haley Taking Flak for Romney Endorsement

At Politico, "Nikki Haley's Mitt Romney endorsement catches flak":

GREENVILLE, S.C. – Nikki Haley’s attempt to boost Mitt Romney is threatening her own support here at home.

Romney’s campaign is using the South Carolina governor’s endorsement to build his acceptance among the tea party base that’s never been comfortable with his candidacy, especially in a state where Newt Gingrich has been running even stronger than elsewhere.

But the people in that base who propelled Haley to the governor’s mansion last year see the endorsement of the more moderate Romney as abandoning them — and giving them another reason to turn away from a governor whose approval rating has dropped to 34.6 percent.

Immediately after Haley announced her support Friday morning on “Fox and Friends,” her Facebook page lit up with accusations that the first-term governor was selling out her principles. Rush Limbaugh followed with a blistering broadside against her on his radio show Friday, leading a charge of conservatives nationally, in addition to locally, who accused her of selling out.

Tea party leaders in the state suggested that Haley will pay for Friday’s move with a primary in 2014 – provided she doesn’t win herself a spot on the ticket or another post in a Romney administration, as tea partiers and Republican operatives say must be the explanation for the decision.

“The overwhelming sense that I get from talking to people is deep betrayal,” said Karen Martin, the founder and organizer of the Spartanburg tea party, who has not endorsed a candidate. “She’s not going to be able to come back from this with the tea party. If there’s anybody credible who will run against her, I believe the tea party will support them whole-heartedly.”

I'll have more on this later. I'm kinda surprised by the endorsement as well, except as one of Romney's perceived electability. Via Memeorandum.

And here's Rush Limbaugh, "Nikki Haley Endorsement: Tea Party Attempts to Replace GOP Establishment."

Michele Bachmann Fired Up After Sioux City Debate: Bus Tour to Rekindle Campaign as Iowa Caucuses Near

Dave Wiegel discusses Michele Bachmann's thrashing of Ron Paul, "Was this the Moment That Ron Paul Lost Iowa?" And here's the video:

And I posted the video of Bachmann hammering Speaker Gingrich already. And she was on CNN earlier this afternoon. Responding to Wolf Blitzer, Bachmann said that Gingrich was "memory challenged" regarding Bachmann's command of the facts. Actually, she is a bit off at times, but I'm getting a kick out of her aggressive new approach ahead of the caucuses. The Washington Post has more on that, "Hoping for a caucus comeback, Michele Bachmann sets out on a bus tour of Iowa’s 99 counties":

ORANGE CITY, Iowa — Republican presidential contender Michele Bachmann said she did not want “to trash anyone” on Friday and then called her leading rivals ideologically unfit to win the nomination as she began a bus tour she hopes will yield a caucus comeback.

The Minnesota congresswoman is lagging in the polls and trying to recapture the momentum she lost since summer. She set out on a 99-county bus tour that ferried her from restaurants to catering companies, from a sports bar to a bakery.

“Now is our chance for redemption,” Bachmann told supporters packed into The Dutch Bakery to hear her final sales pitch ahead of the Jan. 3 caucuses.

“I’m not here to trash anyone,” she said — and then criticized the two men leading the GOP race.

“Mitt Romney is the only governor in history of the United States to put into place socialized medicine,” she said.

On Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who has seen a surge in recent weeks, she said: “Newt has been backing the individual health care mandate for 20 years.”
“I am the only consistent constitutional conservative. I’m not a convenient conservative,” Bachmann told reporters in Sioux City.

Well, trashing is good. Recall she graciously poured water for her opponents previously. Now's the time to rope 'em in!

Amazon to Offer Free 1-Day Holiday Shipping Starting Saturday

Well, if you're doing some online shopping, Amazon's upping the stakes in the retail sales wars.

At Los Angeles Times, "Amazon's latest holiday offer: Free 1-day shipping starting Saturday":



I asked my wife for an Amazon gift card.

I don't need much. A few books and some See's candy, and a nice Christmas dinner, and I'm set.

Well, maybe a little Jim Beam too!

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley Endorses Mitt Romney

Well, what's amazing is Nikki Haley is touted as a "tea party favorite."

But Michelle Malkin calls Romney a progressive at the video. She calls Gingrich a progressive as well. It's an excellent discussion, and badly needed. Sean Hannity's a little flummoxed with Michelle. Should the grassroots be lining up behind Gov. Haley for a Romney endorsement? It's all about beating Obama, right?

Well, don't blame me. I'm backing Michele Bachmann.

See Tina Korbe, "South Carolina Tea Party darling Nikki Haley endorses and records robocall for Mitt Romney" (via Memeorandum).

Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011

Hitchens was perhaps today's most important public intellectual. Almost anything he published was worth consideration. But I was never a particularly big fan. He seemed to waver on so many issues, and his cancer, while sad, was a bit too public for me.

In any case, see the obituary at New York Times, "Polemicist Who Slashed All, Freely, With Wit." And also a reflection from Charles McGrath at the Times, "Spending An Afternoon in Christopher Hitchens’s Hospital-Room-Turned-Office."

And Joy McCann has the big roundup, "R.I.P. Christopher Hitchens." (Via Memeorandum).

Why Ron Paul Can't Win

From Kim Strassel, at Wall Street Journal. Strassel raises the interesting point that not that much has changed about Ron Paul from his earlier campaigns for the GOP nomination. The key significant difference is found not so much on the issues --- Paul has moderated a lot of his positions on domestic affairs --- but in the the candidate's seriousness:

Mr. Paul was largely written off in the past as an ideological crank, a man who ran primarily to have his views heard, and many political watchers have made the same mistake this time. But if there has been an overlooked theme in this race, it has been Mr. Paul's new seriousness about winning the nomination. The Ron Paul of 2012 is a different candidate from the Ron Paul of the past. Aware that his absolutist positions worry voters, the libertarian has been conducting a far more mainstream campaign.

Not that he's flipped on any major positions. The Paul campaign knows that its greatest opportunity is attracting voters who are dissatisfied with the other front-runners' policy timidity or lack of consistency. Mr. Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and it ought to make him a star....

Organizationally, the 2012 Paul campaign has also sloughed off its 2008 disdain of the establishment, and in Iowa at least Mr. Paul is engaging in retail politics, sitting down with party elders and activists. These are the efforts of a candidate newly willing to work within a certain framework, if it means a shot at the White House.

Except on foreign policy, where Mr. Paul does himself in. In discrete areas, Mr. Paul's "noninterventionist" approach resonates with those weary of war, or with the populist sentiment that we spend too much on foreign aid. And note that Mr. Paul has made small stabs at reassuring voters of his patriotism, as with a big national TV ad that highlighted his own military service and commitment to veterans.

But none of this has addressed voters' big concern over a Paul philosophy that fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland. Perhaps nothing hurt the candidate more in 2008 than his declaration that one reason terrorists attacked us on 9/11 is because "we've been in the Middle East."

Far from toning down such views, Mr. Paul has amped up the wattage, claiming this year that 9/11 prompted "glee" in a Bush administration looking for a pretext to "invade Iraq." He's condemned the Obama administration's killings of terrorists Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, and he insists the U.S. is "provoking" Iran.

Ron Paul's a freak. I posted on this last night: "Taking Ron Paul Seriously."

Added: From Linkmaster Smith at The Other McCain, "You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments."

Senator McCain Slams Obama's Leadership on Iraq

At Weasel Zippers, "McCain Shreds Obama After He Takes Credit For Success of Iraq War: “History Will Judge His Leadership With The Scorn And Disdain It Deserves”…"

This is why I backed McCain in 2008. Good to hear him smack down the administration. We need to hear it.

PREVIOUSLY: "War in Iraq Officially Over."

Obama Justice Department Scapegoats Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

I met Sheriff Joe, a couple of times, during my coverage of the immigration protests in 2010. He doesn't get emotional about these things.

At Los Angeles Times, "Pattern of civil rights abuses alleged in Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County."

"Don't come here and use me as a whipping boy for a national and international problem," he said. "We are proud of the work we have done to fight illegal immigration."

French Leaders Launch Outspoken Public Attacks on Britain

At Telegraph UK, "French leaders declare a war of words on Britain":

French leaders have launched outspoken public attacks on Britain, calling for the UK to lose its AAA credit rating and comparing its economy with that of Greece.

Christian Noyer, the governor of the Bank of France, said that Britain faced larger national debts, higher inflation and slower growth than France.

François Baroin, the finance minister, said Britain was “marginalised” and faced “a very difficult economic situation” because of Coalition policies.

The blunt remarks are the latest sign of Anglo-French tension following David Cameron’s refusal last week to back a new European treaty drawn up in response to the eurozone crisis.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, also provoked anger in France recently by suggesting it could be the next eurozone economy to experience a debt crisis. France and Germany want a new treaty to create a “fiscal union” of eurozone members, to control their deficits and reassure the markets.

Mr Baroin told the French parliament that the pact had been backed by every country in Europe, “with the singular, now solitary, exception of Great Britain, which history will remember as marginalised”.

Plus, from a couple of days ago at Der Spiegel, "The End of Old Europe: Why Merkel's Triumph Will Come at a High Price."

Spectacular Views from One World Trade Center

This is great, at London's Daily Mail, "Ninety floors... and counting: The breathtaking views from One World Trade Center (and there's still 14 storeys to go)."

New Focus in Manhattan Elevator Accident: Electrical Contractors Under Investigation

At New York Post, "City investigating electrical maintenance performed on elevator just hours before ad exec's tragic death":

Hours before her tragic death, contractors were performing electrical maintenance on the elevator that killed ad exec Suzanne Hart, city officials said today.

“This work has now become the focus of our investigation,” said Tony Sclafani, a spokesman for the city Department of Buildings.

The contracting company, Transel, has worked on elevators at dozens of prominent buildings around the city, includnig 1515 Broadway, 666 Fifth Avenue and the Plaza Hotel, its Web site says.

City investigators will review Transel’s maintenance protocols and are seeking a complete list of Transel clients. “Our inspectors will be conducting a sweep of elevators in these buildings,” Sclafani said.

Kelly Brook Without Makeup

She looks healthy, and not ashamed to be out without cosmetics.

At London's Daily Mail, "Kelly Brook is still stunning minus the make-up - even stepping off a plane at 6am."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kelly Brook – Official Calendar 2012."

Walter James 'Occupy' Casper Continues Campaign of Lies: Childishly Whines About 'McCarthyism' While Endorsing Anarchists and Anti-Semitic Communists

My criminal stalker Walter James "Occupy" Casper III, a.k.a. "Hatesac3", continues to harass me and this blog with comments --- on top of his recent cyber threats to my family --- despite being banned long ago. This post is to record some key evidence in Walter James "Occupy" Casper's continuing campaign to undermine the foundations of the country with a clandestine Marxist program of communist subterfuge.

To put it plainly, "Hatesac3" can't stand the fact that today's Democrat Party is a socialist party with a large number of members in government who have allied with --- and provided aid and comfort to --- real live communists in furtherance of an ideological agenda that continues to shift this country away from its founding as a classically liberal democracy.

After a long rambling post of incoherent denials about the fundamental anarcho-communism and anti-Semitism riddled throughout the Occupy movement, "Hatesac3" dumps out this groaner of pathetic smear-mongering:

A political science professor who is alleging there are communists in the House and Senate? Communists?!? Somebody call Joe McCarthy...

Joe McCarthy investigated communists in government. McCarthy was right. He may have gone overboard, but the facts show that real communists had infiltrated the United States government. They were directed by Moscow and they were causing real damage to national security. Again, not all those accused by McCarthy were deemed national security threats, but when progressives throw out the "McCarthyism" card they're deceptively and malignantly casting a smokescreen in front of their support for Marxist-Leninist ideologies and goals. This is sinister. And that is why Walter James "Occupy" Casper continues his attempts hide behind the "McCarthyism" smear while working underground to destroy his political enemies through multifarious smear jobs, campaigns of workplace harassment and threats to freedom of speech, as well as cyber threats to the families of his enemies. Jonah Goldberg speaks truth to "McCarthyism":

Senator Joe McCarthy was a lout, generally speaking. But he was on the right side of history and, in a broad sense, of morality as well. If, in some sort of parallel-universe exercise, the same number of (now proven) Soviet-Communist spies, collaborators, sympathizers, and the like were somehow switched to Nazis, and McCarthy went after them with the same vehemence as he went after Reds, Joe McCarthy might well have universities and foundations named after him today. Just imagine if a ring of Nazi party members were found to be working in Hollywood, never mind the State Department, taking money from Berlin to advance the Nazi cause. Does anyone really think "McCarthyism" would still be denounced as an unmitigated evil, often put at the front of the parade of horribles alongside Hitlerism and Stalinism?

Now, I'm sure many people are rolling their eyes at this point. "It's not the same thing!" say those who believe that the lost jobs of a few Hollywood writers and the loyalty oaths reluctantly offered by some unjustly accused union officials are the American equivalent of concentration camps. Maybe, maybe not. The argument over which was worse, Communism or Nazism, will never be settled. Nor should we expect it to be. But even if you firmly believe that Nazism was more evil than Communism, as even Robert Conquest does, you must concede that Communism was evil enough. If the sight of an American Communist screenwriter being forced to take the Fifth Amendment before Congress and have his "career ruined" still fills you with blinding rage, it's indeed curious why the forced slaughter of millions by Stalin seems like a trivial event to you. After all, there were plenty of men and women invoking their "rights" as their heels left lines in the dirt on the way to the gulag. Needless to say, their careers were ruined too. And if the American Communists had had their way, much the same thing would have happened here as well. But, yeah, Roy Cohn's the devil.

Regardless, wherever you come down on McCarthyism, Communism, and the rest is a matter of opinion. What is a matter of fact — unmitigated, irrefutable, undeniable fact — is that there were hundreds of Communists working for Moscow, directly or indirectly, in the United States during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. The Rosenbergs were guilty and got what they deserved. Alger Hiss too. Victor Perlo, Judith Coplon, Morton Sobell, William Perl, Alfred Sarant, Joel Barr, and Harry Gold were all either pawns or lackeys of a foreign and evil foe. We know the Hollywood Ten were all Communists, but what else they were we can't know for sure, because they believed taking the Fifth was more important than protecting the country (and if you think it's unfair to cavalierly call people who devotedly followed the Moscow line for all their adult lives "Communists," I sure hope you don't ever call, say, President Bush a "fascist" on the basis of no evidence at all). The American Communist Party (CP-USA) was in fact a Soviet franchise.

In other words, you are free to describe McCarthyism as a witchhunt if and only if you are willing to concede that actual witches existed in our midst. The evidence — from declassified Venona transcripts, Soviet archives, memoirs, etc. — is still mounting, but what we have so far is plenty in itself. In 1996, Nicholas Von Hoffman wrote an essay for the Washington Post that caused no small amount of hysteria on the American Left, which has been milking its myths and denial for decades. McCarthyism was the product of the "paranoid style" in American politics. There were no witches — only zealots and brown-shirted bullies. The playwright Lillian Hellman declared: "The McCarthy group — a loose term for all the boys, lobbyists, congressmen, State Department bureaucrats, CIA operators — chose the anti-Red scare with perhaps more cynicism than Hitler picked anti-Semitism."

Yet, as Hoffman reluctantly conceded, these assessments were in turn lies, myths, and carefully constructed distortions. The reality was that "in a global sense McCarthy was on to something. McCarthy may have exaggerated the scope of the problem but not by much…

In other words, Walter James "Occupy" Casper III is ready to attack his enemies as "McCarthyites" while malignantly turning his eyes from the horrors of tens of millions killed in the name of the very ideology he's pushing.

And I've covered this ground before --- and repeatedly faced down all the denials by "Hatesac3" and his henchmen --- but here's David Horowitz on Representative Barbara Lee, "An Enemy Within":

REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA LEE, Democrat of Berkeley, was the only member of Congress who refused to defend her country under attack. The Los Angeles Times calls Barbara Lee a "liberal" and compares her to "anti-war" dissenters of the past, most notably Jeanette Rankin who cast the lone vote in the U.S. Congress against America’s entry into the Second World War and said after Pearl Harbor, "As a woman I can’t go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else." We are at war again, and it’s time to call things by their right names.

Barbara Lee is not an anti-war activist, she is an anti-American communist who supports America’s enemies and has actively collaborated with them in their war against America.

Continue at the link. And see Joseph Farah, "The truth about Barbara Lee."

Rep. Lee is just one of roughly nearly 100 members of the Democrat Party in Congress who are in fact communists in all but name. There's no need to keep going, since it's long ago been shown that Walter James "Occupy" Casper stands against all that is decent and good in America. I've chronicled his progressive hatred time and again. He's a stalking coward and an ideological snake. He has publicly endorsed the Occupy movement murderers, rapists, and anti-Semites. This is fact. And this is what Occupy is about. And I will continue to expose his deception because this is what today's left does. It's evil incarnate and people of decency have to expose these freaks to the light of truth.

Previously:

* "Comrade Repsac3: Racist Commissar of State Security, People's Commissariat for Internet Affairs?"

* "W. James Casper is a Coward, a Fraud, and a Liar."

* "Manifesto: Occupy for the Revolution."

Also, at Zilla of the Resistance, "Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win."

Google Chrome Overtakes Internet Explorer 8

I like Chrome, but it freezes way too much, no matter which machine I use at home or the office.

See Los Angeles Times, "Google's Chrome browser overtakes Internet Explorer 8":

Did Google's Chrome browser just become the globe's most popular?

That's what StatCounter is reporting.

It says Chrome topped Internet Explorer 8 in the last week of November, when Chrome took 23.6% of the global market and IE8 took 23.5%.

Of course, if you combine all of the versions of Internet Explorer, it's still the browser champ. And in the United States, Internet Explorer is still on top, with 27% of the market.

So what's driving the growth? Aodhan Cullen, chief executive of StatCounter, says businesses as well as consumers are adopting Chrome.

Microsoft, which includes Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system, used to have a lock on the browser market. Google didn't even enter the market until 2008.

But Chrome recently surpassed Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser, which it used to support. Firefox launched in 2004 and drove innovation in the market, which was dominated by Internet Explorer since IE overtook Netscape's browser in the late 1990s.

RTWT.

VIDEO: Moving Picture Highlights of 2011

From Sky News:

Candidates Spar in Last GOP Debate of the Year

The New York Times has a report, "Gingrich Parries With Challengers in Final Debate Before Iowa Caucuses" (via Memeorandum):

From the start, the candidates faced a series of questions on their biggest vulnerabilities, a tough, year-end parting gift from a network that has a lineup of sympathetic opinion hosts, but whose news anchors have pulled no punches on Republican candidates in debates and interviews. The race has played out, to a large degree, on Fox News.

Mr. Gingrich called “laughable” the accusation this week from Mr. Romney that he is an “unreliable conservative.” But, facing some questions about his consistency, he added, “I do change things when conditions change,” adding, however, that beating Mr. Obama is “a very large change.”

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, whose candidacy depends on a comeback in the Iowa caucuses, did not hold back against Mr. Gingrich. She called it “shocking” that he would accept $1.6 million to advise the government-owned mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

“That is something that our nominee cannot stand for,” Mrs. Bachmann said.

More at that top link.

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Newt Gingrich under fire in final GOP debate before Iowa vote."

Plus, a neat post at Legal Insurrection, "Sioux City Debate Tweets of Night."

RELATED: At National Journal, "Previewing Gingrich's Down Escalator."

Taking Ron Paul Seriously

Jeffrey Lord has this at The American Spectator, "The Ron Paul Newsletters" (via Memeorandum). And from Dan Riehl as well, "Ron Paul Can't Withstand the Scrutiny of Being a Frontrunner."

But don't miss especially Ace of Spades HQ, "Only Ron Paul Can Restore America to Its Former Greatness*." Check that link for what follows after the asterisk. The post is a devastating indictment of what looks like a blatantly racist newsletter program of pandering ggressively to paleoconservatives and "libertarians and old-time neoconfederates and former Klanners."

And according to Ace, "it wasn't just the newsletters." Here's the block quote from the post:

Paul is closely con­nected to the Lud­wig Von Mises Insti­tute, founded by the lib­er­tar­ian con­ser­v­a­tive Mur­ray Roth­bard and cur­rently run by Lew Rock­well. Rock­well was for­merly Paul’s chief of staff.
...

For Roth­bard, free­dom was best when it wore pants: he blamed the “ori­gins of the Wel­fare State” on “the legion of Yan­kee women, in par­tic­u­lar those of mid­dle– or upper-class back­ground, and espe­cially spin­sters whose busy­body incli­na­tions were not fet­tered by the respon­si­bil­i­ties of home and hearth.” He regret­ted the Con­sti­tu­tional amend­ment that had “imposed” women’s suf­frage on the nation.

In 1963, for exam­ple, at the height of the Civil Right move­ment, Roth­bard warned about “the negro cri­sis as a rev­o­lu­tion.” “Demon­strat­ing Negroes,” he said, “have taken to a favorite chant: ‘What do we want? Free­dom! When do we want it? Now!’” One might expect a lib­er­tar­ian to like such a chant, but Roth­bard found the idea of free­dom for negroes alarm­ing: they did not under­stand it prop­erly. Free­dom was a “hope­lessly ambigu­ous word as used by the Negro move­ment,” and “the very fuzzi­ness of the goal per­mits the Negroes to accel­er­ate and increase their own demands with­out limit… it is the very sweep and vague­ness of the demands that make the move­ment insatiable.”

An insa­tiable desire for free­dom usu­ally stands in lib­er­tar­ian accounts as the most praise-worthy of human attrib­utes, but Roth­bard found the African Amer­i­can free­dom strug­gle alarm­ing. Roth­bard wor­ried not just about “insa­tiable” negroes, but also about King and his non-violent protests against “pri­vate cit­i­zens as store-keepers or own­ers of golf courses; their rights are already invaded, in a “non-violent” man­ner, by the estab­lished Negro ‘Cen­ter’.” Roth­bard explored ways to stop “the negro rev­o­lu­tion:” his words are worth quot­ing in full.

There are two ways by which it might be crip­pled and defeated. First, the retal­ia­tory cre­ation of a white counter-revolutionary mass move­ment, equally deter­mined and mil­i­tant. In short, by the re-creation of the kind of Ku Klux Klan that smashed Recon­struc­tion and the Negro move­ment in the late 19th cen­tury. Since whites are in the major­ity, they have the capac­ity to do this if they have the will. But the will, in my opin­ion, is gone; this is not the 19th cen­tury, nor even the 1920’s. White opin­ion, as we have seen, has dras­ti­cally shifted from racism to egal­i­tar­i­an­ism; even the South­ern whites, par­tic­u­larly the edu­cated lead­er­ship, con­cede the broad merit of the Negro cause; and, finally, mob action no longer has respectabil­ity in our soci­ety. There have been attempts, to be sure, at mass counter-revolutionary white action: the Ku Klux leader in Geor­gia told a rally that “we must fight poi­son with poi­son,” armed con­flict between white and Negro mobs has bro­ken out in Cam­bridge, Mary­land, and white hood­lums have repeat­edly assaulted Negro pick­ets in the Bronx. But all this is a fee­ble replica of the kind of white action that would be nec­es­sary to defeat the rev­o­lu­tion; and it seems almost impos­si­ble for action to be gen­er­ated on the required scale.
...

Not sur­pris­ingly, the Von Mises Insti­tute he founded and ran is allied with the “League of the South,” which views the Civil War as a cri­sis over state’s rights and calls for an inde­pen­dent south­ern repub­lic and wants, yes, “to return to a sound cur­rency” based in gold. The League of the South laments the fact that “aliens” now gov­ern the for­mer Con­fed­er­acy. It wants to return rule to the heirs of the “Anglo-Celtic tra­di­tion.” Roth­bard and the Von Mises Insti­tute sim­i­larly describe the Civil War as an unjust inter­ven­tion, and claim slav­ery would have van­ished on its own. The North, they argue, cre­ated racism in what had been a benign nat­ural hier­ar­chy

That sounds pretty nasty.

But Ace has lots more. For example, to quote Ace himself:

Another thing I don't believe is that Ron Paul's thick-as-thieves relationship with fringe lunatic crank and Truther Alex Jones is just some kind of coincidence, given that Paul can't seem to stay away from the ghastly paranoid Here's Alex Jones following around Michele Malkin, shouting at her for being a "neocon" (he has referred to her as a "monster" and "Marxist"). One of his little goon squad there shouts "Kill Michelle Malkin!"

When I say Alex Jones is Truther, I don't mean he flirts with it. I mean he says the United States government loaded the buildings with explosives and detonated them.

And that's not even the craziest thing he believes. He happens to believe that this is just one of many attacks on citizens by the global cabal that runs the world.

But continue at the link.

It's pretty devastating all around, and it needed to be said.

And some bonus video:

War in Iraq Officially Over

The main story is at New York Times, "U.S. War in Iraq Declared Officially Over." (At Memeorandum.)

Also, the president's speech at Fort Bragg is at the video here. I watched it. It's ceremonial and symbolically important.

What's bothersome is that Barack Obama, during his time in the U.S. Senate and as a candidate for the White House, held more outright hostility to the war than any other Democrat at the time --- and that's quite an achievement, given the extreme antipathy to the mission in Iraq among the shitwad hate-America dirtbags, murderers, and rapists who did everything in their power to sabotage the deployment. Screw these people. At the video above, Obama in 2008 chirps all the far-left talking points on the war. None grates more obnoxiously than the claim that the "failed" and "mistaken" mission in Iraq was "detracting" from the war in Afghanistan. No sooner did Obama come to power than the stab-America-in-the-back progressives start clamoring for an end to the Afghanistan war. Yes, we can claim we won in Iraq --- and that's what the president did Wednesday in North Carlolina --- but it's an especially triumphant victory given that we beat our foes on the ground in combat and our political foes here at home. The left's war on the Bush administration's national security policy was a treasonous display of hatred that is literally unforgivable for any decent citizen who recognizes the costs of the mission for the country, and especially for those who have fought it. I am not, however, joining the bandwagon of those criticizing the administration's withdrawal. The White House botched negotiations for a continued troop presence --- and no doubt Iran will be increasing its influence in Iraq and across the region by the day --- but our support will continue in other ways, such as the continued deployment of stand-by forces throughout the Persian Gulf theater of operations.

We always find a way to prevail despite the treacherous agenda of the domestic enemies at home.

See also American Glob from last year: "Let Me Be Clear: Obama Deserves ZERO Credit For Iraq."

RELATED: At Los Angeles Times, "U.S. military formally ends mission in Iraq."

'The Israel Lobby' Continues to Poison Leftist Politics

(Note: When I place "The Israel Lobby" in quotes like that, I'm referring to the Mearsheimer and Walt smear thesis of a Jewish interest group section that dominates U.S. policy making toward Israel. I thought I'd put this up at top so there's no misunderstanding about my meaning at the title.)

There's a ferocious backlash against Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times column, "Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir."

Instapundit has the link to Jennifer Rubin's essay hammering Friedman, and see also Power Line, "Tom Friedman Goes Mearsheimer and Walt."

And still more from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, "Thomas Friedman and the New Anti-Semitism-Part One":

The notion that the only reason politicians support Israel is because of Jewish money is a central myth of a new form of anti-Semitism which masquerades as a defense of American foreign policy against the depredations of a venal Israel lobby. This canard not only feeds off of the traditional themes of Jew-hatred, it also requires Friedman to ignore the deep roots of American backing for Zionism in our history and culture.

Friedman goes on to embarrass himself by contrasting the reception Netanyahu received on Capitol Hill to the one he might get at a center of leftist academia such as the University of Wisconsin. There’s little doubt he would not be cheered there. But the same would be true of most American politicians or thinkers who deviated from leftist Orthodoxy. The notion that liberal campuses are more representative of opinion about Israel than Congress is laughable. It is the sort of whopper one has come to expect from the liberal chorus on the Times op-ed page and shows Netanyahu may have a better feel for what Americans think than Friedman.

And continued here: "Thomas Friedman and the New Anti-Semitism-Part Two."

Meanwhile, check yet another installment of Mondoweiss thanking God for Mearseimer and Walt, "Why did it take 6 years to talk about the Israel lobby?"

My good friend Norm tells me that these people hate, that progressive especially hate Israel, and that it's not going away. But I can't stop shaking my head at the enormous chasm I see whenever I read this stuff. Mondoweiss (and I mean Phillip Weiss) argues that "The Israel Lobby" smear has now gone mainstream and that it's "safe" for journalists like Chris Matthews to come aboard the good ship anti-Semitism. I guess that it's just that I'd not realized how exterminationist is the left-wing project. So, I shake my head partly out of my own naïvity. There's a war going on, and it's fully enjoined on the question of the defense of Israel. Game on, I say. And give no quarter to these f-kers.

Anyway, more from Elliott Abrams, "Mr. Friedman’s Diatribe Against Israel."

Romney Goes for Aggressive Attacks on Gingrich

At New York Times, "Shifting Tactics, Romney Attacks Surging Gingrich":

Mitt Romney, his presidential aspirations suddenly endangered by Newt Gingrich’s rapid resurgence, is employing aggressive new arguments in an effort to disqualify Mr. Gingrich as a credible choice to Republicans, calling him “zany” in an interview on Wednesday and questioning his commitment to free enterprise.

But in an acknowledgment that he might not be able to reverse Mr. Gingrich’s momentum quickly, Mr. Romney and his team are bracing for a far rougher slog through the early Republican nominating contests than they had envisioned even a few weeks ago and preparing for months of a state-by-state, delegate-by-delegate fight.

The Romney campaign and its allies are unsure whether the attacks on Mr. Gingrich’s stability, temperament and worldview will take hold before the voting begins. Mr. Romney and some of his aides and advisers suggest that their revised campaign strategy will rely on advantages in organization and financing for the long run while moving quickly in the short term to turn Mr. Gingrich’s own words against him.

Mr. Romney is seeking to paint Mr. Gingrich as “an unreliable conservative” on issues like climate change. And he is seizing on a remark Mr. Gingrich made this week, condemning Mr. Romney for profiting from layoffs and corporate restructuring he oversaw in his years running Bain Capital, that many conservative commentators said sounded like a Democratic antibusiness refrain.

Mr. Romney said voters should take a closer look at Mr. Gingrich’s history of policy ideas.

“Zany is not what we need in a president,” Mr. Romney said. “Zany is great in a campaign. It’s great on talk radio. It’s great in print, it makes for fun reading, but in terms of a president, we need a leader, and a leader needs to be someone who can bring Americans together.”

Continue reading.

Plus, more at Memeorandum.

BONUS: Check out more aggressiveness at National Review, "Winnowing the Field." It's a merciless attack on Gingrich.

Obama Struggles to Explain His Failed Economic Policies to Hard-Core Supporter

He's the worst.

Notice Obummer blaming the depression on the 2008 financial crisis, not on his own fiscal and social-policy wrecking ball of a job destroyer:

And here's Cold Fury on the Democrats' refusal to approve the XL pipeline:

If Ogabe and his merry Democrat Socialist marauders are that firmly opposed to job creation, energy independence, and affordable gasoline prices for the American working stiff, let them put themselves on record as such. Then hang it on them from now til election day next year, and beyond. Let’s see if their Watermelon pals can save them from the wrath of the American people at the ballot box next year. Rethugs should not let anybody forget what this vote represents. Not ever.

Democrats Backing Away from Occupy Wall Street

See Roll Call, "Occupy, Liberals Can’t Get Together."

A planned meeting today between the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Occupy Wall Street activists was scuttled late Tuesday after Roll Call inquired about it, highlighting increasing tensions between Democrats and the movement.

While Democrats are adopting the movement’s “99 percent” language, they are increasingly retreating from the protesters themselves and their anti-capitalist rhetoric. Some in the party view the Occupy activists — camped out in grubby tent cities around the country — as a potential liability in 2012.

“Democrats should reject Occupy Wall Street as the spokesmen for the 99 percent,” said Kelly Bingel, who served as former Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s (D-Ark.)chief of staff until 2005 and is now a partner with Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc. “The chance of those guys going out and voting or encouraging anyone else to vote is very low.”

Another Democratic lobbyist and early supporter of President Barack Obama agreed. “I think Democrats need to stay away from embracing OWS. We can acknowledge their frustrations without embracing their movement,” he said. “They are too fringe-y and don’t play well in middle America. Let the Republicans be the party of the angry right. We need to be the party where moderates feel welcomed.”

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus apparently got cold feet after someone leaked news of the planned #OWS meeting to the press.

Obviously not all Demo-Commies are backing away from these drug addicts, murderers and rapists. Walter James "Occupy" Casper aggressively defends the movement, whining about how it wouldn't be fair to brand all the movement's supporters as criminals and communists. No doubt Racist Repsac3 is especially thrilled by Occupy's anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish bankers.

Video Hat Tip: Lew Waters.

Newt Gingrich 'Mic Checked' at University of Iowa

These people are the biggest freakin' losers.

At Washington Wire, " Occupy Protesters Interrupt Gingrich":

IOWA CITY, Iowa–Before beginning a campaign event in a packed lecture hall at the University of Iowa, Newt Gingrich was interrupted by Occupy Wall Street protesters.

“Mic check!” a protester yelled, a phrase used by the movement to begin a chant. Mr. Gingrich didn’t appear to catch on at first. “What’s wrong?” he said.

Also at Fox News, "Newt Gets 'Occupied' at the University of Iowa."

Democrats Attack Romney as the Candidate of the 1 Percent

As the video indicates, Democrats aren't too smart to attack Romney this way. The epic hypocrisy will come back to bite them. But perhaps that reality swooshes right over the head of radical progressive WaPo blogger Greg Sargent: "Is Mitt Romney the candidate of the `one percent’?"

PJ Media Exclusive: 'How Newt Gingrich Could Win the GOP Nomination'

My latest essay at PJ Media is here.

I finished the draft over the weekend and the race is already changing. There's talk that Ron Paul could actually take Iowa. I raise the possibility at the essay, although looking beyond Iowa it's a battle between Mitt and Newt, and Newt's really coming on strong.

Ann Coulter: Romney the Most Conservative Candidate for Republican Nomination

At Fox News, "What Made Ann Coulter Change Her Mind About Mitt Romney?"

The Dahmer jab is toward the end of the clip.

Ad Executive Crushed to Death in Elevator Accident in Manhattan

At New York Times, "Suzanne Hart Crushed in Midtown Elevator":

The woman, Suzanne Hart, a director of new business content and experience at Y&R, one of the world’s leading advertising agencies, was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident, which happened around 10 a.m. at 285 Madison Avenue, a 28-story building at the corner of 40th Street.

A Fire Department official described the accident as follows:

Her foot or her leg are heading into the elevator while the door is open. Her one foot is in the car; but then, the doors close on her leg and the elevator shoots upward. And she is just kind of yanked up with it. Then, the elevator car becomes pinned between the first and second floor. It seems like her body is what stops the elevator’s movement.

The official said that it took about an hour just to remove the two other passengers, who were not hurt but were taken to New York University Langone Medical Center. “I don’t think any physical injuries,” he said. “It is just what they saw, traumas.”

Ms. Hart’s body remained jammed in the elevator for considerably longer, stuck in what is called the blind shaft between the first and second floors, the official said.

Also at Fox News New York, "Woman Crushed By Elevator In Midtown."

More at London's Daily Mail, "Madison Avenue advertising executive crushed to death after elevator starts moving with the doors still open."

'The Protester' is Time's Person of the Year

Well, at least they didn't give it to Obambi. Oh, I forgot. They did that already.

At Time, "The Protester." (Via Fausta, The Hill, and Memeorandum.)

Also, at Washington Post, "Why Steve Jobs isn’t Time’s Person of the Year."

And Daily Caller, "TIME’s ‘Person of the Year’ selection about as annoying as you’d expect."

PHOTO CREDIT: El Marco, "Zuccotti Utopia: Portraits of The New Revolutionaries."

Gunman in Belgium Targeted Christmas Shoppers With Grenades, Firearms

At Telegraph UK, "Liege attacks: Lone gunman brings terror to streets of Belgian city with hand grenade attack":

A lone gunman spread terror in the Belgian city of Liege, opening fire and throwing hand grenades onto a square packed Christmas shoppers, killing five people and himself, and injuring scores.

At Pamela's, "MORE ON MUSLIM GUNMEN IN BELGIUM," and "BELGIUM GRENADE ATTACK BY MUSLIM[S]: 4 DEAD, 75 WOUNDED."

Also at Vlad Tepes, "SUN TV News report on Attack in Belgium." And Right Wing News, "Surprise! Belgium Grenade Attack Might Be Linked to Islamists."

Racial Disparities in Autism Services

On any issue like this you'll always get the inequality arguments. From the continuing series on autism at Los Angeles Times, "Warrior parents fare best in securing autism services":

Public spending on autistic children in California varies significantly by racial or ethnic group and socioeconomic status, according to data analyzed by the Los Angeles Times.

For autistic children 3 to 6 — a critical period for treating the disorder — the state Department of Developmental Services last year spent an average of $11,723 per child on whites, compared with $11,063 on Asians, $7,634 on Latinos and $6,593 on blacks.

Data from public schools, though limited, shows that whites are more likely to receive basic services such as occupational therapy to help with coordination and motor skills.

The divide is even starker when it comes to the most coveted service — a behavioral aide from a private company to accompany a child throughout each school day, at a cost that often reaches $60,000 a year.

In the state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, white elementary school students on the city's affluent Westside have such aides at more than 10 times the rate of Latinos on the Eastside.

It might be tempting to blame such disparities on prejudice, but the explanation is more complicated.

“Part of what you're seeing here is the more educated and sophisticated you are, the louder you scream and the more you ask for,” said Soryl Markowitz, an autism specialist at the Westside Regional Center, which arranges state-funded services in West Los Angeles for people with developmental disabilities.

In both the developmental system and the schools, the process for determining what services a disabled child receives is in essence a negotiation with the parents.

RTWT.

The photos themselves are intense. And some of the family vignettes are sad. But then, that's exactly what this series is about: building an agenda for more state funding for those who're underserved --- and the program's already an entitlement, spending billions annually. The problem is those with less economic resources lack the skills and time to navigate the system and secure the lion's share of support.

And while autism is pretty undefined --- and yeah, it's probably over-diagnosed, ---I know from my own's son's experiences that there are real health issues at stake for families. And again, look at those pictures.

Previously: "Unraveling Autism."

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers: 'We Are Changing the Course Here in America to a Pro-Growth Agenda'

McMorris Rogers hammers the administration's threatened veto of the payroll tax cut extension with the Keystone XL provision.

Also earlier at New York Times, "House Republicans’ Bill Sets Up Pipeline Battle."

PREVIOUSLY: "House Approves Payroll Tax Cut Extension."

'Exmoor Emperor'

Althouse has the story of the mounted head of the 9 foot deer stag that was Britain's largest indigenous animal at the time it was killed. A hunter apparently nabbed him fair and square. But clearly, killing a majestic animal like that is the perfect trophy for abolitionists, not tourists.

See "'To come out and proudly boast you have one of the country's most magnificent creatures hanging on your wall is both unscrupulous and, frankly, professional suicide'."