Black Students, Especially Boys, Face Much Harsher Discipline in Public Schools, Department of Education Report Claims

All this really tells us is how f-ked up our public discussion of public schools has become. I listened to Secretary Duncan at the clip and there's literally zero emphasis on personal and family responsibility, and then UC Berkeley's Professor Christopher Edley piles on about how "racist" this all is, because suspending students means they aren't in class to learn, blah, blah. No, these kids are getting disciplined in the first place because they're disrupting classes so badly that teachers can't teach and no one can learn. And that's why these students face "harsher" punishment, which when translated into the civil rights victimology jargon, is allegedly "disparate treatment," and then voila!, problem students' parents can sue the school, keep their kids in classes, and it all starts over again!

See the New York Times, "Black Students Face More Discipline, Data Suggests."

Althouse has a problem with the racial victimology here:

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan characterized these findings as a "civil rights" problem, a violation of "the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise." But what is the real problem here? Is it believed that the teachers are racially prejudiced? Are there "white" (or middle class) standards of behavior that are used unfairly to judge and punish black children? Are there female standards of behavior that are used to judge boys?

These are very uncomfortable and disturbing statistics, and the solutions are far from clear. But certainly, you can't even out the numbers by going after white kids. There needs to be one set of rules and individuals must be treated as individuals, based on what they did. That's a "principle of equity" that cannot be abandoned.

More at the link.

And out of all of those cited above, I'll bet I'm the only one commenting from personal experience --- I have these kinds of students in my classes, and they're disciplined more often because they cause the most problems. It's not racist and it's not a civil rights problem. It's a breakdown of society problem.

PREVIOUSLY: "Realities of Higher Education in California," and "Volunteers at Community Colleges? Of Course Not, That Would Threaten the Power of California's Educational Administrative Commissariat."

Michelle Malkin: 'This is all about Alinskyite control of who tells the story'

Michelle has just been on fire lately!

Via Daley Gator, "The Vetting: In 1991, Obama Protested in Support of Racialist Havard Professor."

More video at The Right Scoop, "Malkin: We will NOT just shrug our shoulders at Obama’s radical connections."

Sean Hannity Exclusive: Unedited 1991 Video of Barack Obama Embracing Radical Views of Harvard Professor Derrick Bell

I was looking forward to this program all day yesterday. Twitter was on fire with all kinds of #Breitbart tweeting.

Super Tuesday Reinforces GOP Divide

At Wall Street Journal, "Republican Split Decision: Romney Had a Good Night but Santorum Has Cause to Fight On."

Republican elites are aching to declare this race over and take aim at Mr. Obama. The fear is that the intraparty debate is hurting the GOP brand and the image of the candidates. Some of that is inevitable in any primary campaign, but November is a long way off and the American public hasn't concluded that Mr. Obama deserves another term.

The hand-wringing is fruitless in any case. The voters are in charge and their split decision shows that Republicans still haven't settled on a standard-bearer.

See also John Avlon and Ben Jacobs, at The Daily Beast, "No Clear Path to Victory for Romney" (via Memeorandum).

Progressives Attack Alleged Conservative 'Sluts' With Impunity: Political Fallout Hits Only Commentators On the Right

Freakin' double progressive standards.

Some video first.

Below is the disgusting hate-talker Ed Schultz. If Bill Maher takes the cake for progressive anti-conservative misogyny, the chunky MSNBC hack is right up there on the awards platform for the silver medal.

And see Michelle Malkin for a report, "The War on Conservative Women" (via Memeorandum):

I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs.
We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight.

At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal.

The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005′s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage.

If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name.

Michelle's got links at the post, and examples of Ed Schultz's attacks, so continue reading.

And see Nick Gillespie, "It's Like Totally Different When a Liberal Blowhard Guy Calls a Conservative Woman a Twat!" (at Memeorandum).

Jessica Simpson Nude, Pregnant for 'Elle' Cover

Well, I used to post a lot of Jessica Simpson Rule 5, but not lately, for obvious reasons. But here she is taking it all off for some nude and pregnant publicity, so here you go for the curiosity angle.

See USA Today, "Jessica Simpson poses nude, pregnant for 'Elle' mag."

And Us Magazine, "Whoa! Pregnant Jessica Simpson Poses Nude, Says She's Having Girl."

RELATED: At New York Post, "Jessica: It’s a girl!"

Progressives Attack Actor Kirk Cameron for Alleged Anti-Gay 'Hate Speech'

Well, this is a huge surprise! Huge!

At ABC News, "Exclusive: Kirk Cameron Responds to Critics, 'Hate Speech'."

And at WND, "Kirk Cameron Fires Back."

You just don't hear this stuff that much these days. And amazing segment:

Sarah Palin Won't Rule Out Presidential Campaign in Case of Open Convention

At Telegraph UK, "Sarah Palin refuses to rule out presidential run saying 'anything's possible'."

And at CNN, "Palin on open convention: Anything is possible."

RELATED: You gotta read this one from yesterday morning, "Super Wednesday: GOP establishment lays down the law to the right."

And from Robert Stacy McCain, "If You Think Mitt Romney Is ‘Electable’…"

Mitt Romney Wins Ohio GOP Primary: Long Campaign for Convention Delegates Remains

Well, that was a genuine nail-biter.

CNN held off until the end of the night before projecting at winner, and by that time reporter Candy Crowley was snarking on Twitter that Mitt Romney was already asleep.

See Washington Post, "Romney wins the grand prize of Ohio."

And at Wall Street Journal, "Romney Extends His Lead With Ohio Win":

Mitt Romney eked out a narrow win in Ohio and extended his delegate lead on Super Tuesday, but voters failed to deliver a decisive victory that could have brought a swift end to the Republican nominating contest.

Mr. Romney notched wins in Ohio, Massachusetts, Idaho, Virginia and Vermont, while Newt Gingrich took Georgia and Rick Santorum won Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Dakota. Alaska returns were the last tallied.

The down-to-the-wire contest in the important battleground of Ohio illustrated both Mr. Romney's vulnerabilities as a front-runner and his organization's capacity to beat back a stiff challenge. Mr. Romney had a four-to-one advantage in TV and radio advertising.

Each of the top candidates showed strength, as expected, in friendly territory—Mr. Romney in the Northeast, including Massachusetts, where he had served as governor, and Mr. Gingrich in the state he represented in Congress. In winning Tennessee and Oklahoma, Mr. Santorum carried states where his social conservatism had been expected to resonate.

The returns came as voters turned out for primaries and caucuses in 10 Super Tuesday contests packed with consequence for all four of the major GOP presidential candidates.

Tuesday was billed as a test of Mr. Romney's national reach as the party's front-runner, as well as a measure of whether Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Santorum would emerge as his toughest challenger.

Mr. Santorum now has a strong claim to that role after winning at least three states and battling to a close second in Ohio. Outside of Georgia, Mr. Gingrich finished no better than third place on Tuesday.

Continue reading.

The Romney campaign is preparing for a continued slog to the nomination.

See also Los Angeles Times, "Mitt Romney wins key Ohio battle: Narrowly edges Rick Santorum in victory."

'I Will Follow'

Dana Loesch tweeted this on the day we lost Andrew:

Realities of Higher Education in California

I mentioned previously that the community colleges are going to a "rationing" model for educational access, putting a priority on class registration for students who're making normative time toward a degree or university transfer. There's actually a jumble of factors that have gotten us to this point, and a good many of those are not budgetary. So I'm interested to see this editorial at the Long Beach Press-Telegram, which really gets to the nub of a lot of the issues facing the public higher education system, especially for those demographics with limited economic means. See, "Cost of Ignorance - I'll Prepared Students a Burden for Colleges":

Budget cuts have forced California's public colleges and universities to make tough choices about how to continue to serve students. They are cutting back on classes, limiting enrollment and raising tuition. And one reason is the cost of the remedial education they have to provide.

For example, fully 90 percent of students who enter Long Beach Community College need remedial classes in math and English. That dismal number comes despite efforts by the Long Beach Unified School District, which does more than most to ensure students' success, and its partners at CSULB and LBCC to prepare students for college.

Called the Long Beach College Promise, the program guaranteed LBUSD graduates admission to California State University Long Beach if they met the minimum requirements for college. Now, under a plan being discussed by CSU officials, the bottom 10 percent of those students would have to take remedial courses at LBCC before they could be admitted.

Given the elimination of tens of millions of dollars in funding for CSU and UC schools, the days of guaranteeing the lowest performers a place in the classroom could be over, and rightly so....

The reality of higher education is that less money is available as more students compete for scarce spots. The other reality is that far too many high school graduates can't read and write and do math. That puts an unnecessary burden on community colleges, which have to offer far too many remedial classes.

Volunteers at Community Colleges? Of Course Not, That Would Threaten the Power of California's Educational Administrative Commissariat

I had to share this letter to the editor at the Orange County Register, "No volunteers at community colleges." The author, Richard Callahan, is retired finance executive with over 40 years in the private sector. He's taught business classes at UCLA and other universities, and he's offered his time free of charge to private colleges. But when he approached some of the community colleges to offer his services, he was given a cold shoulder and sent packing. Be sure to read it all. I thought his conclusion was a devastating indictment:

With my apologies to the majority of the public school teachers who are hard working and dedicated, our public education system today is inwardly focused, protectionist, money driven and broken.

The system is run by politicians, unions and administrators whose apparent goal is to extract the maximum amount of funds from the taxpayer. Instead of educating children to function and excel in society, they are molded into a society of underachieving conformists who will give up their liberty and acquiesce to the government’s power and authority while devoting more of their personal resources, particularly financial, to expanding government.

I've recently written a couple of times about my dealing with the crushing bureaucratic totalitarianism at my college. Oh, boy, if only I'd known 15 years ago what I know today, but then again, you live and learn and become wiser. Let's just say that I'm facing a lot of restraints on the job, and these are the kind that are frankly political and ideological in nature --- and the administrative bosses fit perfectly into that power-hungry template outlined by Mr. Callahan above. What's depressing is that all the stuff you hear about driving out the best and the brightest from the public schools is true, or at least in my case, if I decide on the earliest retirement possible because of what's essentially a hostile workplace environment. It's pretty ridiculous. In any case, at some point I'll be able to tell the full story on all of this, but not yet, not just yet.

Meanwhile, heading back over to the O.C. Register, hear's another primer on the corruption of power in the public realm. From the editors, "Bound Up."

PREVIOUSLY: "What Has America Become?"

In the Mail: Should Israel Exist?: A Sovereign Nation Under Attack by the International Community

I started reading it last night, from Michael Curtis, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University.

Check it out at the link.

I'm very pleased with it, and I've just started. Professor Curtis really calls out the global left's genocidal campaign against Israel and the Jews. This work is on par with Melanie Phillips', and Curtis is an academic. An amazing contrast to Mearsheimer and Walt, and no doubt those two thugs will be making an appearance in these pages.

I'll update when I have more.

Ohio Is Biggest Prize in Today's Super Tuesday Primaries

See the Los Angeles Times, "In Ohio, voters share unease about the future":

Reporting from Dayton, Ohio— In the fading evening light, Jeff Snider played catch in the middle of the street with his 14-year-old son, the baseball thwacking their mitts. They stepped out of the way and waved when cars passed. The friendly neighborhoods in hilly Oakwood, a picture-perfect suburb nestled against Dayton, belong in a brochure for the American Dream. But the tranquillity hides a churning discontent.

A lanky high school math teacher, Snider worries about the mortgage and the cost of sending four children to college. He's dismayed by the federal debt, unhappy that the bank bailout "benefited people with huge, huge salaries," irritated that politicians cater to the rich and the poor but not the middle class, and distressed "big time" by the nation's division into hostile political camps.

In this season of political promises, the 44-year-old had a crisp response to whether he believed the country was headed in the right direction, or the wrong one. "No direction," he pronounced. "I look at the candidates running for president, and I say, 'That's the best they can do?' "

For almost a decade, as manufacturing jobs ebbed and cities shrank, Ohioans have told pollsters they are discouraged about the fate of the nation, putting them at the head of the pessimism curve. Even as Super Tuesday's 10 contests — with Ohio the key battleground — arrived with undercurrents of an economic revival, interviews with voters in the Dayton area found that deep anxieties remain.

Continue reading.

And at the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, "Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum make one last run at Ohio voters before Super Tuesday":

Ohio, where polls are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., is one of 10 states holding nominating contests today. But far and wide it is being watched as a decisive prize in a primary season that has gone on longer than many anticipated. The Buckeye State awards 66 delegates to the Republican National Convention and remains a top electoral target in the fall.

Also, from Dan Riehl at Big Government, "Super Tuesday Preview." And from Erin McPike and Scott Conroy at RCP, "How the Super Tuesday States Shape Up."

Andrew Breitbart Speech at Ground Zero Mosque Protest, September 11, 2010

Via Atlas Shrugs:

That speech was shown on the rally's Jumbotron large-screen via live video feed.

It was one heckuva day: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

Ezra Levant Remembers Andrew Breitbart

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Natan Sharansky AIPAC Video

Awesome!

Michele Bachmann on Rush Limbaugh Attacks: 'I Have Never Seen This Level of Outrage On the Left'

No, you don't get this bullsh*t when progressive hacks smear conservative women.

Rep. Bachmann hits it out of the park:

And see Dana Loesch, at Big Journalism, "Where's My Presidential Phone Call?"

BONUS: At Michelle Malkin's, "The anti-Rush revival revived — and Barack Obama’s petty presidency."

Sandra Fluke Law Review Article Argued for Mandatory Health Coverage of 'Gender Reassignment' Surgery

At The Other McCain, "Sandra Fluke Argued for Mandatory Coverage for Sex-Change Surgery."

Congratualations, America: You’ve been scammed!

Following the link takes us to College Politico, although the server's crashed with all the attention. Here's the Memeorandum link, and check Media Research Center as well: "Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance."

RELATED: From Dan Riehl, at Big Journalism, "The Left's eWar On Rush."

And see Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Despite Gaffe, Limbaugh Won’t Be Silenced."

Sandra Fluke Rejects Rush Limbaugh Apology

The Fluke rejection is at Breitbart, "Fluke Snubs Rush Apology: 'Read Media Matters'," and NewsBusters, "Sandra Fluke Refuses to Accept Rush Limbaugh Apology."

It's all over Memorandum, as well.

And here's Rush Limbaugh, "Why I Apologized to Sandra Fluke" (via Memeorandum).

And ICYMI, see William Jacobson, "Welcome to Total Political War."

News reports indicate that up to a dozen advertisers have now pulled their ads from Limbaugh's show. I'll be looking around for more information on that and will update.

Obama at AIPAC

I've got the whole speech below.

And here's the report at New York Times, "Obama Tells Aipac He Won't Tolerate a Nuclear Iran." (At Memeorandum.)

Obama gets a lot of polite applause, but there's a few lines went over flat. Commentary is the go-to website this morning on AIPAC, for example, "What’s Missing From Obama’s AIPAC Speech? Red Lines on Iran and Palestinians," and "White House Official: We’re Making Israel’s Decision to Attack Iran “Hard as Possible”."

Meanwhile, UCLA's Barbara Efraim is at AIPAC at tweeting all day. Check it out.

Will Super Tuesday Put Republicans at Ease?

Well, Tuesday's the big day, and frankly, the candidates are all over the map, literally. Ohio's the big prize for either Romney or Santorum, but Georgia also key, since Newt Gingrich is resting his final hopes there.

I'll have more on all of this. Meanwhile, at Los Angeles Times, "Republicans grow anxious for primary race to end":

After a dozen contests, 20 debates and the prospect of weeks or even months of continued skirmishing, there is a growing clamor among Republicans to bring the presidential nomination race to a close for fear of hopelessly damaging the party's chances against President Obama.

Republicans designed their plan for picking a nominee to test their candidates with a longer, more grueling campaign. But the move threatens to backfire in favor of a Democratic incumbent who has gained strength as the increasingly nasty GOP contest has worn on.

"There's been plenty of preliminaries," said Curt Steiner, a Republican strategist in Ohio, the most important of the nearly dozen states voting this week on Super Tuesday. "It's time to focus on the general election."

Steiner backs Mitt Romney, so it's no surprise he would like to end the primary season with the former Massachusetts governor ahead, if still far short of the 1,144 convention delegates needed to secure the nomination. Sending a signal from Washington, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia on Sunday announced his endorsement of Romney ahead of his state's Tuesday primary.

It's not just Romney backers, though, who worry about the toll of a prolonged and increasingly nasty contest.

"The campaign has become deeply personal and very negative," said Steve Schmidt, who managed Arizona Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign and is staying neutral this time. "There is no optimistic vision. It's all about stabbing the opponent."

The damage, Schmidt said, is evident in polls that show Obama gaining ground against challengers while negative views of the Republican field increase. More worrisome from the GOP perspective is the shift of political independents toward Obama and the risk of further alienating those swing voters as the discussion strays from economic issues to the merits of contraception and the separation of church and state.

"This is stuff that will do great harm to the Republican Party," Schmidt said, a view shared, quite happily, by the Obama camp.

That sounds like a lot of establishment fear-mongering to me. Let's see how it all plays out on Tuesday. Then we'll really know how this primary race will affect the GOP. If Romney's not wrapping things up there's good reason for that. He's not broadening his base of support, which so far has been the media's attack on the other challengers to frontrunner status.

That said, here's this at NBC News, "NBC/WSJ poll: Primary season takes ‘corrosive’ toll on GOP and its candidates" (via Memeorandum).

More later...

Looking Forward to the Release of the Obama Tapes

This is worth a look, from Dr. Sanity, "Maybe Obama's Past With With Ayers Will Be Revisited After All."

And the rollout has begun, at Breitbart's Big Government, "The Vetting, Part I: Barack's Love Song to Alinsky."

And it's all over Memeorandum.

As I've been saying, it's going to be a big week.

Newt Gingrich Turns Tables On the 'Elite Media'

This is a phenomenal clip, via William Jacobson:

The Race Card is the Most Effective Tool the Democrat Media Complex Has

From the forthcoming documentary, "Runaway Slave":

'Warning to America'

An outstanding interview with Britain's Liam Fox at the Heritage Foundation, via Big Government:

RELATED: At New York Times, "China Boosts Military Spending by Double Digits."

Vladimir Putin Wins Russia's Presidential Election Amid Allegations of Vote-Rigging and Ballot Fraud

At Toronto's Globe and Mail, "Vladimir Putin declares ‘open and honest victory’ in Russian elections." And Telegraph UK, "Russia election: Tearful Vladimir Putin declares victory":

Vladimir Putin declared victory in Russia's presidential election Sunday night, but his historic win was overshadowed by widespread reports of vote-rigging and ballot fraud.

Addressing a rally outside the Kremlin, Mr Putin had tears rolling down his cheeks as he claimed he had won an "open and honest battle" and secured "clear victory" over his four rivals.

Early results suggested he had won more than 63 per cent of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off against another of the candidates and deliver him an unprecedented third term.

However, he faces mass protests after opposition activists said they had recorded more than 4,000 instances of alleged vote-rigging and malpractice that rendered the contest illegitimate.

They promised to bring tens of thousands of people on to the streets on Monday after claims that the regime had sought to guarantee victory by transporting groups of supporters around multiple polling stations to vote several times over.

However, as he spoke to an estimated crowd of 100,000 outside the Kremlin, Mr Putin, who was flanked by the outgoing president, Dmitry Medvedev, insisted: "We have won in an open and honest battle.

"I promised you we would win, we won. Glory to Russia!"

His voice hoarse with emotion he added: "We showed that no one and nothing can tell us what to do. We were able to save ourselves from political provocations that have just one aim: to overturn the Russian state and usurp power. Such attempts will not succeed on our land. They won't succeed!"

And check Russia Today, "Video: Teary-eyed Putin addresses 110,000 crowd near Kremlin."

Plus, at the New York Times, "Putin Wins Vote but Faces More Friction With Opponents."

Tina Korbe Handicaps Super Tuesday

Well, besides her Santorum interview at CPAC, I haven't seen a lot of clips of Tina Korbe, but Robert Stacy McCain mentioned that she might have gotten her Hot Air gig on looks alone (or mostly looks). So, what do you think? Is she a crack political analyst?

Not bad, I'd say, although I can see the point that Hot Air perhaps needed to extend the bench a bit to look more, ahem, attractive for those booking slots on Hannity, O'Reilly, and CNN. Maybe that's politically incorrect, but Ms. Korbe might want to set up her Skype interviews with some bookshelves in the back. That would look, let's say, more scholarly.

Basic Combat Training Rule 5

Well, my good friend Dana at First Street Journal has been Rule 5 blogging, and he gets first mention tonight.

See: "Rule 5 Blogging: Basic Rifle Marksmanship."

Plus, more at Astute Bloggers, "LOVELY BRIT ROSIE ROFF IS GUARANTEED NOT HALAL, BUT IN 18 YEARS IT WILL LIKELY BE ANOTHER STORY."

And see American Perspectives, "Miranda Kerr - Rule 5," and Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Joanna and Marta Krupa."

More at Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is an evil fossil fueled airplane, you might just be a Warmist."

More still, at Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Jenna Webb." And Proof Positive, "The Women of PETA XXXI."

And at Gator's, "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Elisabetta Canalis," and The Last Tradition, "Helen Flanagan: I love to show off my figure but as for going topless... I'll save that for my boyfriend."

That's all the links I've got right now.

Add yours in the comments and I'll update. Thanks.

CNN Attacks Andrew Breitbart Hours After His Death

If you haven't been over there yet, the Breitbart "Bigs" got a huge makeover today, and John Nolte has this, at Big Journalism:

What an honor it was to work for a man like Andrew Breitbart, a man so uncommonly decent that those who would seek to defame him in the hours directly after his death would only have complete and utter falsehoods to work with.

I'm looking at you, CNN.

Thursday, in private, we reached out to CNN, with the request that they correct the record. Since they have made the choice to let their falsehoods stand, we are now publicly requesting CNN make a full retraction.

Just hours after his death, during two different segments, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux and Howard Kurtz epitomized everything Andrew Breitbart dedicated his life to fighting: the intentional furthering of completely false narratives; the attacking of people unable to defend themselves (which, sadly, is the position Andrew is in today), and the repeating of that which isn't true until it "becomes" true.

This first clip with Malveaux aired Thursday morning at right around 11:25 ET. Please watch and listen closely:

More at the link, and go surf around over at the new Breitbart homepage.

It's going to be a big week.

'Clarion of Faith'

That's the description of Rick Santorum at the New York Times front-page today, "Rick Santorum's Journey From ‘Nominal Catholic’ to Clarion of Faith":

GREAT FALLS, Va. — Rick Santorum was, in his own words, a “nominal Catholic” when he met Karen Garver, a neonatal nurse and law student, in 1988. As they made plans to marry and he decided to enter politics, she sent him to her father for advice.

Dr. Kenneth L. Garver was a Pittsburgh pediatrician who specialized in medical genetics. The patriarch of a large Roman Catholic family, he had treated patients considering abortion but was strongly opposed to it.

“We sat across the table and the whole evening we talked about this issue,” Mr. Santorum told an anti-abortion group last October. He left, he said, convinced “that there was only one place to be, from the standpoint of science as well as from the standpoint of faith.”

For Mr. Santorum, a Republican candidate for president, that conversation was an early step on a path into a deeply conservative Catholic culture that has profoundly influenced his life as a husband, father and politician. Over the past two decades, he has undergone a religious transformation that is now spurring a national conversation about faith in the public sphere.

On the campaign trail, he has attacked President Obama for “phony theology,” warned of the “dangers of contraceptives” and rejected John F. Kennedy’s call for strict separation of church and state. His bold expressions of faith could affect his support in this week’s Super Tuesday nominating contests, possibly helping with conservative Christians, especially in the South, but scaring off voters uncomfortable mixing so much religion in politics.

Central to Mr. Santorum’s spiritual life is his wife, whom he calls “the rock which I stand upon.” Before marrying, the couple decided to recommit themselves to their Catholic faith — a turnabout for Karen Santorum, who had been romantically involved with a well-known abortion provider in Pittsburgh and had openly supported abortion rights, according to several people who knew her then.

The Santorums went on to have eight children, including a son who died two hours after birth in 1996 and a daughter, now 3, who has a life-threatening genetic disorder. Unlike Catholics who believe that church doctrine should adapt to changing times and needs, the Santorums believe in a highly traditional Catholicism that adheres fully to what scholars call “the teaching authority” of the pope and his bishops.

“He has a strong sense of that,” said George Weigel, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, where Mr. Santorum had a fellowship after losing his bid for re-election to the Senate in 2006. “He’s the first national figure of some significance who’s on that side of the Catholic conversation.”

Keep reading.

It's a bit condescending. Progressives think devout Catholics are freaks, and it comes across here. And the Times spends a whole section on Mrs. Santorum's relationship with Dr. Tom Allen, an abortionist who was three times older than she was. Rick Santorum repudiated attacks on his wife earlier in the campaign, and frankly I think Mrs. Santorum's previous relationship is irrelevant. When she first got together with Rick she had something of an epiphany of faith. They both immersed themselves in their Catholicism. That's an inspiring story. Focus on that. That said, there are some pretty inspirational passages at the piece, for example:

The loss of the Santorums’ son Gabriel, in 1996 — just as the senator was leading the fight in Congress to ban the procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion — was devastating for the couple. Mrs. Santorum was nearly 20 weeks pregnant; doctors discovered a fetal anomaly. After a risky operation, she developed an infection and took antibiotics, which the couple knew would result in the birth of a baby who would not survive.

Critics likened it to an abortion, but in a 1997 interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mr. Santorum said that was not the case. Mr. Schoeneman, the couple’s friend, said the death convinced them that “God had a purpose in Gabriel’s life, and they were going to live out that purpose in their lives.” Both Santorums began speaking out more strongly against abortion; Mrs. Santorum became prominent in her own right after publishing a 1998 book, “Letters to Gabriel.”

In the Senate, Mr. Santorum started a prayer group and would go on to help convert a fellow senator, Sam Brownback, now the governor of Kansas, to Catholicism.

After Mr. Santorum’s re-election in 2000, the family traveled to Rome, where they had a private audience with Pope John Paul II.

“He said to the pope, ‘Father, you’re a great man,’ ” Mr. Schoeneman said, recounting the session as Mr. Santorum told it to him. “And the pope turned to him, because Rick at this point had all six children sitting there, and he said, ‘No, you’re a great man.’

“And it was like a message from God,” Mr. Schoeneman said, “that he was living his life in the right way, that his path was correct.”

Awesome.

Patricia Murphy on Super Tuesday

Maybe I'll post on David Frum later, with some additional commentary, but see Newsbusters for now, "'Conservative' CNN Analyst Frum Calls for Limbaugh to Send Fluke One of His Sex Tapes."

Meanwhile, I like Patricia Murphy and we do have Super Tuesday coming up so I'll have more on that later.

This Day in History: Abraham Lincoln Was Inaugurated as 16th President of the United States

Can you imagine, 151 years ago today, the nation's greatest president was sworn into office?

And you can read Lincoln's words, "First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861":

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.

Read it all...

Sunday Cartoons

Still waiting for Flopping Aces' "Sunday Funnies," and will link when it's available.

Added: Here's they are: "Sunday Funnies."

Meanwhile, at Reaganite Resistance, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

RELATED: At Kansas City Star, "Gas prices appear headed for record above $4, and The Hill, "Gas prices to cost Obama."

ADDED: From Jill Stanek, "Stanek Sunday funnies, 3-4-12."

'The Biggest Dirtbag On the Planet'

No it's not Obama, but you'll have to watch the clip for the answer, and see: "Video: My vote for the biggest dirtbag on the planet."

Sandra Fluke is Media's Martyr, Just as Andrew Breitbart Would Have Predicted

Breitbart would have loved the media's chutzpah on this.

I'm reposting this piece from WaPo as an almost unbelievable example of how this woman, Sandra Fluke, became a national heroine to the progressive-left. See: "Sandra Fluke says she expected criticism, not personal attacks, over contraception issue":

For decades, Georgetown University law students have led the push to have the student health-insurance plan cover contraception.

Sandra Fluke fit the profile of those who have gone before her: Law students are typically older than Georgetown’s undergraduates, less likely to be Catholic at the Catholic institution, and more likely to rely on school­-provided insurance.

But unlike those others who were part of a running campus controversy, Fluke became part of a heated and highly personal national debate when she agreed to testify before a congressional committee last month.

Fluke said she anticipated criticism but not personal attacks from prominent pundits including Rush Limbaugh, who repeatedly has called her a “slut,” and from hundreds of people who have typed even more offensive slurs on Twitter.

“I understood that I’m stepping into the public eye,” said Fluke, 30, a third-year student studying public interest law. “But this reaction is so out of the bounds of acceptable discourse . . . These types of words shouldn’t be applied to anyone.”

Limbaugh, a conservative radio talk show host, was criticized by prominent Democrats and Republicans. A handful of companies suspended their commercials on his show in protest and by Saturday, Limbaugh apologized in a statement on his Web site.

In the statement, he said “my choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir.”

Fluke appeared on the national television circuit on Friday explaining her position. Meanwhile, her cell phone buzzed with calls from friends, classmates and supporters, including President Obama.

Fluke (pronounced as if it rhymes with “look”) said she was not a stranger to criticism women can face advocating for causes related to their sexual health and relationships.

If you've seen clips of Fluke's testimony, the full video above is a riot just for Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's triumphant introduction and the deeply concerned yet agreeable nods of the sitting Democrats on the committee. And after you watch some of that, see AoSHQ, "Jake Tapper Finally Gives Hero of the Left a Chance to Speak Without Being Questioned About Her Claims":

I've attempted to get Jake Tapper to answer the question "Did you ask her about the $9 per month pills at Target, 2.8 miles from Georgetown U's campus?"

As he has ignored every single question along these lines, I have to take the answer to be "No."

Well, there's your reproductive health crisis. These women must not be able to schlep the 2.8 miles over to Target!

PREVIOUSLY: "Rush Limbaugh Apologizes to Sandra Fluke."

ADDED: From William Jacobson, "“Why not give Andy a country worth dying for”."

What Republican War on Women?

This kind of stuff reminds me of when I first started blogging years ago. The left's polarizing extremes in argumentation make no sense. Okay, so Limbaugh called Fluke a slut. He was over the top, perhaps. But the fact remains that that Sandra Fluke's emergence is an attempt to shift the debate and change the story from the assault on religious liberty to an alleged war women. This is a fundamental axis of conflict in American politics, and obviously the Democrat-progressives would like to escalate this issue to distract from the Obama administrations debt bomb, failed stimulus, anemic job recovery, and its "war" on taxpayers.

Here's this from Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Obama, Limbaugh and the Law Student":

Let’s specify that what Limbaugh said did nothing to advance the cause of civil debate on the issue. But those who decry the lack of civility in politics generally tend to limit their complaints to hyperbole uttered by people whose views they do not share. The same people who are voicing outrage at the hurt feelings of Ms. Fluke do not scruple at mocking or name calling when it comes to Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum or others whose beliefs on this or any other subject they believe to be antediluvian. The church and its adherents have been subjected to withering ridicule.

Moreover, though it has been lost amid the outcry against Limbaugh, he’s right to point out that, those who believe institutions ought to be compelled to fund free birth control are, in effect, demanding a subsidy for having sex. Of course, that is not the same thing as being a prostitute. Nor does it make anyone who wishes to take advantage of such a subsidy a “slut.” Such terms are abusive. But that is exactly why an entertainer like Limbaugh uses them much as Stewart and liberal comics employ similarly nasty terms to people they wish to deride. Need we really point out that comments made in the context of this sort of show is not the same thing as remarks recorded in the Congressional Record and should thus be judged by a slightly different standard?

Rush Limbaugh will survive this latest attempt to destroy him and may, in fact, benefit from being the subject of a White House barb. But conservatives and those who care about religious liberty should be dismayed by the way the left has been allowed to shield an ominous attempt to expand government power and subvert religious freedom behind a faux defense of women’s rights.

No one is trying to prevent Sandra Fluke or any other woman — or man — from doing whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But what Fluke and President Obama are trying to do is to force religious institutions to pay for conduct their faith opposes. That, and not Rush Limbaugh’s scorn for Fluke’s birth control bill, remains the real issue at stake in this debate.

Word.

And don't forget, by the way, that the left's media industrial complex is pulling for the home team on this. See WaPo, for example, "Sandra Fluke says she expected criticism, not personal attacks, over contraception issue."

'The Scholar and the Rascal'

Ross Douthat comments on the deaths of James Q. Wilson and Andrew Breitbart, at the New York Times.

Both Wilson and Breitbart were native Californians, and true conservatives.

Mitt Romney Wins Washington State Presidential Caucuses

See Los Angeles Times, "Romney winner of Washington state's caucuses." And at New York Times, "Romney Takes Washington Ahead of a Big Election Day."

BONUS: Read this great batch of emails Glenn Reynolds received from caucus-goers in Washington: "Be Breitbart."

James Q. Wilson in His Own Words

At WSJ, "Excerpts from the late social scientist's op-eds in The Wall Street Journal."

And from the editors, "James Q. Wilson: An empiricist with a moral sense—and he could write too":

One of our editors once made the mistake of referring to James Q. Wilson as a sociologist, and he was quickly rebuked with a note that, no, the professor was a political scientist. Jim Wilson liked to get things right, which as far as we can remember he always was.

Wilson was indeed a political scientist, and in the old-fashioned sense: He only concluded what the evidence allowed, and he applied this method to politics, broadly defined as the choices we make about how we govern ourselves. Over his career, as the modern university grew more and more obscurantist and irrelevant, Wilson's scholarship—on everything from poverty to crime to bureaucracy to morals—moved public policy and changed America for the better. He died yesterday, at 80, from leukemia.

Wilson made his name in the last century, when he was a young professor at Harvard and people still believed that government could create something it would call "the Great Society." Wilson belonged to the cohort of thinkers including Edward Banfield, Irving Kristol and Pat Moynihan who were skeptical of such central planning and abstractions. The joke about the French philosopher—"We know it works in fact, but will it work in theory?"—is less funny when the supposed technocrats don't care if something works in fact, only in theory....

One reason Wilson's ideas were successful—welfare reform is among his other policy contributions—is that they were grounded in data, hard facts and the evidence of experience. But his empiricism was special because it always respected the complexity and contingency that prevails in the real world. Few phrases in the English language are responsible for as much bad thinking as "studies show" or "research suggests." If Wilson was guided by good evidence, not ideology, he also understood its limits.

Previously: "James Q. Wilson, 1931 – 2012."

Bonus: From Harvey Mansfield, at Weekly Standard, "Political Scientist, Par Excellence: James Q. Wilson, 1931-2012." And a fabulous roundup from Daniel Halper, "Remembering James Q. Wilson."

Rush Limbaugh Apologizes to Sandra Fluke

Well, the video features a Dana Bash interview with Sandra Fluke before Limbaugh issued his apology, but for Fluke it's more of the same dishonesty, victimology, and media exploitation that we've been seeing all along.

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Rush Limbaugh apologizes for 'slut' remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke":

In what was surely a rare move for the conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to the Georgetown University law school student he called a "slut" and "prostitute" earlier in the week.

The apology, posted to his website, said he did not mean to make a "personal attack" against Sandra Fluke. The third-year law student had testified before Democrats in favor of President Obama's new rule requiring employers to offer health insurance plans that cover birth control.

"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir," he wrote. "I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

More at that top link, but see Limbaugh's apology (via Memeorandum).

And as you can see at the video, the double-standards are exemplary. The Washington Post has more of those, "The GOP can no longer avoid its Rush Limbaugh problem" (at Memeorandum):

IN A DEMOCRACY, standards of civil discourse are as important as they are indefinable. Yet wherever one draws the line, Rush Limbaugh’s vile rants against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke crossed it. Mr. Limbaugh is angry at President Obama’s efforts to require the provision of contraception under employer-paid health insurance and the White House’s attempts to make some political hay out of the policy. His way of showing this anger was to smear Ms. Fluke, who approached Congress to support the plan, as a “slut” seeking a government subsidy for her promiscuity.

Like other “shock jocks,” Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out. Mr. Limbaugh’s audience, and those in politics who seek his favor as a means of reaching that audience, need to take special note.

Civility. Right.

I don't recall if WaPo's editors wrote a similar editorial when Ed Schultz smeared Laura Ingraham as a "slut."   Either way, Ingraham says she's still waiting for the White House to call.

And let's not even get started on Keith Olbermann.

This is a reminder of how important it is to continue the work of Andrew Breitbart.

Added: From Dan Riehl, at Big Hollywood, "Shorter ‘Washington Post’: Bill ‘C*nt’ Maher’s Million Okay For Obama, GOP Must Abandon Limbaugh."

Remembering Andrew Breitbart

Recall that the first time I met Andrew was at the Orange County Tax Day Tea Party in 2009.

Breitbart is shown with his father-in-law Orson Bean. I posted the photo to his Facebook page and he remembered it later when I spoke to him at CPAC in 2011.

And below is the picture from the last time I saw Andrew, when he spoke in Newport Beach just days after Anthony Weiner announced his resignation and Breitbart stole the show at the pre-announcement press conference. Left Coast Rebel was there as well, and boy was he excited to meet Andrew. Thinking about it now, I'm so glad that we went. He was irreplaceable and the memories cherished.

I have lots more Breitbart blogging at the search link. I don't have too much more to say at this point. I do think it's interesting the Breitbart rose to his greatest fame in tandem with the rise of the tea party. He mentioned the Orange County tea party as a formative experience in his book, Righteous Indignation. And  as I became a tea party activist at the same time, Breitbart was indeed instrumental to my own political development over these last few years. What people have said so many times is that Andrew fought fearlessly against progressives and especially the progressive-left media complex. And the left loathed him for it. Progressives clearly wanted him dead because he was beating them and he was a showing a whole generation of young activists how it's done. He spoke for us. He articulate the rage against the politically correct and radically corrupt leftist institutional machine. And it often meant even more because Breitbart could do what many simply could not do because of how we're situated in our work and family lives. William Jacobson spoke eloquently about that, about the "restraints" that have prevented him from being more outspoken in his blogging and activism. I face those same restraints and I've paid substantial personal costs in pushing past the barriers on occasion. Breitbart was an entrepreneur and his own boss. He could fight the fight without facing those restraints, and he thus had the kind of intangible resources that are and will be vital to defeating the left in the years ahead.

There will be much more commentary and reflection on Breitbart going forward. New videos are scheduled for release next week, in fact, of Barack Obama's radical college days. And then there will be movies and books and all kind of continuing activism among those from Breitbart's circle of allies. And of course the new class of conservative warriors will be carrying Breitbart's banner for generations to come. What a man and what a legacy.

Michael Walsh had an outstanding remembrance the other day, so I'll close with that. See, "Goodbye, Andrew: We have lost our bravest warrior, but we must continue his good fight":

In the war against the institutional Left, Andrew Breitbart was the Right’s Achilles; the bravest of all the warriors, now fallen on the plain. There was no combat in which he would not engage, no battle — however small — he would not join with glee, and no outcome acceptable except total victory. His unexpected death last night at the young age of 43 is not the end of his crusade, but its beginning.

No figure on our side was more despised in the whited sepulchers of the media/academic/political Left, and Breitbart wore their loathing as a daily badge of honor. His refusal to grant even a glimmer of moral absolution constantly enraged them, and his very existence was an affront to their carefully constructed — to use one of Andrew’s favorite words — “narrative” of moral superiority. Naturally, they are already dancing on his grave, with the manic joy of being suddenly and miraculously delivered from one of their most potent enemies.

Breitbart’s death is a tragedy, not only for those who delighted in following him into battle but for those who cheered him on as well. Andrew was larger than life, a charismatic natural leader, a big man in every way — physically, spiritually, and intellectually. He would meet a total stranger and immediately try to enlist him or her into his army, railing against the Left’s mendacity and misdeeds. He would practically pick you up by the lapels and shake you in order to make you understand the furious, urgent necessity of his fight.

Continue reading.

And also, at Michelle Malkin, for good measure, "DEVASTATING: Andrew Breitbart, R.I.P."

Romney, Santorum Look to Smooth Things Over Before Super Tuesday

At Los Angeles Times, "Romney, Santorum trying to recover from verbal gaffes":

In the last 10 days, voters learned that Mitt Romney's wife drives two Cadillacs, and that while Romney does not follow NASCAR that closely, he is "great friends" with some team owners.

They have learned that John F. Kennedy's landmark 1960 speech on the separation of church and state made Rick Santorum want to vomit, and that Santorum thinks President Obama is a "snob" for urging people to continue their education after high school.

For a lot of voters — and many critics — such remarks have reinforced stereotypes about the candidates: That Romney, a multimillionaire, is out of touch with average Americans, and Santorum, a staunch social conservative, is a throwback to the mores of an earlier time.

Now, as Super Tuesday's crucial contests loom next week, both candidates for the GOP presidential nomination have struggled to recover from those and other self-inflicted wounds.

Okay, sound's reasonable enough.

More at the link.

And also at The Other McCain, "HUGE: Gingrich Tennessee Co-Chair Resigns and Endorses Rick Santorum."

EXTRA: At YouGov, "Santorum Leads in Three of Five YouGov Super Tuesday Polls" (Oklahoma, Ohio, and Tennessee), via Memeorandum. And also from Mark Blumenthal, "Super Tuesday Polls: Rick Santorum's Margin Fades In Ohio, Mitt Romney Leads Nationwide."

'My Friend Andrew'

Bill Whittle, in his own inimitable way, gives an especially powerful eulogy for Andrew Breitbart. Turns out Breitbart did have a previous heart attack --- that's why the media reports were saying he was under treatment at UCLA Medical Center previously --- and Bill uses that and more to remind us to take care of ourselves. Especially important here is Bill's urging for us online warriors to put it away sometimes. Don't worry about politics 24/7. Don't worry about showing everybody your most recent blog post or video upload. Spend some time with friends and families and recharge for the many battles that lie ahead. That's an especially welcomed message for me, since I've of late been very busy with work and family and have felt out of it for lack of blogging. But I do remind myself that the time I spend offline is better spent when it's that old-fashioned "quality time" that folks used to implore us to spend.

And by the way, I know Bill Whittle too. He's one of the greats out there and make note to heed his appeals and keep up the fight. We're saving the country a little at a time.

Obama's Union-Made Auto Bailout

A bit late getting this one up, but it's never too late to spread this around.

Michelle Malkin's a national treasure.

See: "The Autoworkers Obama Left Behind."

The union discussion's at the second half of the clip, but it's all good. Michelle model's the necessary indignant outrage needed to fight the lies of the left.

Romney Touts Washington Connections

Another interesting report on Mitt's earlier big government ideology.

At ABC News, "EXCLUSIVE: In ’02 Romney Touted D.C. Connections, Federal Funds":

And more Romney big government at Buzz Feed, "Mitt Romney's Advice For ObamaCare: Look At RomneyCare" (via Memeorandum).

'Man Against The Mob'

Via Dana Loesch (retweeting Larry O'Connor):

James Q. Wilson, 1931 – 2012

He was one of the great old-school political scientists.

The Los Angeles Times has an obituary, "James Q. Wilson dies at 80; pioneer in 'broken windows' approach to improve policing." Born in Denver and raised in Long Beach, Wilson spent 25 years at Harvard but moved in 1986 to UCLA's Anderson School of Business mostly to be back home on the West Coast. More on that from the Times:

In 1961, he joined the faculty at Harvard University, where his scholarship on policing drew the attention of President Johnson's administration. He was invited to join a presidential commission on crime, which sparked an inquiry that eventually became the focus of his professional work.

"The standard question was why did people commit crimes. I wanted to ask why people don't commit them," he told the New York Times in 1998.

Many of his books tackled thorny questions of crime and race, such as "Crime and Human Nature," co-written with Richard J. Herrnstein and published in 1988.

"Even to allude to the possibility that races may differ in the distribution of those constitutional factors that are associated with criminality will strike some people as factually, ethically or prudentially wrong," they wrote. "We disagree."

Wilson's views won favor among neoconservatives, not a popular faction at a liberal bastion like Harvard.

In 1986, after more than 25 years at Harvard, he moved to UCLA's Anderson School of Management, where, some colleagues suggested, the more conservative atmosphere was a welcome change.

But Wilson, referring to his early years in Southern California, said he just wanted to come home. He later taught at Pepperdine.

VIDEO: "Annual Lecture with 'Ronald Reagan Professor of Public Policy' James Q. Wilson at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California" (parts 2-4 at the link).

Kathy Shaidle Assesses the Legacy of Andrew Breitbart

It's an excellent interview all around, but Kathy makes some especially perceptive comments toward the end where she mentions that Breitbart was an entrepreneur who had set himself up so that he couldn't be fired. That's a crucial point. Because when you work for someone else your right to free speech in inherently restricted by the potential impact (or fallout) of such speech on the employing institution. William Jacobson alluded to this the other day when he mentioned the "restraints" that hindered so many of us conservatives from fully speaking out and challenging the left's fascism.

In any case, more on that later.

The video c/o Blazing Cat Fur:

EXTRA: I'm linking to Protein Wisdom again for a reminder of how effective Breitbart really was --- and also as a reminder of what we're up against. Don't let Andrew's death have been in vain. Keep the flame burning and hoist the banner of liberty. That's the legacy. To keep up the fight.

Andrew Breitbart at O.C. Tax Day Tea Party, April 15, 2009

Breitbart often reminisced about attending his first tea party in Orange County.

My good friend Megan Barth was the event's main organizer. She can be seen in the blue shirt behind Andrew at the clip. Megan has also posted an essay to Facebook, "Andrew Breitbart — A Tribute":

Some of u are probably sitting in this internet/Facebook audience saying, Who in the "H" is Megan Barth, and how does she "know" Andrew Breitbart?

Well, I can't say that I do know Andrew. I have not been to his house; I have not broken bread with the man; I have had a cocktail with him....ok maybe two or three, but, true, I do not "know" him. But, I know him for one of my greatest memories that he selflessly gave to me. The first time I called him and asked him for a favor, he didn't hesitate to say yes.

In March of 2009, I asked him to speak at a Tea party Rally in Santa Ana on April 15, 2009. I had left him a message on his cell phone--the number which I had received from a mutual aquaintance. An hour later, I get a call back and he says, "Megan Barth? Andrew Breitbart. What is this tea party thing about and oh yeah, Count me in." And, two weeks later, he was speaking at his first tea party on a chilly and windy day, in front of a crowd of over 2000, at the "Circle of Flags." He brought with him his fiery friend, Gary Graham, and his father in law Orson Bean. They each spoke to the crowd with such conviction, fun, kindness and passion. It is a day that I will never forget.

After that day, I would run into him at various events and he would jokingly refer to me as "his first." I always made sure I shook his hand or gave him a big hug, not only because I so appreciated him for coming to speak on that day in April, 50 miles from Brentwood, but appreciating him and thanking him for being all that inspires me.

Andrew encapsulated/emulated everything that I found good and decent and honorable. His love of family and country, his tenacity, his strength, his humor, his fire that he so tirelessly gave--he didn't seem to want for anything else but for the truth, and, of course, to piss off liberals. The truth, you see, and honesty, isn't a commodity. You don't find it often and you don't find it easily. Andrew's fight in order to bring truth and light to the masses was like David fighting Goliath. Andrew had this slingshot and the MSM, the Giant, had the narrative. Yet, Andrew beat them with that slingshot, head on. He wasn't afraid. He stood his ground. He took the battle to them and outsmarted their best generals. He exposed their false narrative--which is the Giant's ironic weakness. Andrew showed all of us that the impossible can be the possible...particularly with the truth on your side. It ain't gonna come easy and it ain't gonna come cheap. Andrew, today, gave his life for it. His family, that stood behind him and with him, made it possible.

When I heard the news this morning, I started screaming, "Why Why Why God!! Why him? " Why take a man from his wife and four children? What did he do? He had so much more to do! Why now, God? Why?! "

And then, after talking to my 3 parents (yes, I have 3. 4 actually, but I talked to 3 of them), and scouring the blog roll and Twitter/Facebook feed, I was reminded that the only answer to these and many more questions, is the one that we all will eventually find, and with the truth and the spirit of Breitbart on our side, we will all come to know, "Why." The truth will be Andrew's legacy as it has been our, my, inspiration.

Andrew leaves behind a pair of shoes which cannot be filled. He was a one in a million, a happy warrior, a truth seeker, a torch bearer. There are millions of those who he has inspired that are ready and willing to carry that torch--and that is what must be and will be done. He wouldn't have it any other way. He designed the battle plan. He deserves no less.

In his own words from the upcoming "Hating Breitbart"

"WAR"

Rest in peace and thank you, my friend, for absolutely everything.

More updates throughout the weekend.

Andrew Breitbart – Warrior – Franklin Center Remembers

Via Nice Deb:

Dana Loesch Remembers Andrew Breitbart

Again, I'm just posting these as I view them. I know Dana and she's quite an inspiration in herself. And as she shares her memories we again hear adjectives like "fearlessness" and "truthfulness" that were the guiding principles of Breitbart's model of citizenship. I'll be continuing my coverage all weekend.

Via Big Journalism:

Loose Flukes

Well, actually, there's some disagreement over whether Sandra Fluke is indeed "loose," but she's certainly playing up her 15 minutes for all they're worth.

Michelle says no: "Sandra Fluke is not a “slut.” She’s a femme-agogue tool; DCCC, Emily’s list fund-raise off of Rush." But Dana Loesch says, hey, not so fast: "Republicans Fall For Manufactured Story"( via Memeorandum).

The truth is somewhere in between, but what's just too perfect is fluke's canonization by the progressive left media complex, personified with utmost perfection by MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, who must have mentioned a half-dozen times that President Obama personally called the Georgetown "co-ed" in a show of reproductive solidarity. If all of this sounds too good to be true, complete with Fluke's crocodile tears on national TV, that's because it is:

Did you watch?

That lady's a pro, and I mean at milking the sympathy for women's reproductive health, not at, well, you know what I'm saying. More at Los Angeles Times, "Sandra Fluke: Obama 'was so kind'."

And see Doug Ross, who's not falling for the act: "Got Slut? The Left Launches a Coordinated Attack Against Rush Limbaugh."

Andrew Breitbart: Los Angeles Times Obituary

I know folks will forgive me for the late news. As I mentioned, I was unable to blog yesterday, so I'll be catching up on the commentaries and videos on Andrew Breitbart.

Here's Robin Abcarian and Scott Gold at the Los Angeles Times: "Andrew Breitbart dies at 43; conservative Internet entrepreneur who took on the left."

And ICYMI, the moving segment with Jonah Goldberg on Fox News yesterday:

Plus, some good stuff at Blazing Cat Fur.

Progressives Rejoice at Death of Andrew Breitbart

Tuesdays and Thursdays are day-long slogs for me on campus. They're not big blogging days either, and I was busy at home Thursday evening, so I was unable to post on Andrew Breitbart. I got to my office yesterday morning at 7:00am. I logged onto my computer and loaded American Power into the browser as I do every day. As I scrolled down the blog to check my scheduled overnight posts, I noticed the headline at the Memeorandum widget far down the page: "In Memoriam: Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)." I thought that was a mistake. How could this be? Was he killed? Murdered by a leftist attacker? Or he was depressed about something and had taken his own life? What? And then I read the brief obituary at Big Journalism, which indicated he'd died of natural causes.

I gave examinations yesterday so I was able to continue reading. I was in a funk. I knew Andrew Breitbart. While we weren't friends, I'd spoken with him on numerous occasions and I'd blogged at least a half dozen major events where Breitbart was a speaker or major participant. I was starting to feel devastated. I kept reading around the 'sphere. I visited Robert Stacy McCain's, where, in a relatively brief post, he said that "our own sense of loss of our friend and ally — a powerful and innovative force [in] conservative New Media — is inconsequential compared to the fathomless pain experienced by Andrew’s wife and four children, who should be in our prayers." And I thought, yes, that's right. Breitbart was just 43 years-old. I still couldn't believe it. And then checking Memeorandum further, I clicked on some progressive blogs. I admit being surprised by some respectable commentary, for example, by Melissa McEwan at Shakesville, who wrote, "I am not glad he's dead. I would have preferred instead that he'd lived long enough to change his mind." But that's probably the nicest thing progressives wrote about him all day. In fact, Scott Lemieux posted a two-sentence entry at Lawyers, Guns and Money, claiming he was "sad" that the reports of Breitbart's death were "accurate." And right on cue, Carl Salonen was striking up the band, boasting about how the "world is a happier place this morning."

Well, Salonen needs no introduction. And his disgusting comments are 100 percent the real deal. Indeed, I read the entire LGM comment thread and it only gets worse. Progressives wanted Breitbart dead. They got their wish.

And that was pretty much how it went. See Charlie Spiering at the Washington Examiner, "Liberals celebrate death of Andrew Breitbart."

Also, Glenn Reynolds was updating on Breitbart throughout the day, and he included this:

And reader Jonathan Rubinstein writes: “The outpouring of ghoulish and sophmoric hatred at the death of Andrew Breitbart is a warning to us all that the remaking of America is not a conversation over coffee in the late afternoon. The real struggles that are ahead have hardly begun. Politics is ruthless and the failed political class will not go quietly. The disgusting comments are not a tribute to the decline not of civility — there has never been much in America — but the complete disintegration of self-respect. We will engage, we will remake America, we will miss Breitbart but there will be many more joining the struggle.”

I'll be writing a memorial later. It was a sad day. I am praying for Breitbart's family.

EXTRA: Again, more later, but it's worth adding some responses to the despicable loser David Frum. See AoSHQ, "That About Wraps It Up For David Frum," and Yid With Lid, "David Frum is a Low-Life Scumbag."

ADDED: From Zilla of the Resistance, "A Great American Hero Has Died."

MORE: From Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom: "As the “educated” crew at LGM are so interested in what I have to say."