Angels 7-1 Win Over Yankees Breaks Three-Game Losing Streak

This is going to be on of the big rivalries of the season.

At the Los Angeles Times, "C.J. Wilson throws struggling Angels a lifeline, beats Yankees."

At the New York Times, "Boos Rain on Hughes After Shaky Start Against Angels":

The glow emanating from the Yankees’ home opener Friday quickly dimmed Saturday. The Los Angeles Angels exacted their revenge on Phil Hughes, whose second sloppy start revived questions about his place in the rotation.

One day after being shut out by Hiroki Kuroda, the Angels fired back with six runs against Hughes, who was knocked out in the fourth inning having allowed two home runs among the eight hits he yielded. Before it was over the Angels would tack on another run for a 7-1 win at Yankee Stadium that halted the Yankees’ winning streak at four games.

Howie Kendrick had three hits off Hughes, including a three-run homer in the fourth that landed in the second deck in left field. The blast signaled the end of a disappointing day for both Hughes and many of the 46,829 in attendance, many of whom booed him as he left the mound.

Hughes had an impressive spring but his two ineffective outings, coupled with a poor season last year that included time on the disabled list with shoulder tendinitis, are already raising questions about his long-term viability. Manager Joe Girardi, however, bristled at suggestions that Hughes was in danger of losing his starting spot after only two outings.

“It’s April 14 and we’re talking about our rotation and we’re 4-4?” he said. “We’re not 0-8. People are kind of getting a little bit ahead of themselves.”

But the questions were not posed in a vacuum. With Andy Pettitte continuing to build arm strength in the minor leagues, and Michael Pineda (left shoulder tendinitis) expected back next month, one or two Yankees starters could lose spots in the rotation. Hughes was not the most likely candidate coming into the season and still may not be. But he did nothing to help his cause Saturday.

He allowed six earned runs in three and a third innings, walking two and striking out six. In his previous start last Sunday against Tampa Bay, Hughes held the Rays to two runs in four and two-thirds innings. That was not a good game for Hughes, who ran his pitch count to 99. But that start was not as bad as this one.

Hughes also surrendered a two-run homer in the second inning to Chris Iannetta, who tucked a looping drive into the right-field corner.

“I felt my stuff was pretty good,” Hughes said. “But I wasn’t locating, and there were a couple that hurt me really bad.”

Game 3 will air tonight on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

Winning the War Against Women

At the Wall Street Journal, "The marriage tax and other obstacles to economic progress."

Another great editorial.

Read it all at the link.

Secret Service Agents in Prostitution Scandal Placed on Leave

Glenn Reynolds has a roundup, "OBAMA’S WAR ON WOMEN (CONT’D)."

And see the Los Angeles Times, "Misconduct inquiry targets 16 U.S. security team members."

WASHINGTON — Eleven Secret Service agents and five members of the U.S. military working on a security team preparing for President Obama's arrival at a regional summit in Colombia were under investigation Saturday for apparent misconduct involving prostitutes.

The incident occurred early Thursday at the Hotel Caribe, a historic beachfront hotel where the advance team was staying in the Caribbean resort city of Cartagena.

The episode began when police and hotel personnel began checking hotel rooms as part of the strict security surrounding the weekend Summit of the Americas, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Several visitors had not left identification with the front desk as required, prompting the room checks, the official said. It was then that a Secret Service agent was found with a woman believed to be a prostitute in his room.

Other Secret Service agents also had women in their rooms who were believed to be prostitutes, the official said. Prostitution is legal in certain "tolerance" areas in Colombia, and Cartagena has a large red light district.

Checks of the rooms also revealed U.S. military personnel with unauthorized visitors, a military official briefed on the incident said.

A dispute between one of the women and a Secret Service agent over whether she should be paid created a disturbance, andthe U.S. Embassy ultimately was notified.

The 11 Secret Service agents were relieved of duty and flown home Friday before Obama arrived in Cartagena. The group included special agents and uniformed division officers, none of whom are assigned to the president's protective detail.

Continue reading.

And a video report at ABC News, "Secret Service Agents Caught in Prostitution Scandal During."

Society Coming Apart

William Tucker reviews Charles Murray's new book, at The American Spectator, "The Coming Cultural Disintegration":

THE CULTURAL EARTHQUAKE that Murray has brought to national attention in Coming Apart goes as follows: Whatever the causes, the social disintegration that once seemed to apply only to African Americans has now engulfed blue-collar, white working-class communities as well. Men are dropping out of the workforce, single motherhood has risen to nearly 50 percent, crime has skyrocketed, religious faith is declining, and the chances for upward mobility are rapidly diminishing. As Murray concludes: "The absolute level [of social cohesion] is so low that it calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation."

Murray identifies what he calls the "founding virtues"—marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity—that were once shared by all Americans and held us together in a common culture. That culture was still intact on November 21, 1963, the day before the Kennedy assassination that Murray chooses as his benchmark. In graph after graph drawn from the sociological literature, he shows how these four qualities have deteriorated—not among the college educated, who spend most of their time disparaging those virtues, but in blue—collar communities where people are rarely educated beyond high school. By way of illustration, he applies this data to two real places, Belmont, an upscale suburb of Boston dominated by college graduates, and Fishtown, a working-class neighborhood on the fringe of Philadelphia where the once strong ethic of marriage and family is now falling apart.

The disintegration of Fishtown over the last thirty years is a grim and depressing story. In one remarkable passage, Murray quotes social workers from the 1970s as they expressed their frustration about how Fishtown residents wouldn't accept government programs:

"Kensingtonians [i.e., Fishtown residents] are psychologically unable to face up to their cultural and economic deprivation," said one Philadelphia social services administrator. "Pride prevents them from taking advantage of social services. For them to accept these services would be to admit they're not what they claim to be." The director of Temple University's Student Community Action Center lamented that "nobody knows how to work in the white community. Kensington doesn't want us there. It refuses to admit it's a poverty area."

There in a nutshell is the reason why white working-class neighborhoods were once so strong. But the government eventually won.

Continue reading.

Murray's book is here: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.

Sarah Palin: 'Paying at the Pump'

Video c/o C4P.

And ICYMI, "Exclusive Interview: Palin Talks Pain at the Pump Ahead of Fox News Special."

East Against West in California's Economic Recovery?

As soon as I clicked the link, before scrolling down, I knew that was Newport Beach at the photo.

See: "In California, Economic Gap of East vs. West."

The Times overstates the economic recovery. The coastal areas are extremely affluent and less prone to the deep cycles of the economy, and the outer counties are perpetually underdeveloped. The housing boom naturally took off like wildfire in places like Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and so it's not surprising that the market crashes there pulled down the local economies like an anchor. And don't even get me going about the Central Valley. Drive an hour outside of Fresno and you'll think you're in the "Grapes of Wrath."

San Bernardino County, which with Riverside County makes up the Inland Empire, a sprawling area now scattered with vacant homes built in the last decade, posted an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent in March. Compared with Orange County, on the more prosperous, western side of California’s vertical divide with an unemployment rate of 8 percent, it can feel like another world.

The disparities have played out in all kinds of ways. The Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley, in the center of the state, have some of the highest rates of poverty in the country. El Centro, on the state’s southeast edge, has the highest unemployment rate for any metropolitan area in the country, nearly 27 percent. Stockton, 550 miles to the north and also on the eastern side of the divide, became the first city to test the state’s new process for possible bankruptcy.

At the same time, the gap between the per capita income in the San Francisco Bay Area compared with the Inland Empire grew to more than $40,000; it was $26,000 four decades ago. While suburbs in the eastern parts of the state were some of the fastest-growing areas in the nation in the last decade, that growth has slowed to a near halt.

Welcome to California.

North Korea's Nuclear Embarrassment

The Los Angeles Times reports, "North Korea's failed missile may foreshadow nuclear test":

Experts say that experience suggests the embarrassment of Friday's missile launch will encourage North Korea's young leader to test a nuclear device soon. Meanwhile, the U.S. cancels food aid.

But I'm really tripping on this video from last week, "North Korea threatens 'merciless punishment' as it readies rocket launch."

More from Telegraph UK, "Inside North Korea: Empty screens and blank faces as rocket launch fails."

Why the Left Fears Ann Romney

She's a spectacular woman, for one thing.

But that's not all, according to Teri Christoph and Suzanne Haik Terrell, at CNN:

As her husband moves toward locking up the Republican nomination, recent headlines have screamed that Ann Romney is the "Romney that Democrats fear most." And for good reason. Pundits point out that she is passionate, attractive, charismatic and elegant -- all true -- but we would argue that what Democrats truly fear is her message and the impact it is having with women of all walks of life.

Recently, Romney made headlines when she said, "Women care about jobs. Women care about the economy, they care about their children, they care about their debt. They're angry, they're furious about the entitlement debt we're leaving our children." She is right.

Meanwhile, Democrats preen on about the phony "war on women" and are increasingly desperate to lure attention away from their disastrous policies. The women we know are smarter than this and realize this is merely a smokescreen meant to distract women voters from the true legacy of the Obama administration: failed economic policies that adversely affect women.

In her stunning comments, Rosen claims Romney "never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of women in the country are facing."

Moms all across this country look to the unemployment numbers, which have disproportionately affected women, and worry about their families' immediate future and security.

Moms look to record high gas prices as they begin to plan summer road trips. Women make 80% of all health care decisions in our country, so it's no wonder a consistent majority of them oppose Obamacare.

Moms know how to make and maintain a budget and are left wondering why it has taken Harry Reid over 1,050 days to pass a budget in the male-dominated, Democrat-led U.S. Senate.

Moms know the crushing legacy that debt can leave and are outraged that, as of today, each of our children owes $50,017.33 of the national debt. This is the legacy of the Obama administration, and this is why liberals like Ms. Rosen make personal attacks on mothers like Ann Romney, rather than debate the issues most important to women.

More and more women like Ann Romney are standing up and speaking out. Women are joining the political arena in droves, both as activists and as candidates.

RELATED: From Michelle Malkin, "Why do Soros monkeys hate women?"

Alan Dershowitz on George Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit

William Jacobson has the affidavit, "Alan Dershowitz on George Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit."

And see London's Daily Mail, "Zimmerman did NOT use racial slur against Trayvon Martin, prosecutors now say."

Lawrence Auster has more: "CRITIQUES OF ZIMMERMAN AFFIDAVIT."

The Economics of Ann Romney

From Kevin Williamson, at National Review (via Instapundit):

Ann Romney is economically a hell of a lot smarter than Hilary Rosen.

The marginal value of the wages earned in a typical C-level career would have been almost nothing to the Romneys. But there is that other scarce resource: parental time.

A great piece.

RTWT.

Ezra Levant Tells Saudi Arabia to Step Off in Muslim Bra Photo Controversy

Via Blazing Cat Fur.

Background at Scaramouche!, "Tempest in a C Cup."

North Korean Launch Fails

See the report at the Wall Street Journal, "Pyongyang Admits Test of Rocket Collapses; U.S. Condemns 'Provocative Action'."

And from the editors, "A Pyongyang Joke" (via Google):

North Korea's declared intention in launching a ballistic missile Friday morning was to place a satellite in orbit to mark the 100th birthday of Kim Il Sung, the regime's founder. After the missile's failure 80 seconds into its flight, current leader Kim Jong Eun will have to come up with some other firecracker for his grandfather, probably another nuclear test. Maybe that will fizzle, too.

The missile failure is now being portrayed as a crashing humiliation for the North, particularly after it had invited foreign media to inspect the launch site. No doubt it represents a loss of face for the young Kim and his military machine, which spent an estimated $450 million on the missile. That the North admitted the failure to its people over state TV may also suggest that the Great Successor's political grip isn't firm.

Then again, more than the North Koreans should feel humiliated by the launch. It was only in February that the Obama Administration struck a deal with Pyongyang, offering 240,000 metric tons of food aid over the next year in exchange for the usual promises of good nuclear behavior. We warned at the time that the North was certain to break the deal. They did so within weeks.

Why they broke their word as quickly as they did is a good question. Maybe it reflects the regime's internal power dynamics—or maybe the North figures it can extract a bigger bribe if it first indulges in some outrageous behavior. It won't be the first time they've played that game to profitable effect.

Whatever the case, the North's decision to launch is also an indication of its disdain for the protests of the U.S. and its allies...

Read it all at that top link.

BONUS: From Dana Pico, "The First Street Journal scoops everybody, with the first film of the failed North Korean rocket launch."

Barack Obama's Problem With Women

A great essay, from Marc Thiessen, "Obama’s women problem":

With polls showing Mitt Romney losing ground with women voters, many in Washington have been buzzing in recent days over Romney’s “woman problem.” They’ve got it backward: It is Barack Obama who has the bigger problem with women.

When he took office in 2009, Obama’s job approval rating with women had reached 70 percent; today it has slipped to 49 percent — a precipitous decline of 21 points. This is why the president has been working overtime to court the women’s vote — weighing in on whether women should be admitted to the Augusta National Golf Club (even though nobody asked what he thought); publicly taking the side of a female Georgetown University law student in her spat with Rush Limbaugh; and forcing religious employers to provide coverage for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

But here’s the interesting thing: It’s not working. As these controversies have dominated the news in recent weeks, Obama’s approval rating among women has not gone up; it has actually declined slightly. Why is that? Perhaps it’s because country club membership and who pays for birth control are not the issues women voters are most concerned about...

Continue reading.

NewsBusted: 'Connecticut Abolishes Death Penalty'

Via Theo Spark:

BONUS: From Theo, "Red Friday Totty..."

Buffett Rule Bill Leaves Some Millionaires Untouched

The NEA sent me an email with the video below included. And here's part of the pitch for higher taxes:

Also on Tax Day, the Senate will vote on the Paying a Fair Share Act (S. 2230). The bill, introduced by Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) would implement the “Buffet Rule” to ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in taxes. In doing so, it would help choose the right vision for America – the one in which every American contributes to economic recovery and all have the hope and the help they need to succeed.

I literally hate the union's political activities. I don't hate unions, since I think collective bargaining has a place, but unions are the "schoolhouses of socialism," and the NEA proves it again and again.

And this push for the Buffet Rule is just another tax-raising scam by the left. See IBD, "Bill to Implement Buffet Rule on Millionaires Shelters Tax-Exempt Bonds":

President Obama brought the Buffett Rule front and center in his re-election campaign this week, but legislation to implement it has a major exemption that would reduce likely tax revenue and discourage productive investment.

If passed by Congress — highly unlikely — the Buffett Rule would require everyone with an income of $1 million or more to pay a 30% minimum federal income tax. It's named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who famously said his secretary paid taxes at a higher rate than he did.

Obama on Tuesday renewed his call for the rule. Hours earlier, the White House issued a report arguing that rich people weren't paying enough taxes.

But a Buffett Rule bill by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has a glaring omission. It exempts a favorite tax shelter of the wealthy, municipal bonds.

The legislation determines whether a taxpayer has a million-dollar income by looking at adjusted gross income. That excludes tax-exempt interest payments.

"That does undermine the logic put forward for the rule," said Alan Viard, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "I'm surprised more people haven't picked up on that. Municipal bonds are held disproportionately by high-income taxpayers, and they get the highest tax break."

Municipal bonds are issued by state and local governments to finance capital projects like schools, roads and high-speed trains. Because they are tax exempt, interest rates — and financing costs for local governments — are lower.

More at the link.

Sarah Palin Slams Obama's 'Inconsistencies' and 'Double-Standards' in Left's War on Women

Governor Palin's making the interview rounds.

Here's last night's with Sean Hannity, via Tina Korbe, "Palin: Rosen “awakened many Mama Grizzlies”":

See Big Government, "Exclusive Interview: Palin Talks Pain at the Pump Ahead of Fox News Special."

And lots more at C4P.

Ann Romney Speaks to Ann National Rifle Association!

You gotta love it!

Via The Hill, "VIDEO: Ann Romney Briefly Addresses NRA Meeting."

More at The Other McCain, "Warning: Brain-Bleach Shortage!"

And at Michelle Obama's Mirror, "Failure to Launch. What the Fluke is going on here? -- UPDATED!"

EXTRA: At the New York Times, "Romney Warns Gun Lobby of a Second Obama Term." (VIA MEMEORANDUM.)

If the 2012 Election is Framed as 'Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?' Then Obama is Going to Lose

A great piece from Jay Cost, at The Weekly Standard, "Obama's Troubled Reelection Strategy" (via Memeorandum):

This, put simply, is Barack Obama’s problem. If the 2012 election is framed on “are you better off than you were four years ago?,” then he is going to lose. His record on the economy, the deficit, energy policy, and health care are all very unpopular.

So, Obama’s objective is to get the country to think about other things. In particular, he has of late employed a series of gimmicks to induce the country to conceive of Mitt Romney in the above terms. The whole “war on women” is exactly along those lines, as is the Buffett Rule. Both speak to the core strategy – Romney is a conservative radical and tool of big business who wants to deprive women of birth control and help only the rich get richer.

London's Daily Mail: 'Lesbian Democrat' Apologizes for Saying Mrs. Romney 'Never Worked a Day in Her Life'

Well, shoot, at least somebody decided to mention that Hilary Rosen is a lesbian freak radical feminist.

See: "'Mrs Romney seems like a very nice woman': Obama forced to defend rival's wife as lesbian Democrat apologises for saying she's 'never worked a day in her life'."

Records show that Rosen, a former lobbyist with the recording industry and link person between Hollywood and the Democratic party, belongs to a firm paid more than $120,864 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) this election cycle.

But the DNC denied she was an adviser and Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said he personally knew three people called Hilary Rosen, did not know how often she had been to the White House and had no idea what her meetings had been about.

Appearing on CNN, Rosen appeared pained by the White House’s virtual denial of her existence. ‘I don't know any other Hilary Rosens but Jay must,’ she said. ‘It's politics.’

The DNC accused conservatives of attacking Rosen for being a lesbian. The adoptive mother of two children, Rosen split up with her long-time partner and co-adoptee Elizabeth Birch in 2006.

Actually, "conservatives" didn't attack Rosen for being lesbian --- an act of omission which is easily explained by the cancer of political correctness infecting society. A blogger at Red State mentioned but DID NOT JUDGE Rosen's sexual orientation, and then in a separate post Erick Erickson went batsh*t crazy while attempting to slap down the mere mention of Rosen's lesbianism by the Catholic League.

So let's be honest here: Rosen's homosexuality has everything to do with how she sees family, motherhood, and work. She was rightly called out for a vicious attack on Mrs. Romney, and it's perfectly clear to me that her comments were driven, at least in part, by sheer radical lesbian feminist ideological hatred --- and to think, it all flows out so easily, from a top-level Democrat Party insider. These are people who are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of difference, when in fact the difference they despise and demonize is traditionalism and moral righteousness. If we've learned anything this last week it's that political correctness is destroying reasoned debate in society. While few people would comment on black thuggery as did John Derbryshire, the guy is supposed to have a constitutional right to speak his mind. And now what? He's thrown under the bus by the editorial heavyweights at National Review? What a disgrace. And here we have Erick Erickson, who was in fact on CNN debating Rosen at the time, defending this progressive political hack against the mere mention of her sexual orientation. Gee, wouldn't want to offend anyone, you think?

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean you can't talk about how their gayness radicalizes their politics. Progressives have no inhibitions against destroying the other for political gain, absolutely none. When you keep progressives' sexual identity under the table you're channeling off a tremendous amount of political information. That sexual orientation animates a politics of vile opposition and attack that in turn benefits from a set of self-defeating double-standards that the right applies only to itself. See Maggie's Notebook for more: "Elizabeth Birch - The Children’s Other Mom - Hilary Rosen Worries About Same Things Ann Romney Worries About." These people are radical. Call them out for who they are and what the stand for. All of Rosen's apologies and clarifications have been CYA bullsh*t. People shouldn't be kidding themselves about it. Just take a look at this post from TBogg --- "The Umbrage Games" --- and you can see that progressives play to destroy and they play for keeps. They live off of this stuff and it's how they'll put you under if you're not pushing back.

More, thank goodness, at Bob Belvedere's, "Ann Romney Attacked By Crazed Lesbian." And again, at The Other McCain, "Feminism, Careerism, Lesbianism":

What the hell? Liberals consider this an “apology”?

Spare me the faux anger from the right who view the issue of women’s rights and advancement as a way to score political points.

Rosen is defending, not apologizing for, her hateful attitude toward traditional wives and mothers. And please tell me who spent weeks trying to “score political points” on this issue, huh?

*****

And let's not forget: Ann Romney is a beautiful, wonderful mother and wife --- and Mitt's truly enriched to have her campaigning at his side.

Anti-Elite Protester Trenton Oldfield Stops Oxford and Cambridge University Boat Race

This is unreal, truly.

At London's Daily Mail, "Chaos at the Boat Race: Event stopped because of SWIMMER in the Thames... then Oxford's broken blade gives Cambridge victory."

And the guy was himself wealthy and educated at elite institutions, which tells you how deranged are the world's social activists. See Australia's Herald Sun, "Aussie ‘class warrior' who derailed Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is a privately-educated ‘toff'."

And see Melanie Phillips, "A Boat Race rebel without a clue and the politics of narcissism":

His website entry should surely have been entitled ‘anti-elitism leads to imbecility’. Equating the excellence and superiority of Oxford and Cambridge with tyranny is not just stupid, but positively odious when one considers real tyranny in countries such as Syria or North Korea.

In any event, elitism is merely another way of saying that some achievements are considered superior to others. The great question is which achievements should be given priority.

Those like Oldfield who practise class war believe no achievements should be afforded superior status. To the Oldfields of this world, the great crime committed by Oxford and Cambridge is simply to be excellent.

Read it all at the link.

Primary Lessons for Mitt Romney

From Kim Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, "Romney's Primary Lessons" (via Google):

Nominee Romney. It took six years, 36 debates, epic organization and a small fortune, but it appears he will finally claim that title. The question is whether he is willing to learn from his experience.

Despite the GOP handwringing over the length of its contest, the primary did serve one purpose: competition. Competition, at its best, makes the last man standing stronger. And Mr. Romney's rivals—both in their successes and their failings—helped sharpen the contours of today's political landscape. Each one has had a lesson to offer him. Combined, they offer a blueprint to victory in the tougher competition against Barack Obama this fall.

The two candidates who might, oddly, provide the biggest takeaway are Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. Their campaigns were short-lived, for the reason that voters did not understand their purpose. Politics is about vision, yet Mrs. Bachmann never got beyond appealing to "mothers," or Mr. Huntsman beyond ramblings about China.

President Obama has a vision for this country, even if it's not one to which most aware Americans would subscribe. Mr. Romney is adept at warning about this Obama view and insisting that his view is different. But what is it? The governor has been inching toward a vision, but its description has been long-winded, framed in overused phrases ("freedom" or "the American Dream"), and its substance lost amid 59-point plans. The biggest test ahead for Mr. Romney will be whether he can define a grand purpose for his presidency in a clear and compelling way.

For inspiration, he can look to Herman Cain. His lesson was that it isn't enough to talk about the economy; a winning candidate has to present big, bold, pro-growth solutions. Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan had flaws, but it appealed to Americans in its freshness and its daring. Mr. Romney dragged through much of the primary with the least inspiring tax plan of his competitors, though he improved it in February—with a 20% across-the-board cut in income tax rates. There's no reason he can't improve it more, say by also including an optional and clean flat tax.

Speaking of big and bold, he could also study Newt Gingrich. Mr. Romney is fond of poking Mr. Gingrich about moon colonies, but at least the former speaker has ideas. Voters were drawn by Mr. Gingrich's notions to replace the EPA, and he pulled out a Georgia victory in part on his vision for harnessing America's new energy boom. The way for Mr. Romney to prove he has a vision is to lead with innovative reform—on energy, taxes, education, entitlements, regulation.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered pointers on one way to enthuse an unconvinced base: states' rights...

Read it all at the link.

I think the best thing will be for Romney to hone his case for improving the economy. A catchy 9-9-9 slogan might help, but with the economic numbers continuing to drag Obama down, it's James Carville's lesson from '92 that counts the most: "It's the economy, stupid."

Or, Rick Santorum's, Strassel suggests:

If Mr. Romney won't forcefully make the case that lower tax rates for all is what produces jobs and economic growth—but instead joins the president to beat up "the rich"—then Republicans are cooked. Mr. Santorum got that.

That sounds about right.

Michelle Williams, New Black Panther Party Chief of Staff, Wanted George Zimmerman Dead or Alive

Hope and change.

At Freedom Eden, "Michelle Williams, New Black Panthers: Racist Rant":

Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?

And she still comes off the victim.

Shoot, just own it. Black dirtbag loser bitch. You just own it.

More here: "New Black Panther chief of staff and community activist Michelle Williams had run-ins with the law."

'Frame-Fail' for the New York Times: Democrats Taking Steps to Narrow Romney's Gender Gap

There's some brutal political irony in this front-page New York Times report out today, "Romney Taking Steps to Narrow His Gender Gap."

Mitt Romney moved Wednesday to confront one of his most vexing general election problems — how to narrow the gender gap he faces against President Obama — but his campaign immediately found itself squeezed between its intensifying efforts to appeal to women and its need to avoid alienating conservatives.

Female voters have emerged as one of Mr. Romney’s largest vulnerabilities. A Washington Post/ABC News poll this week showed that women preferred Mr. Obama to Mr. Romney by 19 percentage points, and an earlier Gallup/USA Today poll of voters in 12 key swing states showed Mr. Obama leading over all, buoyed by independents and women — two critical voting blocs.

Now, in the face of mounting attacks from Democrats and the Obama campaign, Mr. Romney is taking steps to address that gender gap head on. In the past week, his campaign has devised a three-pronged strategy, which it finalized Tuesday night, advisers familiar with the internal discussions said. They will try to debunk the notion that Mr. Romney’s policies have hurt women, turn the criticism back on Mr. Obama and outline how they believe women have suffered under his administration, and brand those issues in a memorable way.

The article then goes on to suggest that Romney "stumbled" with his comments on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but then continues:

As the Romney campaign shifts to the general election, his aides will reintroduce him to voters, warming up his image by emphasizing his role as a devoted father and husband. Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, has already made several Web videos that feature her reminiscences, along with gauzy family photos; voters are likely to see more of these. Mrs. Romney will also increase her campaign appearances; she has already begun to talk about how women tell her they care deeply about the economy, where the campaign wants to keep its focus. Polls showed that as the Republican primary campaign dragged on, Mr. Romney began losing support with women, who may have been put off by the contest’s focus on social issues like Planned Parenthood, immigration and contraception.

“Women voters are pocketbook voters, and the highest casualties of President Obama’s failures on the economy have been among women,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts. “Governor Romney has a good record on women’s issues. When he was in office, he was judged to have the best record of all governors in hiring women into senior positions.”

Well, no doubt Ann Romney is the Romney campaign's secret weapon! And she's taking off like lightning! Althouse notes the left's "frame-fail" in the Hilary Rosen backlash:

This is creating so much interest in Ann Romney now, shining a sudden bright light on her, and she is so ready. She's a great persona, better than Mitt at talking to people and generating warmth.

And here's Alana Goodman at Commentary, "Dems Retrench in the “War on Women”?":

From the staggering statistic released by the Republican National Committee that found women have lost 92.3 percent of all jobs lost since Obama took office, to yesterday’s scathing story on the gender pay gap in the Obama White House by the Washington Free Beacon, the GOP has started throwing the “war on women” rhetoric back into the faces of the Democrats who coined it.

And that was before the Hilary Rosen controversy erupted last night. Rosen has since apologized, and her statement appears to be more of a plea for a truce than a mea culpa...

There's more from Goodman at the link, but here's the icing on this beautiful "frame-fail" cake, at National Journal, "Obama Defends Ann Romney":

President Obama defended Ann Romney on Thursday, weighing in on a controversial comment made by Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen that the Republican presidential front-runner's wife “hadn’t worked a day in her life.”

“There’s no tougher job than being a mom," Obama told KCRG-TV9, an ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, according to the network’s website. “Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement.”

Obama added that the families of presidential candidates shouldn’t be the targets of negative attacks. “I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates,” the president said.

Man, that's harsh.

And that's after Rosen has met Obama at least five times in person, among the at least 35 of her visits tracked at the White House visitors' logs.

As Tammy Bruce snarks on Twitter: "I wonder how Rosen likes the view from under the bus..."

And that gender gap the Times is talking about isn't quite so extreme, and is likely to close completely if the Democrats keep up the good work. See Fox News, "Fox News Poll: Romney Edges Obama as Approval of President Drops":

The poll shows the gender gap may not solely be a problem for the Republican candidate. Women are more likely to back Obama (by 49-41 percent), while men are even more likely to give their support to Romney (by 52-38 percent). The 2008 Fox News national exit poll showed women voted for Obama over Republican John McCain by 13 percentage points (56-43 percent). Historically, exit poll results show women have consistently backed the Democrat over the Republican in presidential elections.

So there you go, your Democrat Media Complex frame-fail for the day!

(And more really good news for Romney at that poll.)

Great job progs!

UPDATE: Linked at The Rhetorican! Thanks!

Also, linked at An Ex-Con's Views.

Bar Refaeli Smokin' Hot Bikini Photo-Shoot for Agua Bendita Swimwear

Well, how about a little timeout from the left's war on women?

See London's Daily Mail, "Big hair and bikinis: Bar Refaeli poses in stunning new swimwear shoot."

Hilary Rosen's 'Faux' Apology

She's not very apologetic, is she? Wolf Blitzer has to wrench that apology out like he's performing oral surgery.

CNN has this, "Rosen apologizes over comments against Ann Romney."

And Mediaite has more on the story, with a full video: "Wolf Blitzer Chastises Hilary Rosen Over Comment: Democrats Are Now ‘Throwing You Under The Bus’."

And see Michelle's response, "A non-apology apology from Hilary Rosen; prog haters spew venom at Ann Romney on Twitter":

She apologizes if she “offended” anyone with her attack on Ann Romney and women who stay at home to raise their children.

Spoken like a true good ol’ Beltway boy schooled in blame-avoiding politics as usual.

I especially love how her apology continues her attack on conservative women by accusing them of “faux” outrage…even as First Lady Michelle Obama herself chimed in this morning to make clear she supports all mothers and create cover for herself.

Keep digging, Ms. Rosen. Keep digging.

And Michelle links to the literally unbelievable Twitter outbursts of progressive misogyny, at Twitchy: "New Tone alert: Libs attack Ann Romney as ‘cunt,’ ‘bitch,’ ‘whore’."

BONUS: At The Other McCain, "Feminism, Careerism, Lesbianism."

Ann Romney Responds to Democrat Hilary Rosen's Disgusting Stay-at-Home Mom Remarks

Boy, look out Democrats!

Ann Romney is hot and she knows how the game is played!

Tiny Korbe has the full video: "Video: Ann Romney responds to stay-at-home mom controversy on “America’s Newsroom”."

More at Memeorandum. This story is hot!

The Left's War on Stay-at-Home Moms

This story has exploded overnight.

Michelle has an update, "Here’s who Democrat hitwoman Hilary Rosen visited at the White House, including at least 5 POTUS meetings."

White House visitor logs show that Hilary Rosen, the DC lobbyist/Anita Dunn colleague who attacked Ann Romney’s stay-at-home-mom status on CNN last night, visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at least 35 times....

Bottom line: For the last three years, Hilary Rosen has met nearly three dozen times with top Obama communications and political strategists from Valerie Jarrett to David Axelrod to Anita Dunn to Jim Messina to the president himself.

Any notion that her frontal assault on GOP women was an accident or lone wolf move is contradicted by the long paper trail of her intimate working relationship with the White House campaign/media team. The data also puts the disavowals of Messina/Axelrod last night into much-needed perspective.

They can’t disassociate themselves from one of their most frequent visitors and associates.

They just never expected the fierce online/social media pushback they got from conservative women, who are beating them at their own medium.

Megyn Kelly is now reporting that Rosen has apologized.

I'll update when I have more on that.

George Zimmerman Charged With Second-Degree Murder in Trayvon Martin Shooting

The main story's at the New York Times, "Prosecutor Files Charge of 2nd-Degree Murder in Shooting of Martin."

And here's Nicholas Stix on developments:

Angela Corley is acceding to the demand made for almost one month by the black supremacist lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s parents, Benjamin Crump, along with Al Sharpton: Charge Zimmerman, and let him prove himself innocent in court. As I have pointed out repeatedly for almost one month, this is the opposite of the way the American legal system works, and is the same way that racist blacks, including law professor Irving Joyner of segregated, black, North Carolina Central University (racist rape hoaxer Crystal Gail Mangum’s school) and the NAACP demanded that the authorities proceed in the case of the innocent white Duke lacrosse players. But as far as blacks are concerned, whites, and those whom they have deemed white enough, are metaphysically guilty, and can never prove their innocence.

It is virtually impossible for George Zimmerman to get a fair trial anywhere in the United States. Just as in the unconstitutional, federal double jeopardy trial of the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King, the jurors will be intimidated into sacrificing Zimmerman to “the 13th juror” – the racist black mob, threatening to riot. And blacks, with the implicit support of the John Doe calling himself Barack Obama—intend to murder George Zimmerman, anywhere he is, whether in jail, prison, or the street.

More at the link.

And see all the progressive race-hatred at Memeorandum.

Democrat Hilary Rosen Slams Ann Romney: 'Never Worked a Day in Her Life' (VIDEO)

Oh boy, it's going to be an ugly campaign.

From Dana Loesch at Big Journalism, "Dem Strategist: GOP Made Up 'War On Women'."

And see Maeve Reston at the Los Angeles Times, "Ann Romney gets into Twitter spat with Democratic strategist."

'Fairness' Over Growth: Obama's 'Buffet Rule' Was Never About Deficit Reduction

Read the whole thing, from the editors at the Wall Street Journal: "The Obama Rule."

Students for Justice in Palestine Post Fake Eviction Notices on Doors of Jewish Students at Florida Atlantic University

These people are terrorists.

At Gateway Pundit, "Palestinians Stalk Jewish Students at US University – Post “Eviction Notices” On Their Dorm Rooms."

Jennifer Lawrence: 'Screw PETA!'

She's being hailed as "America's Kick-Ass Sweetheart" at Rolling Stone, "Cover Story Excerpt: Jennifer Lawrence: How the 'Hunger Games' star became the coolest chick in Hollywood."

Apparently J-Law had choice words for PETA, as MTV reports, "Jennifer Lawrence's 'Screw PETA' Remark Peeves Animal Rights Org."

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikipedia.

Rep. Allen West Slams Congressional Progressive Caucus as Members of Communist Party

Well, they're not actually members of the CPUSA, but close.

See the Washington Post, "Republican Rep. Allen West says many congressional Democrats are Communists" (via Memeorandum).

More at Lonely Conservative, "Allen West is Right, There Are a Bunch of Commies in Congress."

Two Minutes Hate

I'm reading Nineteen Eighty-Four.

I read it back in the '80s. But I picked it up again the other day as I was taking my family to the Harrah's Rincon resort near San Diego. I might not have mentioned it if it hadn't been for Lawrence Auster, who links to a clip from the movie, on the "two-minutes hate." Watch it at the link.

The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching...

In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. The little sandy-haired woman had turned bright pink, and her mouth was opening and shutting like that of a landed fish. Even O’Brien’s heavy face was flushed. He was sitting very straight in his chair, his powerful chest swelling and quivering as though he were standing up to the assault of a wave. The dark-haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out ‘Swine! Swine! Swine!’ and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. In a lucid moment Winston found that he was shouting with the others and kicking his heel violently against the rung of his chair. The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. Thus, at one moment Winston’s hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother, the Party, and the Thought Police; and at such moments his heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole guardian of truth and sanity in a world of lies. And yet the very next instant he was at one with the people about him, and all that was said of Goldstein seemed to him to be true. At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector, standing like a rock against the hordes of Asia, and Goldstein, in spite of his isolation, his helplessness, and the doubt that hung about his very existence, seemed like some sinister enchanter, capable by the mere power of his voice of wrecking the structure of civilization.

And go back in read Protein Wisdom, ICYMI.

Obama's Us-Against-Them Message Won't Work

From Josh Kraushaar, at National Journal, "Obama, Not Holding the Center":

If President Obama loses reelection in November, the seeds of his defeat will have been planted in his fiery, populist campaign kickoff speech at the Associated Press luncheon last week. It was a negative, overly political address at sharp odds with his optimistic 2008 campaign message of hope and change. It seemed petty at times, mocking Mitt Romney for using the word “marvelous” and exaggerating proposed conservative entitlement reforms as “Social Darwinism.” All  of this while giving a supposedly nonpolitical, non-campaign address.

Ideologically, the speech was a throwback to the Democratic rhetoric of decades past. Despite sops to Ronald Reagan, Obama laid out his ideological argument at the outset, stating his “belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.” That’s a far cry from “the era of big government is over” mantra that President Clinton advanced in his reelection campaign.

In one sense, the speech previewed how fiercely the president’s team will be fighting for another term and how nasty the expected contest between Obama and Romney is likely to be. As Obama’s advisers have indicated, the president’s campaign strategy is to portray the opposition as so extreme that voters will hold their noses and vote for the incumbent even if they’re dissatisfied with the country’s direction. To eke out a victory in a slow-growing economy, Obama needs to turn out his base and turn off independents to Romney.

But the president is seriously miscalculating if he believes that the key to winning the hearts and minds of independents is “us-against-them” rhetoric that hails back to a bygone Democratic era. He ably mounted a withering attack on the Republicans' austerity proposals but offered no alternative vision to deal with the growing debt. When Clinton campaigned for a second term in 1996, he likewise castigated congressional Republicans for proposing entitlement cuts and shutting down the government, but he also championed a just-passed bipartisan welfare-reform law and a balanced budget that reduced the size of government. With Obama’s speech, there was no centrist recalibrating to reassure worried independents that he’s not too ideological; no sugar to sweeten the tough talk.

That’s no trivial concern, according to the results of a poll analyzing the sentiments of the swingiest independents from battleground states, commissioned by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. The survey showed those voters narrowly favoring Obama (44 percent) over Romney (38 percent), and showed the president with respectable overall favorability scores. But it also revealed some red flags that if the campaign continues driving home the “people-versus-the-powerful” message, it could cost the president down the road. While these swing voters still like Obama personally, they are closer to Romney ideologically.

The polling found that a message centered on income inequality was a flop with these swing voters, who said they were much more anxious about rising debt and with regulations and taxes on businesses. A clear 57 percent majority said they thought the American economic system was “basically fair” and that the deck is not stacked against them. They didn’t primarily blame Wall Street or the wealthy for the country’s economic problems; they instead fingered congressional gridlock.  More than half (51 percent) of respondents said they preferred a candidate who advocates for an economy based on opportunity where “government lives within its means and economic growth is our top priority” while just 43 percent preferred a candidate backing “an economy based on fairness – where the rich pay their fair share, corporations play by the rules, and all Americans get a fair shot.” Those arguments closely mirror the Romney and Obama campaign messages unveiled last week, with the broad outlines of the GOP argument coming out on top.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Leads Romney by Double-Digits in New Washington Post-ABC News Poll, But 76% Believe U.S. Still in Recession."

The EITC 'Entitlement'

Okay, continuing my series on social policy, here's Steve Doocy and Stuart Varney discussing the federal campaign to promote the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit):

Actually, despite all the talk of taking other people's money, I'm not opposed to the EITC. It's not a social welfare handout, as are TANF and food stamps. When administered appropriately, the EITC encourages work and self-sufficiency. According to the Hoover Institution:

Protecting the long-term viability of this program is important for three reasons. First, the EITC significantly increases the fiscal resources available to working poor families. The program rewards labor earnings with a 40 percent match up to the first $10,000 in earnings (see figure 2). In many cases, EITC benefits are enough to raise a family above the poverty level. Second, the EITC encourages people to choose work over welfare. The program has built-in work incentives, especially at the lowest income levels, which encourage families to attain self-sufficiency. Some studies have shown that the increased availability of the EITC and more generous benefits helped contribute to the decline in welfare recipients after passage of the 1996 welfare reform act (accounting for as much as 20–30 percent of the decline in caseloads).

The key is the encouragement of workforce participation. If conservatives criticize dependency, the EITC should serve as a reasonable avenue to help the poor --- with the ultimate goal of increasing family earnings to obviate the need for the tax credit over time.

RELATED: At The Orlando Sentinel, "Earned-income tax credit: Ignorance is not bliss."

BONUS: From Reihan Salam, at National Review, "Thinking Through the Consequences of Welfare Reform."

The Myth of America's Decline

From Walter Russell Mead, at the Wall Street Journal:

The United States isn't in decline, but it is in the midst of a major rebalancing. The alliances and coalitions America built in the Cold War no longer suffice for the tasks ahead. As a result, under both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, American foreign policy has been moving toward the creation of new, sometimes difficult partnerships as it retools for the tasks ahead.

From the 1970s to the start of this decade, the world was in what future historians may call the Trilateral Era. In the early '70s, Americans responded to the defeat in Vietnam and the end of the Bretton Woods era by inviting key European allies and Japan to join in the creation of a trilateral system. Western Europe, Japan and the U.S. accounted for an overwhelming proportion of the international economy in the noncommunist world. With overlapping interests on a range of issues, the trilateral powers were able to set the global agenda on some key questions.

Currency policy, the promotion of free trade, integrating the developing world into the global financial system, assisting the transition of Warsaw Pact economies into the Western World—the trilateralists had a lot to show for their efforts.

The system worked particularly well for America. Europe and Japan shared a basic commitment to the type of world order that Americans wanted, and so a more cooperative approach to key policy questions enlisted the support of rich and powerful allies for efforts that tallied pretty closely with key long-term American goals.

It is this trilateral system—rather than American power per se—that is in decline today. Western Europe and Japan were seen as rising powers in the 1970s, and the assumption was that the trilateral partnership would become more powerful and effective as time passed. Something else happened instead.

More at that top link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Robert Kagan: American Power Preserves Freedom and Prosperity."

Michael Coren on the Left's Hatred of Democracy

He's a great guy, via Blazing Cat Fur:

Former President George W. Bush: 'I Wish They Weren't Called the Bush Tax Cuts'

At the Los Angeles Times, "Bush talks economics, says he won't 'undermine our president'":

Warning that “if you raise taxes on the so-called rich, you’re really raising taxes on the job creators,” Bush joked about the tax breaks that were enacted under his administration.

“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” he said. “If they were called some-other-body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised. But if you raise taxes, you’re taking money out of the pockets of consumers.”

Perhaps coincidentally, the quip came just hours before President Obama was to make a major speech promoting his “Buffett rule” proposal to raise taxes on the mega-rich.

“I don’t think it’s good, frankly, for our country, to undermine our president, and I don’t intend to do so,” Bush said.

Women Are Looking for Sex, Not Status

Well, bringing you the important news.

At Telegraph UK, "The days of women aiming to marry 'above their station' are over - and it's good news for all concerned, says Cristina Odone":

When a prosperous bachelor appears within a five-mile radius, I go into Mrs Bennet mode. I cluck, I plot, I schedule dinners and Sunday lunches. My match-making focuses on marrying off my women friends to the best possible man: preferably solvent, well-bred and amusing. In the process, I’ve tried to push together the most unsuitable of singles: the City workaholic and the ski bum; the tweed-clad grouse-slaughterer and the vegan Fair Trade nut.

Now, however, I can scale down my ambitions. A new study shows that women are in fact perfectly satisfied with men of their own standing. The watershed year, apparently, was 1970: whereas women born in the post-war decades aspired to marry up, those born more recently no longer seek to star in their own rags-to-riches fairy tale. Their ambitions are for their own careers, salary, and pensions. Put crudely, what they want from the men in their lives is not a leg up, but a leg over.

The role model here is not Kate Middleton, but Zara Phillips. When Princess Anne’s daughter wed a middle-class rugby player, she showed what I took to be a refreshing indifference to status. In truth, she was part of a trend. Kate, who improved her standing by marrying Wills, is the old-fashioned type; Zara, a top sportswoman, needs no man to lift her out of her circumstances. She took on Mike Tindall not to raise her status, but to set her pulse racing.

Continue reading.

And actually, nowadays, at least in the U.S., it's the women who're better educated and more successful. So, if we can generalize some of the findings, things should be looking up for the guys on this side of the Atlantic.

More here: "Aspirational marriages a 'thing of the past'."

Kim Kardashian Shows Off Sizzling Hour-Glass Figure on Holiday in Dominican Republic

Well, here's a wonderful photo roundup at London's Daily Mail, "She could be a Bond girl! Kim Kardashian reveals her hour-glass shape in studded bikini."

PREVIOUSLY: "Kim Kardashian and Sisters Khloe and Kourtney Promote Their Kardashian Kollection."

BONUS: At Pirate's Cove, "If All You See…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist..."

George Zimmerman's Lawyers No Longer Representing Him in Trayvon Martin Case

Wolf Blitzer and his commentators were speculating on whether George Zimmerman was about to be charged. And then this...

At CNN, "Legal team drops Zimmerman in Florida shooting case":

Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- Attorneys for neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who authorities say fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Florida, said Tuesday they have lost contact with their client and will no longer represent him.

"He has gone on his own. I'm not sure what he's doing or who he's talking to," legal adviser Craig Sonner said. "If he wants us to come back as counsel, he will contact us."

Sonner, who said the last time they had contact with Zimmerman was Sunday, spoke to reporters in Florida with attorney Hal Uhrig.
Uhrig said Zimmerman contacted the office of the special prosecutor appointed to lead the investigation on his own.

"One of the things every defense attorney tells his client is don't talk to the prosecutors," said Uhrig, adding that he is concerned about his former client's "emotional and physical safety."

More at the link.

And also at Miami Herald, "George Zimmerman’s lawyers withdraw from case, lose contact with Trayvon-case shooter."

Rick Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

At the Los Angeles Times, "Santorum suspending presidential campaign: Decision clears path for Romney to become the GOP nominee."

Santorum's campaign represented the great hope of  "full-spectrum conservatives" in 2012, and his exit will leave a mark on the general election campaign, as social issues and working class concerns will continue to resonate with the electorate into the fall.

The Other McCain has updates, "SANTORUM DROPS OUT."

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin writes, "Santorum suspends campaign, but “we are not done fighting” to defeat Obama" (via Memeorandum and The Hill):

Rick Santorum fought hard, he fought well, and he gave voice to a large contingent of grass-roots conservative activists across the country who wanted a candidate who lived the values he preached. He held Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on health care, challenged Newt Gingrich’s green flirtations and past support for the individual mandate, and took on Ron Paul’s foreign policy extremism. His presence improved everyone else’s game — and that will serve the GOP ticket well this fall, whoever ends up on it.

Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Says Country Still Divided by Race — 51% of Whites Say Obama's Been 'Unhelpful' in Bridging Racial Divide

Well, from the "you don't say" department.

At Daily Beast, "Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll Finds Majorities of Americans Think Country Divided by Race":

Majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) believe the country is divided by race, the poll finds. But twice as many blacks (40%) as whites (20%) say it is very divided. And just 19 percent of whites say that racism is a big problem in America, vs. 60 percent of blacks.

Meanwhile, the killing of 17-year old Trayvon Martin has further polarized America along racial lines, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll finds. In the survey, whites are divided over whether they think Martin’s death was racially motivated. Thirty-five percent of whites say Martin’s death was racially motivated, while 30 percent say Zimmerman acted in self-defense and 35 percent are not sure. African-Americans, however, are convinced it was racially motivated (80% vs. 2%).

Whites also are divided on the question of whether Martin was targeted because he was a young black man–41 percent say yes, while 34 percent say no and 21 percent are not sure. Blacks are convinced he was targeted because he was a young black man (85% vs. 4%).

There also is a significant split over President Obama’s handling of the Trayvon Martin controversy—with a majority (52%) of whites saying they disapprove of the way he has handled the shooting while only 38 percent approve.

Blacks say the opposite—with near unanimous (87% vs. 5%) approval for the president’s handling of the shooting.

Nearly four years after the election of the nation’s first African-American president, majorities of both whites and African Americans surveyed say that race relations in the country have either stayed the same or gotten worse. Sixty-three percent of whites and 58 percent of African-Americans say race relations have either stayed the same or worsened—while only 28 percent of whites and 38 percent of African-Americans say they have gotten better.

And see Andrew Romano, at Newsweek, "A Newsweek Poll Shows Americans Still Divided Over Race":

Back in 2008, 52 percent of Americans told Pew Research Center that they expected race relations to get better as a result of Obama’s election; only 9 percent anticipated a decline. But today that 43-point gap has vanished. According to the Newsweek survey, only 32 percent of Americans now think that race relations have improved since the president’s inauguration; roughly the same number (30 percent) believe they have gotten worse. Factor in those who say nothing has changed and the result is staggering: nearly 60 percent of Americans are now convinced that race relations have either deteriorated or stagnated under Obama.

Whites are especially critical of Obama’s approach: a majority (51 percent) actually believe he’s been unhelpful in bridging the country’s racial divide. Even blacks have concluded, by a 20-point margin, that race relations have not improved on Obama’s watch.

And of course, it's not like the Democrat Media Complex is working to improve things. See, "Not a 'Mistake': How NBC Edited Racism Into the George Zimmerman 911 Call."

Obama Leads Romney by Double-Digits in New Washington Post-ABC News Poll, But 76% Believe U.S. Still in Recession

Well, Romney trails the president on a number of measures, but if voters vote their pocketbooks come November, the findings can't be welcomed for the White House.

See, "Obama holds key leads on Romney, as economy malaise looms over reelection bid":

With the general-election campaign beginning to take shape, President Obama holds clear advantages over Mitt Romney on personal attributes and a number of key issues, but remains vulnerable to discontent with the pace of the economic recovery, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama has double-digit leads over the likely Republican presidential nominee on who would do a better job of protecting the middle class, addressing women’s issues, handling international affairs and dealing with health care.

On personal traits, the president’s edge is even bigger: He has a better than 2-to-1 advantage as the more friendly and likable of the two, and nearly that margin as “more inspiring.”

Romney faces a huge deficit among female voters, one that more than negates his advantage among men and represents one of the biggest challenges he and his advisers face as they turn toward the November election. Obama’s edge among women gives him a clear lead among all registered voters in a matchup with Romney.

But on the two most pressing issues of the campaign — the economy and jobs — the contest is considerably more competitive, with about as many trusting Romney on the issues as Obama. Despite positive economic indicators, Americans remain deeply pessimistic about the overall direction of the country and largely consider the economy still mired in a recession. The Romney campaign is hoping to take advantage by making the contest about Obama’s performance on these key concerns.

Obama’s overall approval rating stands at 50 percent, but he draws negative marks on how he has dealt with the economy and the recent increase in gasoline prices. Nearly half of all Americans say his handling of the economy is a major reason to oppose his reelection; far fewer see it as a big reason to support his bid....

Obama has argued that the economy is recovering, if slowly, but pessimism remains pervasive nearly four years after the economic collapse. An overwhelming majority of Americans — 76 percent — say the economy is still in recession, an assessment that is shared across partisan, ideological, racial, income and gender lines.

Moreover, as many Americans say their local economy is not even starting to get better as say the situation is improving.

Keep reading.

And see the Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Swing voters lean to Obama but identify closer with Romney":

Global Strategy Group surveyed 1,000 self-identified independent likely voters from March 8 through March 18 in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. The survey included only people who voted in the 2008 presidential election.  The margin of error for swing independents was plus or minus 5.1 percentage points.

The poll found that the “fairness argument,” which some Democrats have advocated as a message for the 2012 election, does not resonate with swing independents. This segment of voters does not consider income inequality a top concern, they generally think the existing system is fair, and they view themselves as haves, not have-nots.

Their top economic concerns are the deficit, growth and jobs, not economic equality.

Asked what was the most important way to make the economy stronger, 55% said providing “more economic opportunity for Americans to succeed through hard work.” Just 19% said “create more economic security so all Americans can withstand life’s misfortunes.”

“No matter what definition of fairness one chooses, swing independents are not wooed by a fairness message – rather, it often seemed to skirt their deepest economic concerns,” Diggles and Erickson wrote.

Instead, they argued, an effective message with swing independents would focus on an opportunity theme. Fifty-one percent of swing independents said they would select a candidate who argues that the country needs an economy based on opportunity while 43% said they would choose the candidate who argues for an economy based on fairness.

Well, there you go.

It's "game on," alright. Things are shaping up quite well for the GOP, actually.

More on this later...

Obama to Push His Millionaire Tax

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama to Visit Swing State to Push His Millionaire Tax" (via Google):

President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats plan to pressure Republicans this week to support a minimum tax on millionaires to improve the tax system's fairness, though most economic analysts say the measure would do little to dent deficits or boost the economy.

A Senate vote on the measure—one of the Democrats' opening salvos of the 2012 general election campaign—is scheduled for Monday, the day before the annual deadline for filing individual income-tax returns. Democrats have lined up events ahead of the vote to raise the issue's profile: a speech on Tuesday by Mr. Obama in Florida, a swing state, and a campaign event Thursday with Vice President Joe Biden.

Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats aren't expected to win next week's procedural vote, and a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner alluded to the minimum tax on millionaires as a "gimmick." But Democrats want to put Senate Republicans on record voting against the tax. A number of recent public polls show support for raising taxes on millionaires running over 60%.

"Every senator who votes on it will have to examine for himself or herself whether or not they want to vote for a bill that says millionaires and billionaires should not pay taxes on their income at a lower rate than middle-class Americans," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday. "And they will have to explain to their constituents why they don't agree with that principle."

Nicknamed the "Buffett Rule" for billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, the plan would impose a minimum 30% overall federal tax rate on people earning more than $1 million a year.

Democrats hope the debate can tarnish the GOP's presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, a former private-equity executive who revealed in January that he paid a 14% effective tax rate in 2010 on income of $21.7 million. The top income-tax rate is 35%.

Proponents say the Buffett Rule is necessary for fairness, to force the wealthy to shoulder more of the deficit-reduction burden.

Actually, not everyone's thrilled with the "fairness" issue, so we'll see how this plays out.

Food Stamp Program Helping to Reduce Poverty Increase Entitlement

Well, as noted, if Obama's reelected we can expect a big new push for the expansion of the welfare state.

The system works, apparently, via New York Times, "Food Stamps Helped Reduce Poverty Rate, Study Finds."

Enrollment in the food stamp program grew substantially during the recession and immediately after, rising by 45 percent from January of 2009 to January of this year, according to monthly figures on the U.S.D.A. Web site. The stimulus package pushed by President Obama and enacted by Congress significantly boosted funding for the program as a temporary relief for families who had fallen on hard times in the recession.

But the steady rise tapered off in January, when enrollment was down slightly from December, a change in direction that Ms. Dean said could signal that the recovery was having an effect even among poor families.

The program’s effects have long been known among poverty researchers, and for Ms. Dean, the most interesting aspect of the report was the political context into which it was released. In a year of elections and rising budget pressures, social programs like food stamps are coming under increased scrutiny from Republican legislators, who argue that they create a kind of entitlement society.

In an e-mail to supporters on Monday, Representative Allen B. West, a Florida Republican, called the increase in food stamp use a “highly disturbing trend.” He said that he had noticed a sign outside a gas station in his district over the weekend alerting customers that food stamps were accepted.

“This is not something we should be proud to promote,” he said.

And I think that's key.

UPDATE: Okay, this story is now trending at Memeorandum, and David Dayen at Firedoglake makes the argument that welfare programs make poor people "richer." See, "Food Stamp Program Crucial to Alleviating Poverty":

The simple axiom here is that giving poor people money will help make poor people richer. We’re a wealthy enough country that we can afford to do this, and the result benefits not just the poor, but the economy. A family that can gets their food needs taken care of can purchase other items and contribute to a local economy...

The Great Recession has been horrible, but it’s also been a test of new ways to deliver broad social benefits. And the old standby of cash-transfer programs that expand as needed has won out.

Wrong.

You don't make people "richer" by giving them government handouts. That makes people dependent on the largesse of the state. But progressives love increasing state power, and if there's an attack on the evil capitalists in there too, well, then you've got a pro-dependency winner. See Eschaton, "Give People Free Money":

We give a lot of free money to rich people in this country. Much of the money we give to not rich people in this country we do so because they've paid for the insurance policy (unemployment, social security). Food stamps are a not so terrible substitute to free money, but the aren't quite as good as just giving people the money. That only crazy bloggers are willing to suggest "give money to people who aren't rich" as a pretty good solution both for poverty amelioration and boosting the economy generally tells us that our political system is basically not capable of responding to the country's problems and needs.

Wrong again.

First, there's no such thing as "free" money, and second, we've been giving the poor billions of dollars of "free" money for decades --- with little return on the investment in terms of poverty reduction.

Progressives hate individual initiative --- and they embrace government expansion as a lever to increase state-socialist power.

When I read the arguments in favor of increasing state dependency I don't even consider these as comments authored by my countrymen.

More at Memeorandum.

George Zimmerman Speaks Out on Trayvon Martin Case

At ABC News, "George Zimmerman Releases Statement, Speaking for First Time About Trayvon Martin Case."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Zimmerman breaks his silence: Trayvon shooter says he's been 'forced to leave my entire life' as he sets up website."

He's soliciting donations, "The Real George Zimmerman."

Well, again, if the forensics show that he killed Trayvon in cold blood, not in self-defense, then he should stand trial. But it's hard not to sympathize with him, given his prosecution by the Democrat Media Complex.

Modesto Teenager Jordan Powers Breaks Up With Ex-Teacher James Hooker After Sex Assault Arrest

Well, this is hardly surprising.

ABC News has the report, "California Student in Relationship With Teacher Moves Out After Sexual Assault Arrest."

And at the Fresno Bee, "Modesto teen leaves ex-teacher after his arrest."

SGP Action: 'They Don't Speak for Us'

From Smart Girl Politics:

And see Ross Kaminsky, at The American Spectator, "'War on Women' Rhetoric Shows That Lies Work."