Greece Should Leave the Euro

According to Arianna Huffington, whose maiden name is Stassinopoulos, at the New York Times, "Greek Tragedy":

As I contemplate the statistics — especially the 54 percent unemployment rate among young Greeks — I think of all the stories behind this appalling data. All the dreams dashed. All the promise unfulfilled. And all the guilt, shame and fear that so often go hand in hand with intractable unemployment and little hope for a better future.

The punitive path of austerity and relentless economic contraction is, not surprisingly, likely to lead to further stagnation in 2013 and cannot be allowed to continue. And as last week’s election results show, the Greek people are not going to allow it to continue; they will instead demand change through either the ballot box or violence in the streets — or some combination of both.

The dangers of violent protest are obvious. But there are dangers in the ballot box, too: an extreme right-wing anti-immigration party received almost 7 percent of the vote, while Pasok, the establishment party of the left, lost 119 seats in Parliament in a humiliating third-place finish. If the European Central Bank does not abandon its destructive obsession with austerity, Greece will have few options but to leave the euro zone. This would be fraught with its own dangers, of course, but the European Union has left Greece with few sustainable alternatives.

RTWT.

The Left's Road to a National Educational Curriculum

Pat Austin reports, "Will Common Education Standards Nationwide Solve America's Education Problems or Is It Another Obama Power Grab?"

California Budget Deficit Skyrockets to $16 Billion

So, expect a huge push for the left's tax-hike initiatives in November.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California deficit has soared to $16 billion, Gov. Jerry Brown says." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also at the New York Times, "Shortfall in California’s Budget Swells to $16 Billion."

Senator Rand Paul Slams Obama's Homosexual Exploitation: 'I wasn't sure his views on marriage could get any gayer...'

What's amazing about this is Paul is libertarian, folks who are supposed to favor less government in the social realm. It guess he's not taking too well to O's pathetic flip-flopping on marriage to keep the progressive campaign money flowing. But what can you do?

At CNN, "TRENDING: Sen. Paul: I didn't think Obama's 'views on marriage could get any gayer'" (via Memeorandum).

At 5:15 minutes at the clip:

Added: From Linkmaster Smith, "Could John Travolta Help Increase Barack Obama’s Marriage Policy Gayness?"

Facebook Co-Founder Eduardo Saverin Renounces U.S. Citizenship to Avoid $1 Billion in Taxes

Look, that's a lot of money. I don't really care about this Saverin kid, but clearly his case shows that folks like this aren't really American, with no national loyalty, despite gaining U.S. citizenship and becoming fabulously wealthy in this country.

And his decision to renounce isn't going over too well among Facebook fans. See the Los Angeles Times: "Americans feel defriended over perceived Eduardo Saverin tax dodge." I can see why. See, "Facebook's Eduardo Saverin gives up citizenship: Shrewd tax move?":

Here’s a tax tip for Mark Zuckerberg: Give up your U.S. citizenship.

The 27-year-old Facebook Inc. founder could face a tax bill of more than $1 billion after the company’s initial public offering, expected next week.

His former Harvard classmate who is known as “the other Facebook founder” may have found a way to cut the bill. Eduardo Saverin, who now lives in Singapore, has given up his U.S. citizenship. Tax experts say it’s a shrewd move.

Saverin, who was immortalized in the film “The Social Network” as Zuckerberg’s contentious former friend and business partner, has a 4% stake in the company, according to the Who Owns Facebook? website. His stake could be worth nearly $4 billion after the IPO.

“It's definitely savvy tax planning,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor of law at USC who specializes in federal tax policy and international taxation. “He can argue that the value of the Facebook shares in September, when he gave up his citizenship, were significantly less than the value that will be set at the IPO next week.”

"Savvy tax planning."

Well, no. It's called tax evasion.

See the Wall Street Journal, "Taxes Got You Down? Renounce!" And at Bloomberg, "Facebook Co-Founder Saverin Gives Up U.S. Citizenship Before IPO."

And this Savarin kid is a playboy, it turns out. See "The Other Facebook Founder":

SINGAPORE — Facebook Inc. founder Mark Zuckerberg is one of the world's most famous chief executives. His former business partner and friend, Eduardo Saverin, is big in Singapore.

The Brazilian-born billionaire's skirmishes with Mr. Zuckerberg over the future of Facebook were dramatized in the 2010 film "The Social Network," which portrayed Mr. Saverin as a naive entrepreneur.

Mr. Saverin was squeezed out of Facebook early on, and found his stake in the Internet juggernaut diluted to less than 10% from 34%. Today, after more dilution and sales of some of his shares, his stake is about 2%, according to a person familiar with the matter.

But 2% can go a long way, given that Facebook filed documents Thursday to go public with a valuation of up to $96 billion. It can go especially far in Singapore, a financial center better known for banning the sale of chewing gum than for a thriving technology scene.

Since his arrival in 2009, the 30-year-old Mr. Saverin has attracted intense interest here. Singaporeans avidly track his nocturnal social habits. Many hoped he would fund local tech start-ups, but so far his local investments, which include a cosmetics firm, have been limited.

Mr. Saverin is regularly spotted lounging with models and wealthy friends at local night clubs, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in bar tabs by ordering bottles of Cristal Champagne and Belvedere vodka, according to people present on these occasions. He drives a Bentley, his friends say, wears expensive jackets and lives in one of Singapore's priciest penthouse apartments.

Mr. Saverin didn't respond to multiple interview requests.

Well, no surprise. Who's got time for lowly newspaper interviews when you're partying like a go-go '90s nouveau riche capitalist potentate?

BONUS: At The Atlantic, "Eduardo Saverin Isn't the Only Rich Guy Defriending the U.S."

Queen Elizabeth's Spectacular Diamond Jubilee Pageant

I love this stuff.

At Telegraph UK, "Queen enjoys spectacular Diamond Jubilee pageant at Windsor castle":

Performers from all corners of the globe entertained the Queen in a Diamond Jubilee celebration at Windsor castle on Friday night.

Twirling Mexican dancers, Russian horse riders and New Zealand's army band were among hundreds of artists who took to the stage in the equestrian and musical tribute.

The event's narrators Angela Rippon and Alan Titchmarsh and musicians Joss Stone and Rolf Harris, who will perform during a finale on Sunday, were among the guests.

The 90 minute show promises to take spectators on a "journey around the world" and features 500 horses and 800 performers, in military and equestrian displays.

During a tea party before Friday's performance, the Queen was not only presented with a pair of a pair of African bracelets but made to try on the the handmade jewellery.

The Queen, who was wearing black gloves, appeared to have little choice in the matter but laughed as Rose Kimanzi carried out the role usually performed by the royal dresser.

And here's the photo slideshow: "Diamond Jubilee Pageant at Windsor Castle."

Mitt Romney Speaks Out on Homosexual Marriage at Liberty University

Radical leftists are wigging out that Mitt Romney would affirm traditional values at at Christian university. Oh, the horrors!

See Matthew Shelley at National Journal, "Romney Backs Away From Gay Adoptions."

Also, "Romney Aims High in Speech at Liberty U":

LYNCHBURG, Virginia – Speaking at the graduation commencement of the largest Christian University in the country on Saturday, Mitt Romney – the first presumptive Republican nominee of the Mormon faith – spoke at length about the importance of God and faith, telling the crowd that people of different faiths can meet “in common purpose” through their moral decision-making and commitment to common causes, such as public service.

And in a nod to the social conservative movement he is still working to court, Romney reiterated his position on same-sex marriage, although he largely steered clear of political topics. “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman,” Romney said firmly as the crowd of about 35,000 stood and clapped.

He spent a significant portion of time discussing the shared challenges and experiences of people of faith, and occasionally leavened his remarks with a self-deprecating anecdote.

 “Your values will not always be the object of public admiration,” he told the more than 6,000 graduating seniors. “In fact, the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the censure of the world. Christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or of the timid.”

Romney emphasized the need to balance the material rewards in life with more spiritually uplifting aspects. “What we have, what we wish we had – ambitions fulfilled, ambitions disappointed; investments won, investments lost; elections won, elections lost – these things may occupy our attention, but they do not define us,” he said.

“And each of them is subject to the vagaries and serendipities of life.  Our relationship with our Maker, however, depends on none of this. It is entirely in our control, for He is always at the door, and knocks for us.  Our worldly successes cannot be guaranteed, but our ability to achieve spiritual success is entirely up to us, thanks to the grace of God.  The best advice I know is to give those worldly things your best but never your all, reserving the ultimate hope for the only one who can grant it.”

Plus, at Gateway Pundit, "Mitt Romney on Marriage at Liberty University: “One Man and One Woman” (Video)."

President Obama's Enemies List

A great piece of journalism from Kim Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, "Trolling for Dirt on the President's List":

Here's what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent.

Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho. Last August, Mr. VanderSloot gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney.

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, "Keeping GOP Honest," took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled "Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors," the post accused the eight of being "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.

Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work.

The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying "opposition research."

When I called Fusion's main number and asked to speak to Michael Wolf, a man said Mr. Wolf wasn't in the office that day but he'd be in this coming Monday. When I reached Mr. Wolf on his private cell, he confirmed he had until recently worked at the Senate.

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn't want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had "no comment." "It's a legal thing," he added.

Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn't ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: "Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes."

Continue reading.

A Majority of 60% of Americans Say Obama's Shift on Homosexual Marriage Won't Affect Their Vote

The main report's at Gallup, "Six in 10 Say Obama Same-Sex Marriage View Won't Sway Vote."

But see also Aaron Blake at The Fix, "Obama’s gay marriage position could be problematic, poll shows":

Six in 10 Americans say President Obama’s embrace of gay marriage will have no impact on their vote this year, according to a new Gallup poll. But of the rest, twice as many say it makes them less likely to support the president.

Twenty-six percent of Americans in the poll said Obama’s switch on the issue makes them less likely to vote for him this November, compared to 13 percent who said it makes them more likely to support him....

We have long known that the enthusiasm on this issue resides largely on the anti-gay marriage side, and this poll reflects that. Even though a majority of Americans — 51 percent — say they approve of Obama’s decision (compared to 45 percent who disapprove), the fact is that supporters are significantly less avid than opponents.

While a strong majority of Americans says this issue has no impact on their votes, the fact that it matters to nearly 40 percent of Americans isn’t insignificant.

And if Obama forfeits some Democratic and independent votes in a tight race, that could matter.

More at Memeorandum.

U.S. Tests SM-3 IB Interceptor at Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii

This is cool, from Telegraph UK, "US downs missile with new interceptor."

Also at Reuters, "RPT-UPDATE 2-U.S. downs test missile with new interceptor."

Anne Hathaway Bikini Pics!

At London's Daily Mail, "Anne Hathaway reveals her slender beach body after losing weight for prostitute role in Les Miserables."

Jamie Lynne Grumet, Time's Controversial Breastfeeding Mom, Interview on 'Erin Burnett OutFront'

She's very well spoken and confident.

Personally, attachment parenting's not my style, but I'm not going to criticize Ms. Grumet. It's her kid --- and her breasts.

Darleen has the story at Protein Wisdom, "Obligatory Time magazine cover post."

And at LAT, "Time magazine breastfeeding cover: A shocking 'stroke of genius'."

'Fighting on My Behalf'

Poetrooper has commentary, at This Ain't Hell:

Good grief, even the rawest buck sergeant knows that his troops are first loyal to themselves, meaning the immediate, cohesive unit, starting with their squad, moving up through platoon and company to a tenuous battalion loyalty; then to the mission, and as a distant last, to flag and country. In six years of active duty in the Army, most of one of those in ground combat, I never once heard a soldier express the belief that he was serving on behalf of John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson, the presidents of the time. Not once. Had any trooper done so, he would have immediately become suspect by his entire chain of command. For this inept commander in chief to reference the troops as fighting on his behalf can only lead to one conclusion: Obama’s been staring at his own image in the golf course pond for far too long and far too often.

Also from Elliott Abrams, at Weekly Standard.

PREVIOUSLY: "Barack Obama's Abject Political Calculations on Homosexual Marriage."

MSNBC's Tamron Hall Shuts Down Conservative Columnist Tim Carney for Questioning Typical Left-Wing Media Tricks

Robert Stacy McCain reports, "MSNBC Host Loses It When Reporter Won’t Play Along With ‘Get Mitt’ Meme."

This Tamron Hall lady is a progressive b*tch. She cuts Carney's microphone after he called the phony "bullying" story:

What you're doing here is a typical media trick. You hype up a story and then you justify the second-day coverage of the story by saying, oh, well people are talking about it.

And at Breitbart, "MSNBC Host Freak Out: Bullies Pundit Off Air Over Romney 'Bully Story'."

Elizabeth Warren's 1/32 Native American Claim Shot Through for Good

William Jacobson reports, "Genealogist for Elizabeth Warren 1/32 Cherokee claim goes silent, source document shown false" (via Memeorandum).

Also at Lonely Conservative, "Elizabeth Warren’s Claim to Cherokee Heritage Falls Apart":

The Elizabeth Warren Cherokee heritage saga continues. It turns out that the Democrat’s Senate candidate in Massachusetts has no evidence whatsoever of any family ties to the Cherokees. Well, no evidence other than her great-great-great grandfather helping to round them up and a family member’s high cheekbones.

And see Instapundit, "“THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF THE CLAIM THAT ELIZABETH WARREN IS 1/32 CHEROKEE...”"

Romney Leads Obama by Seven Points in New Nationwide Poll

At The Hill, "Poll: Romney opens up big lead over Obama":

Mitt Romney has opened up 7 percent lead over President Obama nationally, according to the latest survey from conservative polling outlet Rasmussen.

Romney took 50 percent of the vote against Obama’s 43. It’s the first time Romney has hit 50 percent in the poll and is his largest lead over the president to date.

The disappointing jobs data released last week could be weighing the president down. Rasmussen found that only 38 percent of those polled said they approved of the president’s handling of the economy, versus 48 that disapproved.

Still, the poll could be an outlier, as most polls show a considerably tighter race. According to Gallup’s daily tracking poll, Romney holds only a 1 percent lead over Obama, while the president holds a one-point lead over Romney in the Real Clear Politics average of polls.

Rasmussen responds to the point about other poll findings:

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. Obama's numbers are almost always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

And at Gateway Pundit, "Romney Jumps to 7 Point Lead Over Failed President Obama."

PREVIOUSLY: "The Left's Coordinated 'Bullying' Attack on Romney Exposed as 'Unconscionable' Journalism: Progressives Cheer 'Brilliant' Political Strategy of Axelrod and Plouffe."

The Left's Coordinated 'Bullying' Attack on Romney Exposed as 'Unconscionable' Journalism: Progressives Cheer 'Brilliant' Political Strategy of Axelrod and Plouffe

I'm going to agree with this report at ABC News, "Bullying Story Sidetracks Romney's Campaign."

By now it hardly matters that the story has not only been debunked, but the Washington Post has edited its report without publishing a correction. See Ben Shapiro, "Washington Post Romney Hit Piece Implodes":

Today’s unconscionable Washington Post story, which implied without evidence that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully to one John Lauber back in his high school days five decades ago, has totally imploded.

And Robert Stacy McCain is on the case. See, "No ‘BullyGate’ Pulitzer for WaPo? UPDATE: Using a Second-Hand Source for a Dead Man’s Words? WTF?", and "‘BullyGate’: What Did Jason Horowitz Know, and When Did He Know It?"

And get this, from left-wing extremist Angry Black Lady at Raw Story, "Obama vs. Romney: How the Game is Played":

As I’m reading and pondering this, I’m marveling at the political strategery of Davids Axelrod and Plouffe. Think about it:

On Sunday, Vice-President Biden comes out in favor of same sex marriage.

On Wednesday, President Obama comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, leaving some to speculate that he was backed into a corner, or that he should have done it sooner, or later, or whatever it is that people complain about when they simply can’t shake the need to be outraged about something, like, all of the time. (asiangrrlMN already covered this, but long story short, Obama’s record on LGBT rights is second to none; and he announced his support for the Respect Marriage Act last year, legislation which would repeal DOMA, so can we all calm down for a minute, please?)

Then today — Thursday, a front-page article drops in The Washington Post about how Romney was a big ol’ gay-hating gay-basher.

Are you kidding me?! It’s brilliant!

Back when President Obama was a young man, trying to figure out who he was and writing pensive letters to his girlfriend about T.S. Eliot and other philosophical shit, Romney was picking on and assaulting gay people.

Face? Meet brick.

And here’s the kicker — here’s the dark chocolate inside this croissant d’awesome: Romney’s behavior most assuredly would have constituted a hate crime under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which President Obama signed in 2009, if such a law had existed at the time and had Romney been prosecuted under that law. (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act expanded the existing hate crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and is the first federal law to extend protections to transgendered persons.)

You cannot convince me that this was not planned. At the very least, the Obama campaign knew the article was going to drop and decided to announce sooner rather than later that President Obama supports same-sex marriage (he had already planned to announce it at some point before the convention.)

This is how it’s done, folks.

Mr. Romney, sir? I do believe you have been served.

Don't you love it?

We're on the same page on the media's utter corruption.

I tweeted Angry Black Lady with the link to Shapiro's report, asking her for a retraction. Her response was to denounce Andrew Breitbart and block me on Twitter, typical for progressives called out for their dishonest hackery.

Progressives on Twitter are all abuzz on this story, cheering Angry Black Lady's ignorance and denial.

Lots more on this at Memeorandum.

This isn't going away. The Washington Post really stepped in it on this one and like the left's attacks on Ann Romney, the effects will further damage media credibility as this campaign winds along.

UPDATE: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur: "Romney is so Gay!" Thanks!

And here's more from The Other McCain: "Hard Times in WaPoVille: ‘BullyGate’ Timing Questioned on ‘Morning Joe’."

Fullerton Cops to Stand Trial in Kelly Thomas Beating Death

The video's from last year, when the story first hit the news, and there's full raw video here.

And from yesterday's Los Angeles Times, "Two Fullerton officers to stand trial in death of Kelly Thomas."

Following an emotionally charged hearing, an Orange County judge ruled that two Fullerton police officers will stand trial for the death of a mentally ill homeless man who was beaten in a violent confrontation last summer.

The ruling means that Manuel Ramos, 38, could be the first police officer in modern Orange County history to be tried for murder for on-duty actions .

Ramos is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Cpl. Jay Cicinelli, 40, will be tried on charges of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Thomas' death, which came five days after his encounter with six officers at a Fullerton bus depot last July, has rocked the north Orange County city, leading to a mass protest movement, the departure of a police chief and an upcoming recall election against three council members.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas, who took the unusual step of personally arguing the prosecution's side at the three-day preliminary hearing, said it was hard to prosecute police officers, but he believed that it was necessary in the Thomas case.

"It's a very bad day in Orange County when we have to charge two police officers with these kinds of terrible crimes," he told Superior Court Judge Walter Schwarm.

The district attorney also said he had not ruled out filing charges against additional officers, something the Thomas family and supporters have called for.

RTWT.

VIDEO: Victory Celebration for Marriage in North Carolina

I remember all the talk during the primaries, especially from libertarians, about how social issues didn't matter in 2012. I never agreed with the thesis, and I don't believe that the left can win the debate on social issues on the merits. It's gonna be attacks on "bigots" and hyper-emotional appeals to "fairness." And all of it will be wrapped in a cloak of inevitability.

And of course it's also about changing the subject. See the New York Times, "Obama Campaign Pushes the Issue of Gay Marriage."

Catholic League's Bill Donohue: 'I want to promote and to put in a privileged position that institution of marriage between a man and a woman...'

Here's Catholic League President Bill Donohue on Piers Morgan's show:

More: "OBAMA LIKES MEN MARRYING."

And see Lisa Graas, "Proving ‘Gay Rights’ is About Hate, Chad Griffin Tells Bill Donahue Siblings Can’t Marry Because It’s ‘Ridiculous’."

Was John Lauber Really Gay?

I don't know.

There's so much that's utterly bogus about this story is hard to begin. But first off, was this guy John Lauber really gay? That's an important question, since the story is not just about alleged bullying, but "anti-gay" bullying --- and it comes the day after President Obama endorsed gay marriage. It's ridiculously coincidental, and hopelessly redundant to have to point it out, but this is the meme that's been dominating the news today. And of course, it's viciously unfair to Mitt Romney, which is the point. But all's fair in love and war, so what can you do, I guess?

Here's the story, from the Washington Post, "Mitt Romney’s prep school classmates recall pranks, but also troubling incidents." And note the tentative thesis at the introduction:

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. — Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

Look, I read the article. I didn't want to because it's 5,000 words long and equally short on political significance. Until the very last couple of paragraphs, the article states only that Lauber is "presumed" to be gay. Ben Shapiro takes a look at that, "Washington Post Disgraces Itself By Targeting Romney's 'Anti-Gay' High School Story":

Today, the Washington Post ran an egregious hit piece about Mitt Romney … circa 1965. Seriously. They dug up some of his old classmates, who “mostly lean Democratic,” to tell tales of his “vicious” assault on a student, John Lauber, who had been mocked for his “presumed homosexuality.” What happened? Romney saw the student wearing bleach-blonde hair over his eye, and proceeded to lead a “prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. [Fellow classmate Matthew] Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.”

Now, there’s not much to this story. It sounds more like Romney didn’t like Lauber’s hair than that he wanted to bug Lauber for supposedly being gay. In fact, that’s a conclusion drawn by the Post without asking Romney what was going through his head. Why the Post considers certain types of hairstyles evidence of homosexuality is left unsaid.

Beyond that, the timing of the story is obviously designed to protect President Barack Obama, who just yesterday said that he would embrace same-sex marriage. The narrative from the media therefore became: Obama is fine with gays, Romney hates them. Since they had zero evidence that Romney has any antipathy toward homosexuals, they had to dig up an incident nearly 50 years ago, invest it with anti-gay rage, and print it as fact.

This is character assassination of the worst kind. It doesn’t go to Romney’s deeply-held beliefs and positions. It doesn’t show how he was defined as a young man. It’s just an old prank brought up and infused with nastiness, sans evidence, in order to turn Romney into a jerk in the public eye.

Well, yeah.

But again, it's not until the end of the piece that we learn that Lauber "came out as gay to his family and close friends." The rest of the report notes repeatedly that Lauber's homosexuality was presumed, or that the students just know "there was homosexuality there..." That's it. They just knew it. And no one at the report is interviewed with actual evidence of Lauber's homosexuality. So again, it's not just about bullying, which is bad. It's about "anti-gay" bullying --- which is the worst offense imaginable, or so we're led to believe.

And we're also led to believe that this guy Lauber was gay. He's dead now, passed away in 2004. So there's no interviewing him, conveniently.

And note at the clip: Romney says that whether someone was "homosexual, that was the furthest thing from my mind back in the 1960s, so that was not the case."

More from The Right Sphere, "Washington Post Hit Piece On Romney… Embellished?" (via Instapundit).

Added: From The American Pundit, "Whoa: Family of Romney’s Alleged Bullying “Victim” Says Story Inaccurate, They’re Disgusted by WaPo" (via Instapundit).

And at ABC News, "Sister of Alleged Romney Target Has ‘No Knowledge’ of Any Bullying Incident." Plus, from Draw and Strike, "Washington Post Caught Making Sh!t Up Again."

Obama's Pre-Election Change of Heart on Same-Sex Marriage

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama's Marriage Act":

Congratulations to President Obama for matching his public policy with what everyone already knew were his private beliefs. His statement Wednesday that he supports same-sex marriage spared the public the ruse of waiting until after the election to state the inevitable.

First his Justice Department refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and then Mr. Obama had said his views on the subject were "evolving." The Beltway chatter now is that Vice President Joe Biden's public support this week for gay marriage had cornered Mr. Obama into his own change of heart. But as with pretty much all Presidential actions lately, you don't have to be a cynic to wonder about Team Obama's political re-election calculations.

Everyone agrees that the election's number one issue is the U.S. economy. Insofar as it's not really possible for Mr. Obama to change that subject, he can at least give the chattering classes something else to write about. This qualifies. During a political cycle when few besides Rick Santorum wanted to talk about social issues, Mr. Obama has now reinserted one of the hottest into the debate.

Continue reading.

Michelle is making me laugh at the clip, calling out Obama's flip-flops like "lava lamps."

Inside Obama's Decision on Gay Marriage — Getting Dragged Along, Brutally, by His Party's Extreme Radical Base

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Obama's Gay Marriage Leap of Faith":

But his decision also reflects a hard-headed acknowledgement of the changing nature of the Democratic electoral coalition. Indeed, historians may someday view Obama's announcement Wednesday as a milestone in the evolution of his party's political strategy, because it shows the president and his campaign team are increasingly comfortable responding to the actual coalition that elects Democrats today-not the one that many in the party remember from their youth.

Obama's senior advisers see the announcement as essentially a political wash, although polls now consistently show more Americans support than oppose gay marriage. In its latest national measure, the Pew Research Center found in April that a 47 percent to 43 percent plurality of Americans back same-sex marriage. Other recent national surveys, including those by Gallup and the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, have found majority or plurality support for the idea.

Obama's announcement might not significantly change the overall level of his 2012 support, especially in an election where economic issues will dominate. But the announcement may reflect the Obama camp's thinking about the likely composition of his support. It shows the president, however reluctantly, formulating an agenda that implicitly acknowledges the party is unlikely to recreate the support it attracted from the white working-class and senior voters who anchored Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition. Instead, the announcement shows him reaching out to mobilize the new pillars of the Democratic electorate, particularly younger people and socially liberal white collar whites.

"It was crystal clear that he didn't want to get off the fence on this issue before the election if he could possibly avoid it; this is not a bright line he wants to draw," said long-term Democratic strategist Bill Galston, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "He realizes it intensifies the divide between what might be called the emerging Democratic coalition and the pieces of the old coalition that he wanted to retain. But things had gotten to a point where he felt he had no choice."

The "emerging Democratic coalition"?

Right.

These guys are just now recognizing a new party coalition, six months before the election. Give me a freakin' break. The New Deal Coalition collapsed after Vietnam. I don't know what these people are smoking, but the party lurched to the left in the 1970s and by now it's basically a coalition of social democrats and neo-Marxists --- and that's putting it mildly. See Fred Baumann, "Our fractious foreign policy debate." And on the Democrats' gay marriage extremism, see "Gay Activists Go Ballistic on Warren Invocation."

TRIVIA: Check this search from the archives, "Democrats + Vietnam + War."

BONUS: "Occupy Wall Street to Attend Capitol Hill Meeting Chaired by Congressional Progressive Caucus."

Democrat Elizabeth Warren Blows Off 'Trail of Tears' Report as 'Politics as Usual'

I didn't get a chance to post on this Tuesday, so here you go, a blockbuster from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection, "Cruel irony in Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee saga."

And see Michael Patrick Leahy, at Big Government, "Elizabeth Warren Ancestor Rounded Up Cherokees For Trail of Tears."

And from Hillary Chabot, at the Boston Herald, "Elizabeth Warren brushes off ‘Trail of Tears’ report."

Elizabeth Warren waved off reports yesterday that an ancestor helped round up Cherokees in the infamous “Trail of Tears,” as well as demands from U.S. Sen. Scott Brown to prove she never claimed her Native American heritage to further her career — dismissing the developments as “politics as usual.”

“I think what this is about is Scott Brown trying to change the subject,” said Warren at a Brighton event last night. “He just wants to find a way to talk about something else, and I think it’s wrong. I think this is why people are turned off on Washington politics.”

Warren has been under fire for citing “family lore,” without documentation, that an ancestor was a Cherokee, and for listing herself as a “minority” law professor in a professional directory in the 1980s and ’90s.

But Paul Reed, a Utah genealogist who is a fellow at the American Genealogical Society, said he found primary documentation that shows Warren’s great-great-great grandfather Jonathan Crawford served in a Tennessee militia unit that rounded up Cherokees before they were force-marched to Oklahoma in the infamous “Trail of Tears.”

“Jonathan H. Crawford did serve in the Indian wars,” said Reed. “He is listed as serving in the company that rounded up Cherokees.”

Thousands of Native Americans died after they were forced to relocate under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Warren’s family link to the genocidal exodus was first reported yesterday by conservative websites Breitbart.com and Legalinsurrection.com.

Warren also brushed off Brown’s demand to release her law school and job applications.

“If Scott Brown has a question about my qualifications for my job, he can talk to the people who hired me,” Warren said. Citing Brown’s vote yesterday against a bill that would have prevented student loans from doubling, Warren said: “No wonder Scott Brown wants to change the subject. This is politics as usual.”

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Elizabeth Warren's 'ancestor rounded up Cherokees from their homes for the Trail of Tears'... but she brushes off claims."

Europe Needs Pro-Growth Market Reforms

A great post from James Pethokoukis, "Europe’s failed experiment in tax-hike austerity":

Putting aside the issue of the euro for a moment, the fiscal reforms Europe needs are clear: Smaller welfare states, less intrusive regulation, and pro-growth tax cuts. Of course, just raising taxes is a lot simpler. Sure is a lot quicker. But it’s not working. I hope the Obama White House notices the tax-hike fiasco going in Europe since it is pretty much the exact path he wants the U.S. to follow.

No doubt.

Maggie Gallagher: 'What Harm Has Same-Sex Marriage Caused?'

From David Badash, at The New Civil Rights Movement, "Maggie Gallagher Fights Gay Marriage So She Won’t Seem ‘Like A Racist’."

Badash is in hopeless denial about Gallagher's thesis that straights who favor traditional marriage won't be bullied, demonized, and destroyed. We know (and can never forget) what happened in California after the passage of Prop. 8.

Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan responds (via Memeorandum):

Essentially, Maggie Gallagher is concerned about the affect of same-sex marriage on people like Maggie Gallagher. She cites no data or statistics or study which shows how any heterosexual marriages or children in families with same-sex parents have been damaged. She makes no claim that any such damages has occurred, only that people like her have been made social pariahs instead of the gay people who ought to be the pariahs. I'm sure there's a social science term that describes what she is doing, but I guess I just find the complaint that "you're making other people not like me" to be a rather petty and self-absorbed. Where, I wonder, is her concern about the affect on people other than Maggie Gallagher?

Right.

Get some help, dude. Clinical help.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Slams 'The Life of Julia'

I just love her!

Plus, see Stewart Lawrence at PuffHo, "The GOP's Least Known but Best Qualified VP Candidate May Be a Woman."

Wisconsin Democrat Tom Barrett Aims to Unify Party Before Recall Vote

At the Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Candidate Labors to Unify Party" (via Google):

After winning the Democratic primary for Wisconsin's gubernatorial-recall election, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said that as governor he would unify a polarized state. Before he gets that chance, he will need to unify his party.

Mr. Barrett, who defeated four other Democratic candidates in Tuesday's primary, has just four weeks to rally their supporters before the June 5 recall to beat Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The governor has raised $13 million in the past four months and his supporters appear energized. Mr. Walker, who has gained folk-hero status in national GOP circles, won his own primary on Tuesday with 626,538 votes—nearly as many as the five Democratic candidates combined—even though he didn't face a serious challenger.

To win, Mr. Barrett will need the labor unions that backed his main primary opponent, Kathleen Falk, a former county official, to align behind him. Major labor organizations spent $4 million backing Ms. Falk. Some of them counseled Mr. Barrett not to enter the race and circulated a video attacking him as being hostile to labor. Mr. Barrett beat Ms. Falk Tuesday by 24 percentage points.

"It's important that you have unity and you have manpower and foot power because Walker has so blessed much money," said former Democratic Congressman David Obey, a Barrett supporter. Mr. Barrett "needs those (Falk) votes."

On Wednesday morning the candidates Mr. Barrett defeated, as well as the labor groups that opposed him, all endorsed their new standard bearer. What remains to be seen is how strong that support will be for someone they earlier hoped would fail.

"We don't regret endorsing Falk, we're just focused on moving forward," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. "Our focus has always been about restoring our rights, the candidate that will support that, we're behind."

The recall was prompted after Mr. Walker championed a law reducing collective-bargaining rights for most public employees. Protesters marched on the state capital for weeks and eventually collected more than 900,000 signatures to force a recall. A Walker loss next month would mark only the third time a U.S. governor has been recalled from office.

Mr. Walker defeated Mr. Barrett in the 2010 election by six points. In this year's rematch, a Marquette University Law School poll released late last month showed Mr. Walker and Mr. Barrett in a dead heat, with just 4% of voters undecided. That makes it important for each party to mobilize its base, but perhaps especially so for Mr. Barrett, who has just $475,000 in the bank, compared with Mr. Walker's $4.5 million.

Polls showed that anxiety over the economy has superseded restoring collective-bargaining rights as the reason Democrats wanted Mr. Walker out. That shift helped Mr. Barrett, who is perceived as less beholden to unions than Ms. Falk. During the election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees accused Mr. Barrett, as mayor of Milwaukee, of taking advantage of the new law limiting the power of public sector unions to negotiate.

On Wednesday Mr. Walker expressed both surprise and confidence. "We went out and were campaigning, but we didn't have an organized, sustained get out the vote effort this," he told a Milwaukee radio station. "Obviously we do for June 5th."

Actually, folks should see Althouse's post, "'Tuesday’s recall election was a giant repudiation of Big Labor'."

Barebackers for Barack!

Blazing Cat Fur reminds me of Larry Sinclair: "Obama on the Down Low."

And here's this, from Andrew "Milky Loads" Sullivan, "Obama Lets Go of Fear":

I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.

So let me simply say: I think of all the gay kids out there who now know they have their president on their side. I think of Maurice Sendak, who just died, whose decades-long relationship was never given the respect it deserved. I think of the centuries and decades in which gay people found it  impossible to believe that marriage and inclusion in their own families was possible for them, so crushed were they by the weight of social and religious pressure. I think of all those in the plague years shut out of hospital rooms, thrown out of apartments, written out of wills, treated like human garbage because they loved another human being. I think of Frank Kameny. I think of the gay parents who now feel their president is behind their sacrifices and their love for their children.

The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama's journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees - as we all see - that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman's son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment - way off the record at the time - that clinched my support for him.

Oh brother.

No wonder they call him "Excitable Andy."

It was calculated, Andrew. Coldly calculated. See Lonely Con, "Obama’s Gay Marriage Distraction Paid Off."

More from No More Mister Nice Blog, "WILL 'SECRETLY GAY' BECOME THE NEW 'SECRETLY KENYAN'?" And following the links takes us to American Digest:

Gee whiz. I wonder if Obama will come out or not. He could of course avoid taking a "position" simply giving Andrew Sullivan one hot evening in the Lincoln Bedroom and leaking the photographs to Blueboy.com, but some things are just too revolting to evolve into.

Also at Astute Bloggers, "PREDICTION: AFTER OBAMA LOSES THE ELECTION HE WILL THEN DIVORCE MICHELLE...AND MARRY A MAN!"

BONUS: GOProud has this: "GOProud Statement on President Obama’s Remarks Regarding Marriage Equality" (via Memeorandum). (GOProud is a dirtbag organization and it's shameful that these pricks get as much traction on the right as they do. See, "Guess Who's Coming to CPAC?")

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama's Gay Nightmare: Still Waiting for Barry's Backside Boogie Pics!"

Markos Moultisas Cheers 'Confrontational LGBT Movement' Upon News of Barack Obama's Coming Out

On Twitter:

Confrontational LGBT movement the last couple of years has been a model of effectiveness
— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) May 9, 2012

This guy's a freak.

More freakishness, from Jed Lewison at Daily Kos: "President Obama to ABC News: 'Same-sex marriage should be legal'."

And see Althouse, "'Gay for Pay'."

French Socialists Party Like It's 1789

From Robert Zaretsky, at the Los Angeles Times, "Back to the Bastille":

It was no surprise, of course, whenFrance'snew Socialist president, Francois Hollande, celebrated his election over the weekend at the Place de la Bastille. Once the site of the nation's most notorious prison, the square has long been the place that French leftists proclaim their victories. But while many commentators noted the symbolic importance of the Bastille, they overlook how this symbol has changed over time — a transformation that may hold a lesson for President-elect Hollande.

When a large crowd attacked and took the Bastille on July 14, 1789, the French Revolution was launched. That the prison held no political prisoners but instead a mere half-dozen petty criminals and lunatics, and that the crowd marked the event by chopping off and displaying the heads of two government officials, did little to mute the festive atmosphere.

On the contrary. Overnight, the Bastille became Paris' most successful tourist attraction. The decapitated heads were still fresh on the ends of the revolutionaries' pikes when Pierre-Francois Palloy, a wealthy businessman, with a work crew nearly as large as the crowd that stormed the Bastille, began leveling the medieval pile. Once razed, the prison's iron, brick and wood detritus was transmuted into souvenirs, including inkwells, domino sets, snuff boxes and daggers.

Even after the prison was gone, tourists from France and abroad surged to the rubble-strewn field where the Bastille once stood. One year after its destruction, Palloy held a celebratory ball among the ruins at which Parisians quite literally danced on the grave of the old regime. Uncertain what to do with the vast space, the revolutionary government let it go to romantic seed. If the revolution was indeed a return to the natural order of things, what better proof than the shrubs, flowers and weeds that began to sprout amid the scattered stones at the site?

Yet governments abhor vacuums. Upon becoming emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte announced his desire to build a massive arch celebrating his military victories on the site of the old Bastille. The dubious neighbors, however, put him off, and so instead Napoleon had the Arc de Triomphe built at the other end of Paris. As for the Bastille, Napoleon conceived a fountain featuring a gigantic statue of an elephant — yes, an elephant — to celebrate his imperial conquests. The plaster model placed there was to be replaced by one in bronze. Waterloo cut short these grandiose plans, however, and the model — growing leprous and pitted, a haven for rats and derelicts — remained until 1846.

In 1832, the peeling pachyderm was joined by a second statue. Not one commemorating the revolution of 1789, mind you, but instead the revolution of 1830, which brought the fall of King Charles X and his replacement with King Louis-Philippe. In order to both celebrate the events of 1830 and make Parisians believe the revolution had come full cycle, Louis-Philippe constructed a towering bronze column. At its marble base were entombed the bodies of those who died on the barricades in 1830, at its top was the gilded Genie de la Liberte, or Spirit of Liberty: a winged figure pirouetting on a globe and flaunting the broken chains of servitude.

Some historians, noting that the sprite is now called the Spirit of the Bastille, believe the site's meaning has faded with time. But in the wake of Sunday's event, perhaps the meaning of liberty has instead simply changed over time. Ever since 1848 — and yet another revolution — France's political left has held its great demonstrations at the column's marble base. In 1936, the newly elected prime minister, Socialist Leon Blum, beamed (and held high a clenched fist) while a river of workers and students surged across the Place de la Bastille. And in 1981, the supporters of France's first Socialist president, Francois Mitterrand, converged at Bastille to celebrate his victory.

Continue reading.

Megyn Kelly Interview with Naomi Schaefer Riley

Lonely Conservative has the video: "An Inconvenient Truth for the Mob Against Naomi Schaefer Riley."

RELATED: Robert Stacy McCain's been on fire with this story. See, "Commissars Sacrifice Naomi Schaefer Riley to the ‘New Gods of Diversity’," and "This Might Be What You’d Call ‘Relevant’."

PREVIOUSLY: "Naomi Schaefer Riley Is Married to the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, Who is Black."

Jennifer Love Hewitt Maxim Cover Shoot April 2012 (VIDEO)

Well, I'm late getting to this one, but what the heck?

At Maxim, "April 2012 Cover Girl Jennifer Love Hewitt Interview."

PREVIOUSLY: "Smokin' Jennifer Love Hewitt Gears Up for New Series 'The Client List'."

Spitting Bull

Via Theo Spark:

Barack Obama's Abject Political Calculations on Homosexual Marriage

Elliot Abrams has a great piece on Obama's newfound support of gay marriage, "‘On My Behalf’ - Really?" (via Memeorandum):

The debate over same sex “marriage” has engaged the heartfelt feelings and convictions of millions of Americans. Then there is Barack Obama.

In his ABC interview, the president pretended that his much touted “evolution” had now led him, ineluctably, to speak out now, today; he simply could longer stay silent. ABC let him off the hook, but this is not a credible account.  In March, the Washington Post was reporting the debate among his advisers on whether the issue would help or hurt the reelection campaign and what, therefore, Obama should say: “Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election.”

The same advisers told the Post that Obama would make the decision based on his gut, but that is an insulting way to refer to the vice president.  There is no evidence that Obama planned to speak until Joe Biden said last weekend that he was for gay “marriage” and forced the issue.

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

Mr. Obama’s statement today is a marvel...

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage."

'It was so sharp and modern. It was mod, and we all wanted the mod look...'

From Ann Althouse, on the death of Vidal Sassoon, "'A clear example of an architectural hairstyle was the Five Point Geometric Cut, created by Sassoon in 1964 on a young model named Grace Coddington...'":

I've seen a lot of hairstyles come and go in my life. (I'm 61.) But I've got to say, there was ONE hairstylist who — as far as I can tell — invented something precisely new and distinctively his. Everyone knew was [sic] a Sassoon haircut was.

I wish I could find a perfect photograph of the way the cut made a "W" at the nape. It was so sharp and modern. It was mod, and we all wanted the mod look. It was easy to grow long hair and thick bangs, Patti Boyd style. But the alternative, the 5 points... how could you find anyone in your hometown who could cut hair like that? So glossily brilliant. The best idea for a hairstyle or at least nobody else ever came up with a better one.

Is that a perfect photograph of the "W" at the nape? I think it's a pretty good one, actually.

In any case, more at the link.

And see the New York Times, "Vidal Sassoon, Hairdresser and Trendsetter, Dies at 84."

President Obama Backs Homosexual Marriage

There's never been any question of whether Obama "supports" same-sex marriage. It's always been a question of when he could come out of the closet in support of destroying the traditional and historical institution of marriage without dropping a nuclear bomb on his election chances. The jury's still out on that question, which is why today's announcement is, in part, such a big deal. For example, North Carolina has 15 electors in the Electoral College, which are now that much further out of reach for the president with his endorsement of the radical pro-gay agenda. Chris Cillizza reports on that angle, "President Obama’s calculated gamble on gay marriage."

To be fair, though, I've long criticized Obama as a pussy on gay rights. So from a Democrat's point of view, I think he did the right thing. And despite North Carolina's win last night, the trend does seem toward greater acceptance of homosexual marriage over time. The president can now claim that he's on the "right side" of history, from the gay civil rights perspective. I still think it should be up to the states --- and I think it would be politically stupid for Republicans to hop on board the same-sex marriage express. The gay lobby is repulsive. These people are perhaps the most thuggish constituency in progressive politics. The shift in support on gay marriage in the polls is largely explained by respondents who are tired of being attacked as "bigots." That's not so much winning over supporters as beating your opponents into submission.

So with that, let the great 2012 social policy debate begin. If Mitt Romney really wants to show he's conservative, the president couldn't have handed him a better opportunity.

Robert Stacy McCain has more, "Hope and Change Go Gay."

And see all the debate at Memeorandum.

Naomi Schaefer Riley Is Married to the Wall Street Journal's Jason Riley, Who is Black

I think it's important to point that out, that Naomi Schaefer Riley is married to Jason Riley, the bespectacled and soft-spoken opinion writer at the Wall Street Journal.

Most of the discussion of Schaefer Riley is focusing on the left's intolerance of different opinion. That's big. It's a perfect example of the left's totalitarianism and thought control. And the reactions have been fierce, for example, from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, "Silencing Dissent About Black Studies," and Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard, "Mob on the Quad." And James Taranto perhaps penned the best headline of all: "The Comical of Higher Education."

Critics attacked Schaeffer Riley as a "racist" who was exploiting her "white privilege." These reactions are hysterical, for example, from Cherise at Racism Review:

Fortunately, as Black folks, we have learned to multi-task—to resist our oppression and defend ourselves and our labor even as we go about our research, teaching, and daily lives. Yet, the fact that we must do both speaks to the very nature of the racial inequality Naomi Schaefer Riley claims has all but disappeared.

All that for rightly calling out Black Studies as "left-wing victimization claptrap."

Once again progressives have proved that the attack of "racism" is utterly without content and significance. Schaefer Riley is by definition not racist. No woman espousing a racist, Jim Crow ideology of white supremacy would marry a black man. To argue otherwise is to rip the nation's genuine history of racial oppression out of its historical context of slavery and segregation. No, the left is attacking Schaefer Riley for purely ideological reasons, out of a sheer burst of progressive hatred at anyone who would dare speak out against the abject academic fraud of phony disciplines of racial victimology. It's a particularly powerful example of how bad things have gotten in this country.

Schaefer Riley, by her marriage, objectively demonstrates a United States that has transcended race. The progressive academics who attacked her, and her editors who threw her under the bus, are now in fact the main enemies of that obviously majestic and triumphant phenomenon of historical racial transcendence.

Ann Althouse has more, "The Chronicle of Higher Education fires blogger Naomi Schaefer Riley for mocking university Black Studies programs" (via Memeorandum). And Althouse links to Schaefer Riley's own piece at the Wall Street Journal, "The Academic Mob Rules."

Al Qaeda Bomber Was Double Agent Working for U.S. and Arab Intelligence Agencies

Well, who knew, really? I thought something was strange about this story all along, particularly with regard to AP's reporting. So here comes the news that the CIA planted a double agent inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There's going to be lots more information on this over the next few days so consider this developing. So far, Rep. Peter King thinks the administration is in fact jerking the public, see: "Rep. King suggests administration may have misled public on bomb plot, Calls for review." Frankly, there's no doubt in my mind that Obama is working national security --- and coordinating press coverage according to intelligence rules --- to score political points. President #GutsyCall is going rogue.

Anyway, the Los Angeles Times reports, "Al Qaeda bomb plot was foiled by double agent."

And at the Wall Street Journal, "Bomb Plotter Was U.S. Informer: Double Agent Infiltrated Yemeni Terror Group, Fed Information to U.S. Intelligence":

The supposed bomber at the center of a foiled plot to bring down a jetliner was actually a double agent who funneled vital information to U.S. and Arab intelligence agencies, according to officials, marking an apparently successful infiltration of al Qaeda's most dangerous branch.

The revelation came a day after U.S. officials said the Central Intelligence Agency, working with foreign security services and other agencies, had thwarted a bomb plot by al Qaeda's Yemeni branch aimed at bringing down a U.S. jetliner with a more advanced version of an underwear bomb used in a failed 2009 Christmas Day attempt.

The newest plot appears to provide a chilling illustration of al Qaeda's determination to learn from its mistakes: The bomb that was recovered has two detonators, providing a crucial backup in the event one failed, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the double agent spent several perilous weeks working inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, answering to a foreign intelligence service that works in concert with the CIA. Saudi intelligence officials played "a large role" in handling of the double agent inside AQAP, this official said.

The man was able to convince members of the Yemeni terror group that he wanted to carry out a suicide mission, the official said.

The man was given the bomb and general instructions for carrying out the attack, the official said. Instead of following those directions, however, when he left Yemen, he contacted intelligence authorities, turning over the bomb and fresh intelligence about AQAP.

Some of the information gathered in the course of the multiweek operation led to the U.S. drone strike in Yemen on Sunday that killed a top operative of the Yemeni group, officials said Tuesday.

The Saudi embassy in Washington had no immediate comment. In the past, some Saudi officials have chafed at characterizations that Saudi Arabia used former al Qaeda militants as informants to disrupt plots by the Yemeni branch.

Yemeni officials say they weren't informed about the operation.

Continue reading.

The Journal also mentions the possibility of a congressional GOP investigation of Obama's intelligence coordination and public manipulation.

Lugar Concession Speech Slams Mourdock: 'His Embrace of An Unrelenting Partisan Mindset Is Irreconcilable With My Philosophy of Governance'

Jeez, a sore loser or what?

At CNN, "In statement, Lugar defends campaign while criticizing partisan environment" (via Memeorandum):

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance.

Sorry, Dick, but the times have passed you by.

And in case you missed it, there's been a grassroots tea party revolt raging for the past three years. Have a nice retirement.

Wake the F*ck Up Democrats!

From James Carville, at CNN, "Wake up Democrats; you could lose." (Via Memeorandum.)

(CNN) -- A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."
As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis.

My message is simple: WTFU. Translated -- wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake....

You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

There's video at the link.

North Carolina Amendment 1 Wins in Landslide Vote for Traditional Marriage

The Associated Press reports, "NC voters approve amendment on gay marriage."

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment on Tuesday defining marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman, making it the 30th state to adopt such a ban.

With 35 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, unofficial returns showed the amendment passing with about 58 percent of the vote to 42 percent against.

In the final days before the vote, members of President Barack Obama's cabinet expressed support for gay marriage and former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages urging voters to reject the amendment. Opponents also held marches, ran TV ads and gave speeches, including one by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim Bakker and the late Tammy Faye Bakker.

Meanwhile, supporters had run their own ad campaigns and church leaders urged Sunday congregations to vote for the amendment. The Rev. Billy Graham, who at 93 remains influential even though his last crusade was in 2005, was featured in full-page newspaper ads supporting the amendment.

Both sides spent a combined $3 million on their campaigns.

And at the Raleigh News & Observer, "Latest results show marriage amendment up 60 percent to 40 percent":

RALEIGH North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.

North Carolina is the last state in the south to add such an amendment, and supporters hoped for a resounding victory.

Incomplete returns show the amendment up 59.72 percent to 40.28 percent. Some large counties, including Durham and Mecklenburg have not reported results.

Primary turnout was heavy. Though there were many other races on the ballot, including primaries for statewide offices and congressional seats, the amendment appeared to drive much of the political discussion.

Marriage rights for gay couples has been a topic of national debate this year, and North Carolina’s amendment and the campaigns for and against it drew international attention.

North Carolinians think of the state as progressive, but that’s within the context of the rest of the South, said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. “This is a socially conservative state,” he said.

The state has a 16-year-old law banning same-sex marriage.

At least two other states will be voting on gay marriage rights in November. Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on its ballot. Maine has a referendum to allow same-sex marriage. Voters in Maryland and Washington state may be asked to affirm new state laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Money from national interest groups poured into North Carolina. The National Organization for Marriage contributed $425,000 to the Vote for Marriage campaign, according to the latest reports, and the Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates contributed nearly $500,000 to the opposition Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families.

Vote for Marriage raised more than $1 million, and the Coalition to Protect All N.C. Families raised more than $2 million.

And now the progs are having epic hissy fits on Twitter, for example, Chris Kromm, "NEWS: NC officially joins ranks of bigoted states whose neanderthal laws will be overturned by courts in coming years."

And lesbian radical Pam Spaulding is on Twitter as well. The cries of bigotry and homophobia are going to be deafening.

More on this later.

UPDATE: That didn't take long. See Daily Kos, "The bigots win: North Carolina passes Amendment One."

More at Twitchy, "Liberals freak out over North Carolina gay marriage ban."

Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana Loses GOP Primary to Challenger Richard Mourdock

It's going to be an interesting night.

The New York Times reports, "Mourdock Defeats Lugar in Indiana Senate Primary."

And check Legal Insurrection, "Indiana primary results // Update: NBC calls race for Mourdock."

More here: "NBC News projects Lugar defeated in Indiana primary" (via Memeorandum).

Terrorist Leadership Decapitation and the Organizational Death of al Qaeda

My Spring 2012 issue of International Security came by mail last Tuesday, May 1st --- the one year anniversary of the bin Laden killing.

We also saw President Obama make his secret trip to Afghanistan last Tuesday --- to spike the football for his reelection efforts. So the timing was quite interesting for reading this research paper from Bryan C. Price, "Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism." Here's this from the introduction:

Late in the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama announced to the nation that Osama bin Laden was dead. Earlier that day, the president had ordered a team of elite military forces deep into Pakistan to kill the mastermind behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, which had shocked the country and the world nearly ten years before. During his speech, President Obama said that he had told his new director of central intelligence, Leon Panetta, that getting bin Laden was the number one priority in the United States’ counterterrorism strategy against al-Qaida. Upon hearing of bin Laden’s death, Americans broke out in spontaneous celebration, and pundits immediately began speculating about its symbolic and operational importance. But what does bin Laden’s death mean, if anything, for the future of al-Qaida? More broadly, what does it mean when terrorist groups experience leadership decapitation?

Decapitation tactics, which are designed to kill or capture the key leader or leaders of a terrorist group, feature prominently in the counterterrorism strategies of many states, including Israel and the United States. Some scholars argue that targeting the group’s leadership reduces its operational capability by eliminating its most highly skilled members and forcing the group to divert valuable time and limited resources to protect its leaders. Decapitation tactics are also intended to disrupt the terrorist group’s organizational routine and deter others from assuming power. Scholars have credited these tactics with creating intra-organizational turmoil and even organizational collapse, most notably, the demise of the Kurdistan People’s Party and the Shining Path following the arrests of their leaders. Despite questions about the legality and moral legitimacy of targeted assassinations, the United States has expanded, rather than contracted, its targeted killing program since President Obama arrived in offce. In early 2010, the U.S. government even authorized the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen. This unprecedented decision was fraught with constitutionality concerns about due process. Yet, five months after the bin Laden operation and amid criticism about the disregard of the United States for international sovereignty, a U.S. drone fired a Hellfire missile at al-Awlaki in a remote region inside Yemen, killing him instantly.

Domestic audiences and leadership decapitation an appealing counterterrorism tactic for a variety of reasons, but most scholars argue that it is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Whereas proponents of decapitation highlight cases in which the tactic has contributed to the organizational collapse of terrorist groups, critics counter with examples in which it has increased and intensified terrorist activity. Critics argue that targeted killings are both morally and ethically wrong and warn of a backlash effect: rather than reducing the terrorist threat, leadership decapitation is likely to increase the number of willing recruits for terrorist groups to exploit, allowing these groups to grow in size and popularity. Decapitation tactics may be prominent in Israel and the United States, detractors say, but that does not mean they are necessarily effective. Israel arguably has the most liberal and robust targeted killing policy of any state, yet one scholar concludes that “no compelling evidence exists that targeted killings have reduced the terrorist threat against Israel.”

Keep reading.

Price claims that leadership decapitation is a significant factor in the decline and mortality of terrorist organizations. It's a great piece. Particularly good is the theoretical discussion of organizational cultures (pp. 14-23) and also the summary and conclusions --- where Price indicates how the killing of Osama bin Laden is a bigger victory for U.S. counterterror policies than would be expected from existing theories of the decline and defeat of terror groups.

So, yeah, President Obama can be rightly proud to have ordered the mission at Abbottabad, although he might lay off his excessive use of the first-person singular pronoun.