Rick Santorum Leads in Latest Polling on Louisiana Primary

Mitt Romney announced in Illinois that voters had had "enough," but Rick Santorum is heading into Louisiana will a solid lead in public opinion polls.

See the Lafayette Advertiser, "Santorum strengthens lead in Louisiana while candidates solicit votes across state: Candidates continue touring Louisiana before Saturday's primary election":

A new poll of likely Republican voters in Louisiana shows former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is poised to win a plurality in Saturday's primary election while Pelican State voters struggle to accept national frontrunner Mitt Romney's candidacy.

The poll, conducted by Magellan Strategies BR, found that Santorum leads in Louisiana with 37 percent of the vote. Romney trails in second with 24 percent.

Santorum's 13 percent lead reflects his strengthening foothold in Louisiana. According to a March 8 to 10 poll by WWL-TV, Santorum lead the candidates with 25.4 percent of the vote, topping Romney's 21 percent by a much slimmer margin earlier in the month.

Furthermore, the Magellan Strategies BR poll found that Santorum leads not only among both male and female likely Republican primary voters in Louisiana but also leads among all age groups and in all six congressional districts.

And here's that WWL-TV poll, "Santorum leads GOP candidates in La., exclusive WWL-TV poll shows."

Well, so much for Romney putting this thing away. Santorum's going to pick up some momentum this weekend and that will help him as the campaign heads into the big primaries coming up in Maryland and Wisconsin on April 3, and especially the Pennsylvania primary on April 24.

French Police Launch Raid on Jewish School Shooting Suspects

At Jerusalem Post, "French police swoop on suspects in Jewish school killings."

And from Telegraph UK, "Toulouse shooting: police corner suspect in pre-dawn raid":

A French police special forces unit hunting an anti-Semitic serial killer launched a pre-dawn raid on Wednesday on a house where a man claiming Al-Qaeda ties was holed up, police sources said.

The suspect is thought to be a 24-year-old man who had previously travelled to the lawless border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan which is known to house al-Qaeda safehouses, one of the officials told AFP.

Two police were slightly wounded as the operation got underway, led by officers investigating three attacks by a lone gunman in which three off-duty soldiers, three Jewish school children and a rabbi were killed, he said.

A source close to the inquiry told AFP a 24-year-old suspect had exchanged words with the RAID team and had declared himself to be a member of Al-Qaeda, the armed Islamist group founded by late Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden.

"He was in the DCRI's sights, as were others, after the first two attacks," an official said, referring to France's domestic intelligence service, adding: "Then the criminal investigation police brought in crucial evidence."

French Interior Minister Claude Gueant had arrived at the operation site, in the Croix-Daurade district of the southwestern city of Toulouse, scene of two of the shooting incidents over the previous nine days, he said.

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Two French police hit in shoot-out as armed officers hunting Toulouse serial killer storm house." And New York Times, "French Police Execute Raid on Toulouse Jewish School Shooting Suspects."

And at Fox News, "Al Qaeda link claimed as French police raid house over school shootings." (This is interesting, considering everyone's so far been talking about neo-Nazis, but we'll see.)

More later...

Mitt Romney Wins Illinois Primary

At the Chicago Tribune, "Mitt Romney declares victory in Illinois":

Illinois Republicans delivered a decisive victory to Mitt Romney in the state's presidential primary Tuesday, crushing Rick Santorum in what amounted to the first big-state head-to-head contest among the front-runners for the GOP nomination.

With 98 percent of the state's precincts reporting, unofficial results showed the former Massachusetts governor with 47 percent of the vote to Santorum's 35 percent. The other two candidates in the race, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, made only token campaign efforts in Illinois and were trailing badly.

Even more important for Romney, he swamped Santorum by winning 39 of the 54 elected delegates up for grabs in the state. Santorum had only five, though votes were still being counted in several Downstate congressional districts where he ran strongest.

"What a night. Thank you, Illinois. What a night. Wow!," Romney said to supporters at his victory party at a Schaumburg hotel shortly after 8 p.m. "Tonight we thank the people of Illinois for their vote and for this extraordinary victory."

Savoring a victory in President Barack Obama's home state, Romney framed the general election as a "defining decision" for the American people. "This election will be about principle. Our economic freedom will be on the ballot. ... It's time to say this word: enough."

Continue reading.

Also at New York Times, "Romney Wins by Wide Margin in Illinois."

Peter Beinart Backs Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Against Israel

Beinart writes at yesterday's New York Times, "To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements":

In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, “the heart of our country.” Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.

In response, many Palestinians and their supporters have initiated a global campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.), which calls not only for boycotting all Israeli products and ending the occupation of the West Bank but also demands the right of millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes — an agenda that, if fulfilled, could dismantle Israel as a Jewish state.

The Israeli government and the B.D.S. movement are promoting radically different one-state visions, but together, they are sweeping the two-state solution into history’s dustbin.

It’s time for a counteroffensive — a campaign to fortify the boundary that keeps alive the hope of a Jewish democratic state alongside a Palestinian one. And that counteroffensive must begin with language.

Jewish hawks often refer to the territory beyond the green line by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, thereby suggesting that it was, and always will be, Jewish land. Almost everyone else, including this paper, calls it the West Bank.

But both names mislead. “Judea and Samaria” implies that the most important thing about the land is its biblical lineage; “West Bank” implies that the most important thing about the land is its relationship to the Kingdom of Jordan next door. After all, it was only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948 that it coined the term “West Bank” to distinguish it from the rest of the kingdom, which falls on the Jordan River’s east bank. Since Jordan no longer controls the land, “West Bank” is an anachronism. It says nothing meaningful about the territory today.

Instead, we should call the West Bank “nondemocratic Israel.” The phrase suggests that there are today two Israels: a flawed but genuine democracy within the green line and an ethnically-based nondemocracy beyond it. It counters efforts by Israel’s leaders to use the legitimacy of democratic Israel to legitimize the occupation and by Israel’s adversaries to use the illegitimacy of the occupation to delegitimize democratic Israel.

Having made that rhetorical distinction, American Jews should seek every opportunity to reinforce it. We should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America’s free-trade deal with Israel. We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line.

But a settlement boycott is not enough. It must be paired with an equally vigorous embrace of democratic Israel. We should spend money we’re not spending on settler goods on those produced within the green line. We should oppose efforts to divest from all Israeli companies with the same intensity with which we support efforts to divest from companies in the settlements: call it Zionist B.D.S.

Supporters of the current B.D.S. movement will argue that the distinction between democratic and nondemocratic Israel is artificial. After all, many companies profit from the occupation without being based on occupied land. Why shouldn’t we boycott them, too? The answer is that boycotting anything inside the green line invites ambiguity about the boycott’s ultimate goal — whether it seeks to end Israel’s occupation or Israel’s existence.

For their part, American Jewish organizations might argue that it is unfair to punish Israeli settlements when there are worse human rights offenses in the world and when Palestinians still commit gruesome terrorist acts. But settlements need not constitute the world’s worst human rights abuse in order to be worth boycotting. After all, numerous American cities and organizations boycotted Arizona after it passed a draconian immigration law in 2010.

The relevant question is not “Are there worse offenders?” but rather, “Is there systematic oppression that a boycott might help relieve?” That Israel systematically oppresses West Bank Palestinians has been acknowledged even by the former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, who have warned that Israel’s continued rule there could eventually lead to a South African-style apartheid system.

Boycotts could help to change that. Already, prominent Israeli writers like David Grossman, Amos Oz and A. B. Yehoshua have refused to visit the settlement of Ariel. We should support their efforts because persuading companies and people to begin leaving nondemocratic Israel, instead of continuing to flock there, is crucial to keeping the possibility of a two-state solution alive.

I think the phrase "useful idiot" was invented for people like Beinart.

I remember a few years ago Beinart emerged on the scene with some writings on foreign policy (although I can't recall the titles of his books, which should tell you something). And now apparently he's a professor at the City University of New York. I wouldn't recommend him to my students. Beinart's giving aid and comfort to Israel's enemies. Recall that I'm reading Professor Michael Curtis' new book, Should Israel Exist?: A Sovereign Nation Under Attack by the International Community. Let me refer readers to Chapter 9, "The Mufti of Jerusalem and the Nazis." The Mufti was Haj Amin al-Husseini, an Arab nationalist who worked with Adolf Hiter and top leaders of the Nazi regime to develop Germany's policy on the Middle East and the Jews. One key policy proposed was a Jewish boycott. In the 1930s, the Mufti was the lead organizer of Palestinian Arab campaigns of assassination and terrorism against British forces and the Jews in the area of Palestine. After World War II, Husseini was the head of the Arab High Committee in Palestine that imposed an economic boycott on Jewish companies, industry, and trade throughout Palestine. According to Curtis, "The Arab League in 1948 formerly organized a boycott, which had begun more informally three years earlier and had preceded the establishment of Israel, not only of Israeli companies and products, but also of those from other countries maintaining economic relations with or who were perceived to be supporting Israel." Curtis notes that elements of the "boycott is still in existence" today and it costs Israel "considerable amounts of finance in terms of lost markets and economic problems" (p. 149). (The boycott was the economic arm of the Arab state strategy that came to a head in the Arab's war of aggression against the new state of Israel in 1948 --- and it's thus in fact a central cause of the current conflict in the Middle East today.)

Folks should get a hold of Curtis's book --- it's a must-read history, vital for the intellectual and political defense of Israel. And you can see why: The idiot Beinart is attempting to make distinctions between this and that side of the Green Line where none exist. The West Bank territories do not belong to Arab states or the so-called Palestinians. These are not "occupied territories." The lands were delineated and internationally accepted by the 1948 partition plan: "there was never an international border on the Green Line..." Beinart is involved in helping to propagate a lie that works to further the delegitimation program of the global left's Israel extermination industry. He should be ashamed of himself.

In any case, Beinart has a new book out, The Crisis of Zionism. I haven't read it but Sol Stern has a review at Commentary, "Beinart the Unwise."

I'll have more later.

In the meantime, keep pushing back against the assholes. This is getting ridiculous.

Media Matters' MJ Rosenberg Boasts to Al-Jazeera: Obama Mistreated Netanyahu

At Big Peace, "Media Matters Boasts to Al-Jazeera: Obama Mistreated Netanyahu."

And at Daily Caller, "Media Matters for America linked with anti-American, anti-Israel Al-Jazeera network."

RELATED: At Commentary, "How Do We Define “Pro-Israel?”"

Cal State University Executive Pay Scandal

There's talk at my college of heavy layoffs for classified employees. I'll know more soon, and no doubt we'll be seeing reports in the local news. Meanwhile, the Long Beach Business Journal has this: "City College Faces $3.5 Million in Mid-Year Unexpected Cuts: The New Fiscal Year Could Result In Another $9.8 Million In Reductions." One of the things that's always interesting is to notice how the layoffs and cuts in services hit those on the lower end of the hierarchy. For example, I don't hear a lot about sacrifices at the top levels of administration. But the college is gutting summer school offerings, so that hits instructors and students. The top-heavy executive class is still chugging away. More on that later.

Until then, check out this editorial at the Long Beach Press-Telegram, "A lesson not learned -- Cal State trustees flunk test on presidential pay":

A couple of months ago, it looked as if the California State University trustees' remedial lessons in public relations were paying off. Now, it's obvious they still don't get it.

Responding to the outcry over the San Diego State president's huge raise, the public university system's board of trustees approved a policy in January that limits executives' base pay to 10 percent more than their predecessors' salaries.

The move drew cheers all around. Critics in the state Legislature backed off. Students, tired of paying higher and higher fees while campus presidents got higher and higher pay, might even have begun to think university leaders were sensitive to their plight.

But now there's this.

Meeting in Long Beach this week, the CSU trustees are scheduled to consider proposals to give 10 percent salary hikes to two new campus presidents.

Mildred Garcia, appointed president of Cal State Fullerton, would receive $324,500 in base pay (10 percent more than predecessor Milton Gordon made, and also 10 percent more than she got when she ran Cal State Dominguez Hills). Garcia also would receive housing at Fullerton's official presidential residence and a $12,000-a-year car allowance.

Leroy Morishita, the new president of Cal State East Bay, would receive $303,660 (10 percent more than predecessor Mohammad Qayoumi made, and 10 percent more than his own salary as interim president). Morishita also could count on allowances of $60,000 a year for housing and $12,000 for a car.

In other words, having set that 10 percent limit on raises, the people who run CSU are determined to wring every penny out of it.

Do they realize 10 percent is a ceiling, not a requirement?

 More at the link.

Now remember: I'm at community college and the editorial is talking about the Cal State system. But public taxpayer money is funding all of this, so it's worth highlighting the mindset of the bureaucratic mandarins.

PREVIOUSLY: "Budget Cuts Force 'Rationing' at California Community Colleges," and, "Realities of Higher Education in California."

Progressives Hate Free Speech

From Kenneth Marcus, at Jerusalem Post, "Heckling Israel" (via Kim Edwards):

Over the past few weeks, anti-Israel activists have trumpeted their right to engage in offensive, even hateful anti-Israel speech during the so-called “Israel Apartheid Week” or “Hate Week.” Insisting on their own freedom to indulge in anti- Israel speech, college activists staged high-profile if unevenly attended events around the world, most notably at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. When pro-Israel speakers attempt to speak, however, these anti-Israel protesters often take the role of censors. On many university campuses, protesters try to shut down any event that is sympathetic to Israel. Fortunately, these efforts sometimes backfire.

Over the years, many lectures by Israeli officials and supporters have been canceled, delayed, or obstructed in the face of rambunctious protests. Last year, Ambassador Michael Oren’s presentation at the University of California at Irvine was notoriously disrupted by a dozen protesters who were eventually prosecuted for disorderly conduct.

Lately, such incidents have multiplied in a concerted effort to shut down pro-Israel activities. The goal of such protests is not merely to disrupt, embarrass, or discomfort pro-Israeli speakers but to silence them. “Ultimately,” as an activist at the University of Michigan admitted, “our goal is to prevent [pro-Israel speakers] from even arriving on campus in the first place and we feel confident that we will be able to accomplish this....”

This strategy was displayed recently at the University of California at Davis, where a handful of protesters disrupted a February 27 presentation on “Defending the Israeli Image,” featuring a former member of the Israeli Defense Forces and a Druse woman whose father and brother had fought in the IDF. The loudest of the protesters, an Indian man, called an IDF veteran a child molester and accused him of rape. The heckler announced, “I will stand here and heckle you until you leave... my only purpose is that this event is shut down.”

The heckler repeatedly demanded that security officials arrest him, taunting the crowd: “Remove me! Remove me! ...I would love to be arrested.” Despite this plea, campus security permitted the disruption to continue for quite some time, telling retired faculty member George Rooks, “We have been instructed by our superior not to stop hecklers, and if you try to stop the hecklers, we have been instructed to close down the program.” Finally, after the disruption became prolonged, the security officials escorted the heckler out of the room.

Under pressure from the Amcha Initiative, a pro-Israel group co-founded by University of California professors Tammi Rossman- Benjamin and Leila Beckwith, the university leadership finally condemned the disruption as “reprehensible.”

“Attempting to shut down speakers is not protected speech,” wrote UC President Mark Yudofin an open letter to the UC community. “It is an action meant to deny others their right to free speech.”

More at the link.

And see Atlas Shrugs, "Pamela Geller, Breitbart's Big Hollywood: One-Sided 'Free' Speech at UC Berkeley."

Challenging California's Open Carry Ban

Via Reason:

Protecting France's Jews

An editorial at the Jerusalem Post:

After Monday’s shooting at the Ozar Hatorah school, MK Yaakov Katz (National Union) reiterated calls for French Jews to come to Israel. France’s Jews, and the Jews of Europe in general, are acutely conscious of the threats they face. Jewish schools, synagogues and other easily identifiable Jewish institutions are under tight security. The attack in Toulouse will undoubtedly add to European Jews’ feeling of vulnerability.

But while aliya is an honorable and desirable act, it is not the only answer to European Jewry’s predicament. Inflammatory campaign rhetoric in France’s presidential elections must be toned down. The delegitimization of Israel should be aggressively combated. And above all, the security of Jews in France and elsewhere in Europe should be carefully guarded.

Jewish School Massacre in Toulouse, France

I saw the news breaking this morning but was unable to blog then.

Pamela has a report, "Gunman Opens Fire on Jewish school in France, 4 Dead -- Rabbi, 3 Children." And also at London's Daily Mail, "Pictured: The rabbi and his two sons gunned down outside Jewish school in France by moped-riding 'neo-Nazi'."

Also at Telegraph UK, "Toulouse shooting: France is on the highest level of security alert." And "Toulouse shooting: little girl cornered in school and shot in head":

It was shortly after 8am on a leafy street in a quiet suburb of Toulouse and children were being dropped off at the gates of the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school.

The dark motor scooter pulled up and a man described as "determined and athletic" dismounted. Without removing his helmet or saying a word, he opened fire.

Witnesses described how the gunman aimed at whoever was in his path, first shooting Jonathan Sandler, 30, a rabbi and teacher, along with his two sons, Aryeh, six, and Gavriel, three, as they waited for a minibus to take them to their nursery. All three are dead.

Then, when his 9mm weapon jammed, the killer switched to a .45-calibre gun, entered the school gates and chased children as they fled for cover.

He shot a 17-year-old pupil, who is now fighting for his life in hospital, and then cornered eight-year old Miriam, the daughter of the school principal, Yaacov Monsonego. He put the gun to her head and shot her.

As pupils ran from the large courtyard into salmon pink school buildings, the killer turned, mounted his scooter and sped off, plunging a nation into shock at the worst anti-Semitic atrocity on French soil in decades.

More at the link.

And see John Podhoretz, at Commentary, "Jews Are Being Hunted."

Expect updates...

No Spark for Romney in GOP Electorate

Politico indicates the cool reception Mitt Romney's getting in Illinois, "No 'spark' for Mitt Romney in Illinois" (via Memeorandum). He's up in the polls, comfortably in fact. But on the issues Romney generates little excitement among conservative voters, and that translates into less enthusiasm in the general election against President Obama. I know many people not only want someone who shares their values, but someone also who's going to fight like a bulldog to uphold them. I don't think Romney's that guy. For example, see this piece at the New York Times, "Romneys Court Women Put Off by Birth Control Issue":

MOLINE, Ill. — With the Republican nominating fight turning into a protracted slog for delegates that could potentially last all the way to the convention, Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, made an appeal on Sunday morning to a coveted group of swing voters in an effort to win the Illinois primary: women.

“I love it that women are upset, too, that women are talking about the economy, I love that,” Mrs. Romney said at a pancake breakfast here. “Women are talking about jobs, women are talking about deficit spending. Thank you, women.”

The Romney campaign is seeking to repair the political damage with women voters that advisers acknowledge has been inflicted by the Republican nominating fight.

In February, women were evenly divided between Mr. Romney and his chief rival, Rick Santorum. But in the most recent New York Times/CBS News national poll, among Republican primary voters, 41 percent of women backed Mr. Santorum and 27 percent favored Mr. Romney.

Mr. Romney is often introduced by his wife at political events, but her role has taken on greater meaning as the campaign looks ahead to independent voters, particularly women, who polls show have been put off by the candidates’ rightward shift on immigration and social issues.

“I’m glad that he’s married, and has been married to the same person for a long time and has children,” said Dawn Parker, 51, a secretary from Freeport, Ill. “As a woman, I like that. I like that he’s a family man, a father and a grandfather.”

Still, Ms. Parker said that she had not yet made up her mind for the primary on Tuesday, but that Mr. Romney was “a possibility.”

While women are hardly monolithic in their politics, the Romney campaign is urgently trying to shift the conversation back to the economy from more divisive social issues.

That wouldn't be my advice to Romney.

It's the left's meme that social issues are "divisive." Why let the left control the narrative? The left is destroying the social fabric of the nation and Romney --- as a family man --- should be well positioned to campaign on those issues. Perhaps it's because his record's indeed so weak on social issues --- with so many flip-flops --- that it's simply the safest thing he can do to avoid them completely.

Either way, Santorum, speaking with CBS News, hammered Romney for his moderation:

The former Pennsylvania senator, who is known for his strongly held social conservative beliefs, said he is the best messenger for Republicans.

"When we nominate moderates, when we nominate Tweedledum versus Tweedledee, we don't win elections. We win elections when there are clear contrasts and bold choices and that is what we are going to do in this election," Santorum said.

"And that is why we believe that ultimately we will be the nominee," he said.

That theory will get its biggest test this November if Romney is nominated. Democrats will already be safe on ObamaCare with a Romney candidacy, and now the former Massachusetts Governor is surrendering on social issues. And I hate to say, it, but Romney's even conceded the economy to Obama, so what's he going to have to campaign on?

No spark for Romney? Well, you don't say.

Women Are Overtaking Men as America's Breadwinners

Here's this week's cover story at Time, from Liza Mundy, "The Richer Sex."

And see also, "Why Men Are Attracted to High-Earning Women":

Today’s high-earning women are justly proud of their paychecks — I explore the rise of the female breadwinner in this week’s TIME cover story — but they still often feel that men will be intimidated rather than attracted to them as potential mates. They think their success will seem too threatening and be held against them. As a result, some women in the dating pool devise camouflage mechanisms. A young ob-gyn working in Pittsburgh tells men she meets that she “works at the hospital, taking care of patients” — subtly encouraging the idea that she’s a nurse, not a doctor. When a university vice president in south Texas was on the dating market, she would vaguely tell men she worked in the school’s administrative offices and avoid letting them walk her to her car for fear they would see her BMW. “I want them to give me a chance,” says the Pittsburgh doctor. “I want them to at least not walk away immediately.”

But a growing body of research shows that while there may have once been a stigma to making money, high-earning women actually have an advantage in the dating-and-marriage market. In February 2012, the Hamilton Project, a Brookings Institution initiative that tracks trends in earnings and life prospects, found that marriage rates have risen for top female earners — the share of women in the very top earning percentile who are married grew by more than 10 percentage points — even as they have declined for women in lower earning brackets. (The report also suggested that the decline in those lower brackets may be because women can support themselves and are dissuaded from marriage by the declining earnings of men.)

We got the first indication of a major shift back in 2001 with a study by University of Texas at Austin psychologist David Buss that showed that when men ranked traits that were important in a marital partner, there had been a striking rise in the importance they gave to women’s earnings and a sharp drop in the value they placed on domestic skills. Similarly, University of Wisconsin demographer Christine Schwartz noted in a 2010 study in the American Journal of Sociology that “men are increasingly looking for partners who will ‘pull their own weight’ economically in marriage” and are willing to compete for them.

Now that women are poised to become the major breadwinners in a majority of families within the next generation, this research suggests that men will be just as adaptive and realize what an advantage a high-earning partner can be. Men are just as willing as women to marry up, and life is now giving them the opportunity to do so. So, women, own up to your accomplishments, buy him a drink, and tell him what you really do.

Read that full cover story at Time.

This is the reality nowadays for many families, no doubt. Although I don't think this is as smooth a process as the author argues. The work of Christina Hoff Sommers comes to mind: "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men."

BONUS: See S.T. Karnick, at Salvo, "Girly Men: The Media's Attack on Masculinity."

EXTRA: From Sarah Hoyt, "War is Hell: If this is war it is war on men. And I’ve had just about enough of everyone who claims otherwise." (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Shaun White Winter X Games 2012

I've been thinking about the upcoming summer X-Games 2012, and found this.

Cool.

VIDEO: Atlas Shrugged: Part II Greenlighted

I enjoyed Part I, so I'm looking forward to this:

PREVIOUSLY: "'Atlas Shrugged' Sequel Secures Financing, Production to Start in April."

Mitt Romney Builds Momentum With Puerto Rico Primary Win

Romney's methodically plodding his way to the nomination. Now he's got a win in Puerto Rico.

At New York Times, "Romney Prevails Easily in Puerto Rico G.O.P. Primary," and Los Angeles Times, "Romney, after Puerto Rico victory, says he can lure Latino voters."

And see Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, "Mitt’s Island Landslide Sets Up Big Week":

Rick Santorum invested a fair amount of precious, time and resources into campaigning for Sunday’s Puerto Rico Republican presidential primary. But it turned out to be a poor use of scarce resources for the GOP challenger at a time when he could least afford it. Mitt Romney cruised to a landslide victory in the Commonwealth. Romney won all 20 delegates up for grabs as residents of the island turned out in relatively strong numbers. Despite promoting himself as the senator from Puerto Rico, whatever hopes the Pennsylvanian might have had in Puerto Rico were probably sunk when he asserted that the island must adopt English as its official language if it wants statehood. With about 40 percent of the vote counted, Santorum was getting less than 10 percent, the sort of result he might have gotten without bothering to show up there last week as he did.

Romney can now brag that he has the ability to generate support for Hispanic voters even though none of this who turned out on Sunday will have the ability to vote for him in November. But no matter how you spin the result, the delegates he won gets him a bit closer to the nomination. Just as important, the win gives him an extra touch of momentum heading into the pivotal Illinois primary on Tuesday.

That's all great, no doubt. See Fox News, "Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois." And at Chicago Sun-Times, "Romney backers here looking ahead with an eye on the rear-view mirror":

If Mitt Romney and his supporters weren’t worried about Tuesday’s GOP presidential primary election in Illinois, they would not be spending so much time and money here.

Romney even cut short a campaign trip to Puerto Rico after an appearance Saturday morning. The U.S. territory holds its primary Sunday, and he had planned to spend the weekend there.

Most of Illinois’ Republican establishment signed on to Romney’s campaign back when they assumed he’d have the nomination all wrapped up by now.

Even if more conservative options such as Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were still in the mix at this point, Illinois — with its history of electing moderate Republican governors and senators — was supposed to be a firewall against conservative uprisings.

RealClearPolitics has Romney holding a solid lead in Illinois, so he should be fine. But there's still a lot of talk about a prolonged campaign (and perhaps even a brokered convention), so no doubt Romney's gonna be sweating under the collar for some time.

More on this later...

Frances Fox Piven: Occupy Spring

At Breitbart, "Occupy Spring Begins: Frances Fox Piven Calls For 'Surge From Bottom'."

Riding the Rocket Booster

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Successful Marketing Campaign Builds Up 'Must-See Fever' for 'Hunger Games'

At New York Times, "How ‘Hunger Games’ Built Up Must-See Fever."

Also at Los Angeles Times, "Jennifer Lawrence: In 'Hunger Games,' a heroine for our times."

Alan Blinder: 'As tax cuts expire and spending falls, the economy will be hit with a 3.5% decline in gross domestic demand'

At Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Cruises Toward a 2013 Fiscal Cliff":

At some point, the spectacle America is now calling a presidential campaign will turn away from comedy and start focusing on things that really matter—such as the "fiscal cliff" our federal government is rapidly approaching.

The what? A cliff is something from which you don't want to fall. But as I'll explain shortly, a number of decisions to kick the budgetary can down the road have conspired to place a remarkably large fiscal contraction on the calendar for January 2013—unless Congress takes action to avoid it.

Well, that gives Congress plenty of time, right? Yes. But if you're like me, the phrase "unless Congress takes action" sends a chill down your spine—especially since the cliff came about because of Congress's past inability to agree.

Remember the political donnybrook we had last month over extending the Bush tax cuts, the two-point reduction in the payroll tax, and long-term unemployment benefits? That debate was an echo of the even bigger donnybrook our elected representatives had just two months earlier—and which they "solved" at the last moment by kicking the can two months down the road. And that one, you may recall, came about because they were unable to reach agreement on these matters in December 2010. At that time, President Obama and the Republicans kicked one can down the road 12 months (the payroll tax) and another 24 months (the Bush tax cuts).

The result of all this can kicking is that Congress must make all those decisions by January 2013—or defer them yet again. If the House and Senate don't act in time, a list of things will happen that are anathema either to Republicans or Democrats or both. The Bush tax cuts will expire. The temporary payroll tax cut will end. Unemployment benefits will be severely curtailed. And all on Jan. 1, 2013. Happy New Year!

Blinder seems to imply Republicans are stonewalling here, but he's a Democrat who served on President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors. He's also the author of the Obama administration's "Cash for Clunkers" program, and who can forget the boondoggle that was.

In any case, Blinder makes a Utopian plea for bipartisan policy-making on the budget. It's not going to happen, but I guess there's a marginally better chance if some high-power Princeton economist is making the case.

Arsenio Hall Recalls Bill Clinton Playing Saxophone

It was a pretty big deal.

Clinton showed he was hip with the younger crowd:

NYPD Investigating Occupy Protester After Online Threat to Kill Police Officers

Gee, just as progressives were cheering their first tea party rapist, here's the news of Occupy death threats against the NYPD. I guess those anarcho-commies can't catch a break.

See: "NYPD probing what it calls online threat to kill police officers by apparent Occupy protester."

And see Robert Stacy McCain, "Humor-Deficient Charles Johnson Sides With #Occupy Movement vs. NYPD -- UPDATE: NYPD Investigates Occupier’s Twitter Death Threat Against Police."

Plus, from Diary of Daedalus, "Charles Johnson defends OWS rioters while taking a swipe at R.S. McCain."

Charles Saatchi Wife Nigella Lawson 'Has Seduced Millions of Television Viewers with Her Culinary skills' and 'Flirtatious Camera Manner'

Charles Saatchi is the co-founder of the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising agency. His wife Nigella is apparently making quite a name for herself, and it's not hard to see why.

See Telegraph UK, "Charles Saatchi wants wife Nigella Lawson to be 'coveted'":

With her culinary wizadry, melt-in-your mouth voice and Rubenesque figure, Nigella Lawson has made a career out of turning heads.

But while many husbands might resent such flirtatious behaviour, Charles Saatchi yesterday revealed his pleasure at his television chef wife's appeal - declaring "who would want to be married to someone who nobody coveted?"

In extracts from his new book, the outspoken adman turned art collector also described the Ten Commandments as an "overrated lifestyle guide" which only succeed in "making people confused and guilty".

Mr Saatchi, who has been married three times, insisted that the tenth commandment in particular was "obviously a no-hoper" because "coveting is all everyone does, all the time, every day."

He added: "It's what drives the world economy, pushes people to make a go of their lives, so that they can afford the executive model of their Ford Mondeo to park next to their neighbour's standard model. And who would want to be married to someone who nobody coveted?"

Well, perhaps Ms. Lawson will be doing a book tour stateside. She's the Christina Hendricks of the British culinary scene. And come to think of it, if I'm going to scoop Robert Stacy McCain for some newsworthy Rule 5, it'd be hard to find a better subject!

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikipedia.

Erik Loomis, University of Rhode Island History Professor, Calls for 'Decades-Long Fight to the Death' Against Conservatives

Here's some more of that highly-touted Democrat-progressive civility for you.

Professor Loomis, writing at the progressive hate-blog Lawyers, Guns and Money, links to a crappy Rolling Stone essay by Rick Perlstein, "Why Conservatives Are Still Crazy After All These Years."

Perlstein is mostly making stuff up at the piece, like his claim that GOP debate audiences cheered "an active-duty soldier because he is gay." (Florida blogger Sarah Rumpf was at that debate, and it was in fact just "one or two people" who booed, "The Truth About the Booing at the Debate.") No matter. Perlstein's goes on and on like that at the essay, making the meaningless argument that "whackadoodle far-right" Republicans are just as crazy today as they've ever been, blah, blah.

And of course Professor Airhead Loomis eats it up at LGM, concluding his post with an exhortation to prepare for Armageddon against the right:

The difference between 2012 and 1962 isn’t that conservatives are crazier, it’s that liberals are far weaker and thus it is much harder to fight back. Perlstein also pushes back against the idea developed by people like Jonathan Chait that the demographics suggest a more liberal future, suggesting that this is just another argument liberals have made for a half-century without it ever really happening.

The upshot: We have to prepare for a decades-long fight to the death. That’s the nation’s only hope.

Look, I have some experience with the asshats at LGM. Loomis is not speaking metaphorically when he calls for a "decades-long fight to the death" against conservatives. These f-kers were jumping for joy at the death of Andrew Breitbart, and no doubt the feeling over there is one down and the rest of a movement to go.

This kind of hatred isn't anything new, but you won't hear about it from the MSM. Which is fine. We on the right know what to do: "Be Breitbart."

(And I checked to be sure: Loomis is listed at the University of Rhode Island's 2011-2012 college catalog.)

UPDATE: Linked at Protein Wisdom, "“We have to prepare for a decades-long fight to the death”." Thanks!

Cee Lo Green Sings 'F-k You' at Obama Fundraiser

Via Gateway Pundit, "Nice… Cee Lo Green Sings “F*ck You” Song & Flips Off Crowd at Obama Fundraiser (Video)."

Because there's never a problem with progressive civility, dontcha know.

On-Air and Off, Fox News Anchor Megyn Kelly is Smokin' in Well-Tailored Classics

A great piece, at Los Angeles Times, "Megyn Kelly's classic fashion style":

Reporting from New York —— Whether you're an avid viewer of Fox News or have only a passing acquaintance with the network, it's been nearly impossible not to notice anchorwoman and "America Live" host Megyn Kelly. Particularly during the GOP primary round of debates and Super Tuesday coverage, Kelly's position in the lead anchor chair along with co-anchor Bret Baier has put the 41-year-old blond front and center at Fox News as the network's fresh face and opinionated voice of this election season.

Kelly, a former lawyer and subject of a rather racy 2010 GQ photo shoot (for which she makes no apologies), is known for direct, no-nonsense reporting, which has drawn commentary from fans, critics and comedians alike. She's been famously ridiculed, for instance, for calling pepper spray "a food product, essentially" and lauded for defending Chaz Bono's turn on "Dancing With the Stars." Her in-studio interview Wednesday with presidential contender Mitt Romney drew commentary from across the political spectrum.

For Kelly, it's all in a day's work.

More at the link.

And that GQ photo-spread is here: "Megyn Kelly in GQ."

Illinois Republican Primary Unlikely to Be Decisive

At Los Angeles Times, "Republican divide persists in Illinois":

There's something about Mitt Romney that, to use her words, creeps LaDonna Talbert out.

She doesn't trust the Republican presidential hopeful and isn't convinced by his jeans and open-collar shirts that Romney relates to the people of small-town and rural America. Her dismissive advice: "Just go back to the suit, dude."

On Tuesday, Talbert plans to vote for Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary, even though she knows it will be tough for him to overtake Romney and wrestle the nomination away.

Some Republicans, believing the outcome is certain, want the race to end for fear all the mudslinging is undermining their chances of beating President Obama in November.

Not Talbert, 47, who teaches high school English in Wayne City, population 1,000 or so. "I like to see the democratic process take place," she said. "Isn't that what a democracy is? We keep voting and see how the people believe?"

Illinois, home to the nation's third-biggest city and a celebrated past president — as well as the current one — has a history of closing out presidential nominating battles, having crowned half a dozen winners since 1976. Not this time, however. Regardless of who wins Tuesday — polls give Romney the edge — the Republican skirmishing will almost certainly go on, perhaps into June or beyond.

VIDEO: Marathon Pundit, "Video: Rick Santorum's message to Illinois conservatives."

Alexandra Pelosi's Latest Video Slams 'Welfare Queens' and 'Obama Bucks'

While you've heard the stories of welfare dependency, it's not often you get the complete picture of welfare entitlement. This is a loser culture of Democrat-socialist big-government handouts. This is how it works.

At Breitbart, "Pelosi's Daughter: HBO Uncomfortable With 'Freeloading Welfare Queen' Video" (via Instapundit).

Rep. Paul Ryan is Back With Medicare Reform Plan

At Los Angeles Times, "Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, with Medicare changes, is back":

For a moment last year, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's star shone brightly as he unveiled his party's bold deficit-whacking budget proposal — that is, until seniors rebelled over his plan to dramatically change Medicare.

The backlash was swift and decisive. Democrats attacked the GOP, saying the plan would destroy the Medicare safety net, and the earnest Wisconsin wunderkind slid from the spotlight. When he walked the halls of the Capitol, he popped in his iPod earbuds, tuning out the noise.

Now Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, is returning to center stage as the GOP doubles down on his conservative budget priorities — including tax cuts for the wealthy and a new version of his plan for major changes in Medicare.

With an edgy new campaign-style video and a flurry of Ryan appearances timed with his upcoming budget release, Republicans believe theirs is a winning strategy: one that will showcase the GOP as willing to make tough choices to reduce federal deficits and present voters with a contrast to President Obama. Democrats believe just as strongly that the Ryan strategy will be a winner for them.

A Medicare overhaul, in particular, is a risky move in an election year when the GOP is trying to topple Obama, defend its House majority and win the Senate. Ryan won plaudits from some budget hawks and think tanks for being willing to tackle the difficult politics of Medicare cuts. But average voters overwhelmingly support keeping Medicare as is. They also favor Obama's approach of taxing wealthy Americans more heavily to bring budgets into balance, rather than offer more tax cuts, polls show...

Video c/o Legal Insurrection.

Calls Grow to Revamp Movie Ratings

This is an amazing coincidence.

I was covering interest groups last week in class and I mentioned that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) was an example of a trade association. I gave a couple of examples of the movie rating system that MPAA administers, and a student raised his hand to ask about the controversy over "Bully." I mentioned that I wasn't too up on the issue, and so what do you know? The Los Angeles Times had a report yesterday, "'The Hunger Games,' 'Bully' prompt ratings fight."

And CNN has this:

See also, "Battle over ‘Bully’ rating heats up in nation’s capital."

Republicans Brace for Possible Open Convention

Well, this might be a continuing topic for some time.

See New York Times, "All Odds Aside, G.O.P. Girding for Floor Fight." (Via Memeorandum.)

And see Jay Cost, at the Weekly Standard, "The Calendar Hurts Romney."

Duchess Kate Middleton Hands Out Shamrocks to the Irish Guards

She's lovely.

At Telegraph UK, "The Duchess presents shamrocks to Irish Guards."

Obama's War On Women

Via The Last Tradition:

'Act of Valor'

I caught "Act of Valor" this afternoon.

Some of the reviews are unforgiving in attacking this flick (CNN, New York Times), although Kenneth Turan gives it a decent write-up at the Los Angeles Times.

I thought it was great. The movie started out as a recruiting film and stars real Navy SEALs. I found myself on the edge of my seat and I could only marvel at the operational realism throughout. Ed Morrissey reviewed the movie when it came out, and he writes:

It’s easy to take this film seriously when it treats its subject with this much respect. Act of Valor celebrates traditional values of duty, honor, and especially sacrifice, and reminds us that every day men like these — and these men — keep us from harm we never knew was coming.

It's worth a look, big time.

Never Mind Kony, Let's Stop Clooney

From Rob Crilly, at Telegraph UK:

So George Clooney has been arrested outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington. After a week addressing Congress, briefing his president and bringing Sudan back into the limelight, he has taken his awareness-raising campaign to the next level by making sure news crews were on hand to watch him having his hands tied behind his back.

This has been quite the week for African conflicts. First we had the Kony 2012 video, which catapulted a long forgotten war in central Africa to the top of the news schedules. Now we have Clooney doing the same for a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the Nuba mountains of Sudan, first with his own video and then with Friday's arrest.

"I’m just trying to raise attention. Let your Congress know, let your president know," said Clooney, as he was led away.

Ah yes, just trying to raise attention. The modern campaign mantra. And what could be wrong with that? Well, quite a lot as it happens. Clooney has long been raising awareness for Sudan. In the past it was the conflict in Darfur. He spearheaded calls for United Nations peacekeepers to be deployed and for President Omar al Bashir to be indicted on war crimes charges.

There has never been such a successful campaign. Not only did he and the Save Darfur coalition mobilise an unprecedented amount of support for ending a war in a previously obscure region, but they actually got what they wished for. A struggling African Union peacekeeping force was given blue hats of the UN. And President Bashir has been charged with 10 counts of war crimes, including genocide.

And none of it made any difference. President Bashir is still in power in Khartoum and the blue hats ran into exactly the same problem as the African force – finding out the hard way that there is no point deploying peacekeepers if there is no peace to keep...

Continue reading.

Actually, it's a nice theory, but too simple. Sometimes there is no peace on the ground, no "homegrown solutions" to develop, so bringing attention to the issue, as Clooney is doing, might indeed to be worth a try, might reduce bloodshed and strife.

See Max Boot for more along those lines: "The Pentagon’s cold feet on Syria."

'Greyhound'

Well, it's Swedish House Mafia merging music with vodka promotion:

Flying Over the Earth at Night

Via Atlas Shrugs:

U.S. Soldier Could Be Charged in Afghan Massacre Today

At ABC News, "Staff Sgt. Robert Bales Being Kept Away From Other Prisoners At Fort Leavenworth."

And at New York Times, "U.S. Identifies Army Sergeant in Killing of 16 in Afghanistan."

The military on Friday identified the soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan villagers earlier this week as Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a 38-year-old father of two who had been injured twice in combat over the course of four deployments and had, his lawyer said, an exemplary military record.

 The release of Sergeant Bales’s name, first reported by Fox News, ended an extraordinary six-day blackout of public information about him from the Pentagon, which said it withheld his identity for so long because of concerns about his and his family’s security.

An official said on Friday that Sergeant Bales had been transferred from Kuwait to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where he had a cell to himself in the medium-security prison there. His wife and children were moved from their home in Lake Tapps, Wash., east of Tacoma, onto Joint Base Lewis-McChord, his home base, earlier this week.

Military officials say Sergeant Bales, who has yet to be formally charged, left his small combat outpost in the volatile Panjwai district of Kandahar Province early in the morning last Sunday, walked into two nearby villages and there shot or stabbed 16 people, 9 of them children.

Little more than the outlines of Sergeant Bales’s life are publicly known. His family lived in Lake Tapps, a community about 20 miles northeast of his Army post. NBC News reported that he was from Ohio, and he may have lived there until he joined the Army at 27. Sergeant Bales’s Seattle-based lawyer, John Henry Browne, said several members of the sergeant’s family moved to Washington after he was assigned to Joint Base Lewis-McChord.

I'll update later...

Obama Teaches Constitutional Law

Ben Shapiro's got a series going over at the Breitbart empire.

See:

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- PART I."

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- PART II."

* "THE VETTING: OBAMA TEACHES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – PART III."

Meghan McCain Name-Checks Dan Riehl

Well, some interesting blogging around the 'sphere.

At AoSHQ, "Meghan McCain Poses (Clothed, On Bed) In Playboy; Announces Her Sexual Orientation as 'Strictly Dickly'":

Here's the weird thing: Dan Riehl gets name-checked.

Dan Riehl responds: "Hey, Mom! I'm In Playboy Magazine!!"

More Meghan at London's Daily Mail, "'I love sex and I love men... I'm from a family of whiskey drinkers': John McCain's daughter Meghan opens up (but doesn't strip down) for Playboy interview."

(And thanks to R.S. McCain, "Asking the Important Questions: Why Does Gillian Anderson Want Me to Blog About Her Teenage Lesbian Affairs?")

Felix Baumgartner Lands Sky Jump From 71,580 Feet Above Roswell, New Mexico

This is wild, via Theo Spark:

And read about it at CSM, "Sky diver, after free-falling 13 miles, sets sights on record 23-mile jump."

The Academic Mainstreaming of Fringe Anti-American Theories

A surprisingly good piece from Peter Wood at The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Bell Epoque."

Discussing Soledad O'Brien's response to Joel Pollak on the Derrick Bell story, Wood writes:

The O’Brien-Pollak exchange is surely grist for divergent enthusiasms. What I find most interesting is O’Brien’s pretense that because critical race theory is a “theory,” it has nothing to do with “white supremacy.” She seems touchingly oblivious to the possibility that CRT is a theory that posits the centrality of white racism in the American legal system. The answer to her last question is surely yes: Pollak is attempting to connect President Obama with a “serious radical.” Bell’s appointment as a tenured professor at Harvard Law School in no way stands as evidence that he was not “a serious radical.” To the contrary, Bell prided himself on his radicalism. Those who paid attention to his career at Harvard, punctuated by outbursts of public protest against imaginary instances of institutional racism, can hardly think otherwise. Anyone doubting the radicalism of his theory can easily consult his own statements, as in his 1995 article, "Who’s Afraid of Critical Race Theory?"

RTWT.

Gay Marriage Debate Roils Britain

Well, religious leaders aren't pleased at all.

See Telegraph UK, "Church powerless to stop same-sex marriage even if hundreds of thousands object":

A long-awaited official paper on same-sex marriage makes clear that the Church will be powerless to stop the change even if it mobilises hundreds of thousands of objections.

The Government’s national consultation document, which was published this morning, asks the public whether they “agree or disagree” with allowing homosexual couples to have civil weddings.

But it makes clear that, while the question is posed in principle, it is a matter of “how not whether” the change is introduced.
It also warns that the Government will take into account the various points raised in the consultation but “not the number of responses received”.

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister, said that the launch of the paper was a “hugely important step”, upholding principles of “family, society and personal freedoms”.

But opponents of the move immediately accused the Government of holding a “sham” consultation” in which opposition would be “ignored”.

In its first official statement on same-sex marriage, the Church of England committed itself to “the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman”.

A carefully worded statement, drafted by the Archbishops Council, hinted that the question of marriage could undermine its position as the established church.

Announcing the four-month consultation, Miss Featherstone and the Home Secretary Theresa May said the Government committed to ending the ban on same-sex couples marrying in register offices.

“I believe that if a couple love each other and want to commit to a life together, they should have the option of a civil marriage, whatever their gender," said Miss Featherstone.

Doesn't sound like this is going over too well, actually.

See also, "Q&A: Same-sex marriage," and "Gay marriage: this is a battle the Churches will lose – and it will be a messy business."

British Neoconservative Douglas Murray on the Failure of French Multiculturalism

Via Blazing Cat Fur:

Robert Kagan: American Power Preserves Freedom and Prosperity

See Kagan's essay at CNN, "America has made the world freer, safer and wealthier":

We take a lot for granted about the way the world looks today -- the widespread freedom, the unprecedented global prosperity (even despite the current economic crisis), and the absence of war among great powers.

In 1941 there were only a dozen democracies in the world. Today there are more than 100. For four centuries prior to 1950, global GDP rose by less than 1 percent a year. Since 1950 it has risen by an average of 4 percent a year, and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty.

The first half of the 20th century saw the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind, and in prior centuries war among great powers was almost constant. But for the past 60 years no great powers have gone to war.

This is the world America made when it assumed global leadership after World War II. Would this world order survive if America declined as a great power? Some American intellectuals insist that a "Post-American" world need not look very different from the American world and that all we need to do is "manage" American decline. But that is wishful thinking. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other powers, the world order will inevitably change to suit their interests and preferences.

Continue reading.

And ICYMI, see Kagan's "The Myth of American Decline," published in January at The New Republic.

Pamela Geller on Ezra Levant's Discussing New York Times Hypocrisy

This really is amazing, via Blazing Cat Fur:

PREVIOUSLY: "The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism."

L.A. Weatherman Kyle Hunter Files Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Against KCAL and KCBS for Hiring Smokin' Hot Young Women

Well, this is hilarious.

And it's not like it wasn't bound to happen --- CBS Los Angeles really does have some especially beautiful women.

At Hollywood Reporter, "L.A. Weatherman Sues CBS Stations For Hiring Young, Attractive Women."

PREVIOUSLY: "Evelyn Taft, Political Scientist."

Leon Wieseltier Slams Rachel Maddow's New Book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power

I didn't even know Maddow had a book, but I can't think of a better way to find out.

See Wieseltier, "Has Military Force Gone Out of Fashion":

TRASHING FORCE may win you a lot of friends, but it is stupid. There is nothing “artificial” about the primacy of defense because there is nothing artificial about threats and conflicts and atrocities. The American political system’s “disinclination” to war must not be promoted into a disinclination to history. We are not the country we were in the eighteenth century, as every liberal insists about every other dimension of American policy. Anyway, this is what President Jefferson said in 1806: “Our duty is, therefore, to act upon things as they are, and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be.”

There are few progressives who bug me more than Rachel Maddow, so I particularly enjoyed Wiesteltier's takedown. (And he's got an excellent discussion of Syria and Iran, so count that as an added bonus.)

RTWT.

Dharun Ravi Found Guilty of Hate Crimes in Rutgers Spying Trial

Actually, I don't recall this being a "hate crimes" trial. But that's the headline at the New York Times, "Defendant in Rutgers Spying Case Guilty of Hate Crimes."

And CNN has this:

"New Jersey enacted a law that said if you secretly record (someone engaged in an intimate act) with a webcam or any other kind of video and you broadcast that without their permission, that is a crime," Callan said. "Every place else in America up until this law was enacted, you could sue somebody for civil damages for the embarrassment, but you weren't going to go to jail. New Jersey said it's criminal."

And because prosecutors were able to prove that Ravi's actions were born of a gay bias, the possible sentence doubles from up to five years to 10 years behind bars.

Clementi's death stirred discussion about bullying, with President Barack Obama releasing a videotaped message condemning it. A few months later, New Jersey legislators enacted stricter laws to protect against bullying in schools.
"This haunting and awful case shows how much society has changed," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin of Friday's verdict. "Even though he was not charged directly in connection with Clementi's suicide, that tragedy hung over the trial and undoubtedly played a major part in every aspect of the case."

After the verdict, Rutgers University released a statement saying, "This sad incident should make us all pause to recognize the importance of civility and mutual respect in the way we live, work and communicate with others."
Prosecutors had argued that Ravi, who sat expressionless in the courtroom Friday, had tried to embarrass Clementi because he was gay and that his actions were motivated by a desire to intimidate the Ridgewood, New Jersey, native expressly because of his sexual orientation.

"These acts were purposeful, they were intentional, and they were planned," prosecutor Julia L. McClure told the jury on the first day of the trial. Ravi "was bothered by Tyler Clementi's sexual orientation," she later said more bluntly.

Also at USA Today, "Lesson of Rutgers case: Online actions carry consequences."

Added: From London's Daily Mail, "Tears for Tyler: Mother of gay suicide teen cries in court as jury finds Rutgers student guilty of hate crime and spying on his tragic roommate."

The New York Times' Hypocrisy in Favoring Islam While Criticizing Catholicism

This really is a year of anti-Catholic bigotry and few issues are revealing it like Pamela's fight with the nation's newspaper of record.

See: "VIDEO: Pamela Geller on FOX News Discussing NY TImes Hypocrisy."

More on Fox & Friends below, and at Fox News, "New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion."

And see Mark Steyn, "The Quit and the Dead."

Layoff Notices Sent to 20,000 Teachers in California

At San Francisco Chronicle, "More than 20,000 California Teachers Pink-Slipped":

More than 20,000 public school teachers in California opened their mailboxes over the last few days to find a pink slip inside as districts met the state's Thursday deadline for dispensing the dreaded news to the educators that they may not have a job in the fall.

The layoff notices are preliminary, the districts' best guess at the amount of money they will get to educate kids next year after the Legislature concludes its annual budget fight this summer. But a proposed tax measure on the November ballot offers more uncertainty than usual.

Districts won't know until two months into the new school year whether voters will approve a tax increase that would prevent a $4.8 billion trigger cut to education funding, as proposed in the governor's budget.

See also the Long Beach Press-Telegram, "LBCC braces for millions in budget cuts":

LONG BEACH — Long Beach City College is bracing for major budget cuts following an unanticipated loss of $3.5 million in mid-year state funding cuts, officials said Thursday.

College officials said LBCC must cut an additional $5 million from its $150 million general fund to balance the budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. The college will have to slash its budget by a total of $9.8 million if voters fail to pass a November tax initiative designed to help fund education.

"Long Beach City College is facing devastating budget cuts that have been imposed on all of California's community colleges by the state," LBCC President Eloy Ortiz Oakley said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, the news going forward is worse, with millions more being cut, increased student demand, and no new revenues or support projected for several years."

Oakley said LBCC will have to make difficult budget decisions in coming months. More announcements on specific cuts will be coming over the next several weeks.

So far, the college has frozen several open positions, including the dean of career education and workforce development and two contract faculty positions.

However, LBCC is still planning to hire new faculty in the English, speech, math and culinary arts departments. Oakley said these hires are essential for supporting student success and enrollment targets.

Oakley said students likely won't see any fee hikes or major reductions in courses, but the college is considering layoffs and cuts to programs and student services. Among the possibilities, the college is considering cutbacks in library and administrative office hours, reductions in programs including athletic programs, and the consolidation of certain services between its two campuses.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. That Brown tax initiative in November will go down to defeat.

More on this at Los Angeles Times, "Brown takes tougher tack on wealthy," and "Jerry Brown, tax realist."

Sarah Palin: 'Breitbart is Here'

From Governor Palin, at Big Government (via Memeorandum).

And check iOWNTHEWORLD for the original artwork.

Obama's Energy Lies: President Spews on American Energy at Prince George's Community College in Largo, Maryland, March 15, 2012

I watched the president's speech.

It's offensive. Indeed, it's offensive on so many levels my first thought was the proverbial, "Where to begin"?

Well, the easy answer is to start off with Obama's epic gaffe on Rutherford B. Hayes. Obama didn't simply botch a quote; he attempted to revise history. Folks are all over this at Memeorandum, for example, at Washington Free Beacon: "Obama on Pres. Hayes, 'Flat Earthers,' and the History of Science." It turns out that President Hayes never criticized the invention of the telephone with the comment that "It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?" Actually, upon first listening to the telephone, a blown away President Hayes said "That is wonderful."

But listen at the clip, starting around 22 minutes. Obama attacks unnamed "politicians" as members of a "flat earth society," and he doesn't stop there:

Now, all of that would be one thing. We can expect hard hitting partisan speeches from here on out until November. Indeed, today basically kicked off the Obama campaign's reelection drive, with Vice President Biden giving a speech earlier in Toledo, Ohio. But listening to Obama you'd think he was campaigning as Homeboy-in-Chief, trying to nail down the bandanas and grillz constituency. Obama's down with the misogynist hip-hop demographic, but this was a community college in suburban Maryland with the state's governor and members of Congress in attendance. You'd think one of the White House advisors would have suggested that O' save the swagga for the basketball court, yo.

Obama's continued insinuations of Republicans as backwater yokels are particular abrasive. This is a president who's giving a speech with manufactured history looking to smack down GOP "politicians" as anti-science nitwits and technological Luddites? Obama went on and on about how "drilling won't solve high gas prices," blah, blah, rehashing stump-speech remarks going back to 2008. His classic statistic is 2 percent. America's proven reserves amount to just "2 percent of world oil reserves." Frankly, all that talk is a bunch of bull, as Investor's Business Daily pointed on this morning, "Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims":

... the figure Obama uses — proved oil reserves — vastly undercounts how much oil the U.S. actually contains. In fact, far from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities — enough to meet all the country's oil needs for hundreds of years.

The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world's proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves "are a small subset of recoverable resources," because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.

When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the U.S., according to various government reports. Among them:

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.

Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.

Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.

As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Then, there's the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it's heated.

Continue reading at the link.

Obama doesn't mention any of those statistics. Instead, he portrays his political opponents as reactionary and un-American. This coming from an administration which has long touted its agenda to drive the coal industry out of business --- and now the Energy Secretary is walking back earlier comments calling for $8.00 gas prices like those in Europe.

The president wrapped up his speech with an attack on "Big Oil," claiming that the petroleum industry didn't need the "subsidies" since it was raking in windfall profits. The Wall Street Journal anticipated the president's attack on the oil companies, and noted with respect to subsidies:

As for the “subsidies” that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren’t direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They’re deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

But listen at the clip. The president's obviously desperate to change the narrative after recent polls have revealed a growing public backlash on gas prices. But to hear the president, it's not the White House that's behind the curve but the "anti-science" Republicans looking to turn back the clock. Meanwhile, with all those proven reserves sitting untapped around the country, folks have been thinking more and more about bringing that oil to market. While Obama whines about how out of touch those "politicians" are about the technologies of the future, the Los Angeles Times reports, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight":

Nationwide, fracking is driving an oil and natural gas boom. Energy companies are using the procedure to extract previously unreachable fossil fuels locked within deep rock. The industry is touting the potential of fracking in California to tap the largest oil shale formation in the continental United States, containing 64% of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.

State regulators said fracking here is "radically different" from drilling in the Rocky Mountain West, Mid-Atlantic region and Northeast, where operators inject millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand to break apart rock and release natural gas. In California, the process has long been performed for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.

"We believe it is a safe practice," said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn. "It is not a new technology. It is a tested, proven technology."

The report stresses the environmental side of the debate actually; but clearly, we have the technology to achieve energy independence, and industry experts affirm the safety and effectiveness of the procedure. In contrast, President Obama is spewing lies and distortions on America's energy capabilities, and attempting to paint political opponents as medieval.

The president's agenda is anti-American and anti-progress. It's driven by a statist ideology. Frankly, the country's not likely to expand domestic supply and reduce foreign dependence while the Democrats are in power. The only alternative is to throw the bums out.

Americans have long championed our rugged individualism and can-do spirit of self-sufficiency. The polls show a public longing for a renewed effort at energy independence using U.S. resources and home-grown ingenuity. It's time for an energy policy grounded in pragmatism and reality. A pro-market agenda can reduce gas prices now and secure energy independence long into the future. It's time for a change.

Left-Wing Hate Speech: Vet the President, Hollywood, and the Media

This is getting good!

Michelle notes so righteously:

"When you vet the President, you don't just vet the President, you're vetting Hollywood, and you're vetting the media, and they don't like it one bit!"

From the Marines: Toward the Sounds of Chaos

Via Theo Spark: