Make Bradford British? Ed Miliband Proves He'd Never Heard of it While Wooing Muslims in Bradford

I don't know.

I think some of the British folks would like a bit more assimilation into British culture and tradition. Scroll forward to 12:30 minutes at the clip below.

And see Guardian UK, "Ed Miliband begins mission to woo back Bradford":

The leader of a major political party cannot be expected to have time to watch too much television. Nonetheless it was a tad unfortunate, when visiting Bradford on Saturday, that Ed Miliband had not heard of Make Bradford British. This was the much criticised reality TV experiment that stoked racial tensions in the West Yorkshire city by shoving Bradfordians of different colours and creeds together earlier this year.

It wouldn't have mattered had one of the first guests he met on his mission to woo Bradford not been Sabbiyah Pervez, a young Muslim mother sent by Channel 4 to pull pints in a local pub and then filmed being racially abused by the customers.

"I was on Make Bradford British," said the petite 23-year-old by way of introduction to the Labour leader. "Great!" said Miliband, beaming at her camouflage print headscarf and exquisitely made-up face. "Tell me about the scheme!" Pervez paused. "Didn't you watch it?" Miliband cocked his head to one side: this clearly had not been in his briefing pack. Pervez helped him out: "It was a TV programme."

In that case, said Miliband, he would most certainly be watching it now. Good, said Pervez, launching into an exuberant precis of her short life that not only detailed the racial intolerance she had experienced taking part in the documentary but also the forced marriage she suffered in the city as a teenager.

It was a little hiccup in what was an otherwise admirable and assured attempt at persuading the Muslim women of Bradford that the Labour party cared about them and their city. Miliband had been invited by the Bradford Muslim Women's Council (BMWC), an organisation set up in 2010 to give Muslim women a voice and access to a national political, social and cultural platform.

He had a mountain to climb. The 70 women who turned up to the event at the Media Museum were a polite, if sceptical audience, warned at the start to demonstrate the "Islamic etiquette of respectful dialogue".

Many of them had voted for George Galloway in the byelection in March and, like Pervez, had plumped for councillors from his Respect party at the local elections in May.

Worse, most of them had come to the conclusion that the Labour party did not welcome women like them. "It's an old boy's club!" shouted one woman. Another told Miliband that she had been a paid-up member of the Labour party for 15 years, but had relinquished her membership after being shunned by the men who dominated her local branch in the Manningham area of Bradford.

And see the Sun UK, "To end racism we must all enter the lion's den - Muslim mum's verdict on working in a tough pub in Bradford."

And don't forget this piece from Melanie Phillips from April, "A dangerous enemy of democracy who's being encouraged cynically by the Left':

Most commentators have dismissed this victory as a shocking one-off with no further significance than an upset by an entertaining maverick.

Not so. For with Galloway’s election, religious extremism has become for the first time a potential game-changer in British politics.

The point being so resolutely ignored is that Galloway ran on an Islamist religious ticket. It wasn’t simply that he was pandering to Islamist foreign policy obsessions. He made explicit references to Islam throughout his campaign.

Right.

So much for assimilation.

The Big Threat to Obama

It's Europe, according to Niall Ferguson, at Newsweek, "How Europe Could Cost Obama the Election":

Could Europe cost Barack Obama the presidency? At first sight, that seems like a crazy question. Isn’t November’s election supposed to be decided in key swing states like Florida and Ohio, not foreign countries like Greece and Spain? And don’t left-leaning Europeans love Obama and loathe Republicans?

Sure. But the possibility is now very real that a double-dip recession in Europe could kill off hopes of a sustained recovery in the United States. As the president showed in his anxious press conference last Friday, he well understands the danger emanating from across the pond. Slower growth and higher unemployment can only hurt his chances in an already very tight race with Mitt Romney.

Yeah, but seems like this argument feeds the administration's blame game.

Either way, things keep going downhill for the Dems.

Read it all at that top link.

Lake Bell Has a Joke for You

Lake Bell first starred in the final season of The Practice, which was spun off into Boston Legal. I thought she was a show stealer at the time. My goodness!

Obama's Message to Congress: 'Let's Get to Work'

O's been jawboning the Congress to "get to work," but I doubt he's going to get much help anytime soon. Even his own partisans are bailing out on him.

Listen to the great discussion with Laura Ingraham and Michelle Fields from the other day:

Krav Maga

Via the IDF News Desk:

Interesting. They have Krav Maga training in the O.C.

Might be something to look into, considering.

Don't Miss Dennis Prager's, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph

Here's another Father's Day suggestion.

I finished Still the Best Hope a few days ago and meant to gets some final comments posted. Folks who listen to him on the radio will understand, but Prager boasts one of the most powerful moral voices in American politics. This book is almost a religious tract. Well, actually,  it is a religious tract, if you consider it a treatise on America's civil religion, our political culture of liberty and exceptionalism. I've read quite a few ideological and polemical best-sellers, and this one's by far the best I've read in a while. I think only Melanie Phillips left me with the same kind of feeling. It's a combination of moral clarity with self empowerment. And there's an evangelical quality to Prager as well, but it's up to us to get the message out, and especially for us to impart the basics of the political culture to younger Americans. Prager recounts how when many people are asked what is unique about America, most of them are hard-pressed to answer. They know America's great and all that, but they can't articulate a clearly specified set of attributes that are uniquely American. I deal with this this as a professor of political science. But blogging these last few years has driven home the priority of spreading American values and educating people on the greatness of this country. You wouldn't think it'd be necessary, but spend some time on a college campus and the need will become increasingly clear.

Here's Prager discussing his book back in April, at RCP, "Why America is Still the Best Hope":

There are three big ideas -- or religions, if you will -- competing for humanity's allegiance: Leftism, Islamism, and Americanism. I argue that the American value system -- what I call "the American Trinity" -- is the best system ever devised for making a good society.

The problem is that most Americans cannot identify these values, and therefore cannot fight on their behalf. In the meantime, the alternatives, Leftism and Islamism, have been spreading like proverbial wildfire, largely because their adherents know exactly what they are fighting for.

I do not fault Americans for not knowing their distinctive values. No one taught them what they are. And the problem is not new. Even the so-called "greatest generation," the World War II generation, had not been systematically taught these values.

I only came to realize what these values are in the way medical researchers sometimes happen upon a major discovery -- by chance. One night, as I emptied my pockets, I stared at the coins I had removed, and, lo and behold, there they were: America's values. The designers of all of America's money -- paper and coin -- had been telling me and every other American for well over a century what America stood for. And I hadn't noticed:

"Liberty," "In God We Trust," and "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many, One").

No other country has proclaimed these three values as its primary values.

"Liberty" means the individual must be as free as possible. And this is only possible when the state and government are as small as possible. The freer the state is to do what it wants, the less free the citizen is to do what he wants. In sum, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

"In God We Trust" means that a good society is only possible when the great majority of its citizens feel morally accountable to a God that is morally judging and a religion that is morally demanding. If men are to be free, they must control themselves. And if a moral religion doesn't control them, the state will try to. If men are not God-fearing, they will be state-fearing. And, as I show repeatedly in the book, every American founder believed that. Even the so-called "deists."

This is one reason why, as America and Europe have become more and more secular, the state has become more and more powerful.

"E Pluribus Unum" means that whatever one's race or ethnicity, everyone who becomes a citizen of America is to be regarded first and foremost as a fellow American. This explains why America has assimilated people of every background more rapidly and successfully than any other country in the world. Because E Pluribus Unum means that race and ethnicity don't matter.

The "unum" also means that all Americans embrace their American identity. Ethical nationalism -- a nationalism that is rooted in liberty and God-based morality -- is part of the American values system -- and it is eminently exportable. We who believe in American values not only want other nations to retain their national identity, we want them to celebrate it. The more Australian Australians feel, the better. That so many young Brits no longer strongly identify as British is one of the reasons for Britain's decline.

These magnificent American values are applicable to virtually every society in the world. But Americans cannot export values they do not themselves know or believe in. And that is why I have devoted so many years to writing "Still the Best Hope." Because Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that America is the "last best hope of earth." It was true in 1862. And it is true today.

It's a great book.

Pick up a copy here: Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.

Top Strategist David Axelrod Claims GOP Seizing on Obama's 'Out of Context' Comments to Avoid Jobs Debate

The full clip is below.

And O's comments weren't taken out of comments. My god, man. This is just getting sorrowful.

At The Hill, "Axelrod: GOP seizing on 'doing fine' remark to avoid jobs debate."

Also at Hot Air, "Video: Axelrod dodges CNN question on “private sector doing fine” … three times" (via Memeorandum).

Priorities USA Doubles-Down With Romney Bain Attacks, Despite Evidence They Don't Work

The New York Times has the report: "Pro-Obama Super PAC Up With New Bain Attack."

But see Reuters earlier: "Attacks over Bain Capital don't stop Romney's rise in polls." And also Dana Blanton at Fox, "Fox News Poll: Obama more trusted on terrorism, Romney on economy."

It's pretty bad. More from Chris Stirewalt, "Obama Stakes His Re-Election on Bain Attacks":

“So to repeat, this is not a distraction.  This is what this campaign is going to be about.”

-- President Obama at a press conference in Chicago when asked about the misgivings of his fellow Democrats over attack ads his campaign is running against Republican Mitt Romney’s work as the CEO of private equity firm Bain Capital.

President Obama mounted a vigorous defense of his campaign’s spring offensive against Republican Mitt Romney’s record as the CEO of Bain Capital, a Boston-based firm that specializes in trying to turn around failing companies.

Obama argued at a press conference in Chicago that his escalating attacks on Romney, whom the campaign has dubbed a “vampire” for making profits as workers were being laid off, are not petty politics but part of a larger debate about economic fairness.
That’s no doubt true. The relevant question is whether that can work.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus quipped over the weekend in Michigan that Obama was running a “Seinfeld campaign,” saying, “It’s the campaign about nothing.” But in Chicago, Obama again laid out what his re-election bid is all about: tearing down the wealthy and powerful individuals whom the president says take advantage of the little people.
It’s very much a return to the pre-Clinton era of the Democratic Party and its New Deal roots. It is certainly no change for Obama.

Recall that in the heaviest fighting of the 2008 Democratic primaries, Obama launched very similar attacks against Hillary Clinton over her family’s wealth and how she and her husband amassed it. Obama’s campaign and a sympathetic press corps hounded the Clintons for more disclosures and suggestions that the post-presidency fortune made by Bill Clinton was ill-gotten.

The argument then, as it is now against Romney, was that the Clintons had gamed the system to profit at the expense of others. And since Obama was running a campaign centered on a repudiation of Clintonian centrism for the party, it was a perfect fit. As Hillary Clinton clawed her way back into contention, Obama escalated the attacks on her wealth and in doing so reminded Democrats of their previous misgivings about Bubba, whom the party’s base always found a little too cozy with rich dudes.

Obama in 2007: 'I'll Walk on That Picket Line With You' if Workers Are Denied Collectively Bargaining

But he didn't walk with them. He tweeted it in.

And some folks are denying that Obama's just killing the Democrat Party?

More at Director Blue: "We are now watching the Democrat Party implode, right before our eyes" (via Memeorandum).

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Theo's, "Cartoon Round Up..." And Reaganite, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies."

BONUS: At Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies 6-10-12."

'Obama Girl' Amber Lee Ettinger Throws Obama Under the Bus!

Via Legal Insurrection, "It made you happy, but it was that bad."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Not this time! 'Obama Girl’ from 2008 campaign won't endorse President second time around."

Added, this comment board has a nice pic of Miss Amber.

Father's Day Gifts at Amazon.com

If you're doing some shopping online, check the links.

Father's Day is next Sunday:

Mitt Romney Ad Hammers Obama on 'Fine' Comments

Via Theo Spark:

Paul Krugman Keynote Address to Netroots Nation: Empty Message Delivered to Empty House

TPM has a report, "Paul Krugman: If You Don’t Know Someone Suffering Financially, You Must Be a Romney." (At Memeorandum.)

But check Gateway Pundit, who was on hand, "Bummer… Lib Genius Paul Krugman Gives Netroots Speech – To Empty Room":

Liberal genius and NY Times propagandist, Paul Krugman, was slated to speak today at Netroots 2012. Unfortunately, he wasn’t quite the draw they were hoping for. The room was empty.

Jewish Alinskyites

A great piece, from Caroline Glick, "Defeating the Jewish Alinskyites":

Saul Alinsky, the godfather of subversive radical political action, had a very clear strategy for undermining and destroying his enemies: Infiltrate, divide and destroy.

Since his disciple Barack Obama was elected US president in 2008, Alinsky's impact on Obama has received a fair amount of attention.

Less noticed has been the adoption of Alinsky's methods by radical leftist Jews in the US and Israel for the purpose of undermining the American Jewish community on the one hand, and Israel's nationalist camp on the other. This week we saw the impact of both campaigns.

The striking weakness of the American Jewish community was exposed on Tuesday with the Democratic primary defeat of Rep. Steve Rothman in New Jersey. In Israel we saw the impact of the campaign to undermine and destroy the nationalist camp with the defeat of the proposed legislation aimed at saving the doomed Givat Haulpana neighborhood in Bet El.

Ahead of the 2008 US presidential elections, the anti-Israel pressure group J Street made a sudden appearance. Claiming to be pro-Israel, the anti-Israel lobby set about neutralizing the power of the American Jewish community by undermining community solidarity. And it has succeeded brilliantly.

Rothman is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel. His defeat at the polls in New Jersey by Rep. Bill Pascrell owed in large part to openly anti-Semitic activism by Pascrell's Muslim supporters.

According to an investigative report of the primary campaign by the Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo, in February Pascrell's Muslim supporters began castigating Rothman and his supporters as disloyal Americans beholden only to Israel.

Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, published a column in the Newark Star Ledger titled, "Rothman is Israel's Man in District 9." He wrote, "As total and blind support becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America's [flag]."

These deeply bigoted allegations against Rothman and his supporters were not challenged by Pascrell. Pascrell also did not challenge Arabic-language campaign posters produced by his supporters enjoining the "Arab diaspora community" to elect Pascrell, "the friend of the Arabs." The poster touted the race as "the most important election in the history of the [Arab American] community."

Rather than challenge these anti-Semitic attacks, Pascrell enthusiastically courted the Muslim vote in his district.

Pascrell was a signatory to what became known as the "Gaza-54 letter." Spearheaded by J Street, the 2010 letter, signed by 54 Democratic congressmen, called on Obama to put pressure on Israel to end its "collective punishment" of residents of Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Pascrell's race was far from the only recent instance of anti-Semitism being employed by Democratic candidates to win their elections. In Connecticut's 2006 Democratic Senate primary, anti-Semitic slurs and innuendos were prominent features of Ned Lamont's successful race against Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Defeated in his party's primary, Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent. He owed his reelection to Republican support.

Continue reading.

Matt Hagan's Drag Car Explodes at 260mph

Man, this is an amazing clip --- and the dude walks away without a scratch!

At London's Daily Mail, "Drag racer's miracle escape from fireball as car blows apart at 260mph."

Tories Set to Repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

A victory for freedom of speech in Canada.

At the National Post, "Tories repeal sections of Human Rights Act banning hate speech over telephone or Internet." And see Jonathan Kay, "Good riddance to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act":

Five years ago, during testimony in the case of Warman v. Lemire, Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) investigator Dean Steacy was asked “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?” His response: “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

Those words produced outrage. But there was a grain of truth to what Mr. Steacy said: For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups. All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of “human rights.”

That was then. Now, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the enabling legislation that permits federal human-rights complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet,” is doomed. On Wednesday, the federal Conservatives voted to repeal it on a largely party-line vote — by a margin of 153 to 136 — through a private member’s bill introduced by Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth. Following royal assent, and a one-year phase-in period, Section 13 will be history....

Till the middle part of the last decade, the Canadian punditariat was dominated by professional columnists who were socially, ideologically, and sometimes professionally, beholden to the academics, politicians, and old-school activists (from Jewish groups, in particular) who’d championed the human-rights industry since its inception in the 1960s. But in the latter years of Liberal governance, a vigorous network of right-wing bloggers, led by Ezra Levant, began publicizing the worst abuses of human-rights mandarins, including the aforementioned Dean Steacy. In absolute numbers, the readership of their blogs was small at first. But their existence had the critical function of building up a sense of civil society among anti-speech-code activists, who gradually pulled the mainstream media along with them. In this sense, Mr. Levant deserves to be recognized as one of the most influential activists in modern Canadian history.

And at Blazing Cat Fur, "Mark Steyn: Re-Education Camp."

Will People STFU About How Brett Kimberlin Affair is 'Non-Partisan'? This is an Epic Partisan Battle Over How 'Free Speech' Will Be Defined

Sorry to ruffle feathers here, but I'm going to dissent from some folks who continue exhorting bloggers "to resist the partisan urge" to turn the Kimberlin saga into a left vs. right political war. Patterico, bless him, has repeatedly stressed that right-wing activism against Kimberlin is not "a partisan issue." That's noble sentiment, but naive. Brett Kimberlin and his allies are attacking conservatives. With the exception of Seth Allen (who was one of Kimberlin's first victims) and a few sympathetic progressive voices online, the Kimberlin network has been silencing conservatives who have dared to speak out as a matter of free speech.

I'm not by any means discounting the importance of conservatives promoting the better angels of their nature.  It's simply that I see virtually no evidence, outside of the couple of random left-wing voices I mentioned, of progressives attempting to reciprocally elevate this battle to the preservation of everybody's rights to freedom of speech. More often than not, conservatives are being mocked mercilessly as whining little babies, or even blamed for organizing a lynch mob to terrorize "social justice" activists. Martin Longman made no attempt to hide his utter disdain for conservatives in a post this week, basically arguing that they had it coming. No More Mister Nice Blog has repeatedly argued that it was important to deny conservatives a political win. That's to be expected, right? These idiots are hardcore progressive partisans and to them it's high time for a comeuppance against the right. Okay, fine, but I'm hard pressed to find countervailing voices on the left championing the free speech rights of "everybody." It just ain't happening.

As I reported after Wisconsin, one of the major goals of the Democrat Party is the suppression of conservative speech. Such top figures as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are advocating for a constitutional amendment to limit political speech. I'm surprised it's necessary to say this, but PELOSI IS NOT KIDDING. And believe you me she's got plenty of backers for her bid to crush the voices of the right. The left will not tolerate dissent from its agenda. When it can't win using conventional political means, it resorts to thuggery, intimidation, and government extremism to silence dissent.

Since Aaron Worthing was arrested in Maryland (discussed by Matthew Vadum at the clip above), we've been seeing an outpouring of support for Brett Kimberlin on the left. If there was ever a chance to stand up for free speech, Worthing's case is it. Recall that Worthing's alleged crime was simply providing legal assistance to Kimberlin-target Seth Allen --- and then having the temerity to blog about it. Take a look at this piece from Legal Schnauzer, for example, "Liberal Activist Brett Kimberlin Engages Right Wingers In a Battle of High-Stakes Hard Ball."

One of my ongoing concerns with Democrats is that too many of them are timid, distracted, disorganized, and generally wussy.

Liberal activist Brett Kimberlin is none of those things, and that apparently is why the radical right has launched an extraordinary online jihad against him. In a delicious example of "turnabout is fair play," Kimberlin has used right wingers' tactics against them--causing the recent arrest of one thug, the outing of another as a criminal, and the transmission of a notice to others that they face possible legal action.

According to press reports, Kimberlin has some troubling incidents in his past. But by all accounts that I can find, he has served his punishment for any misdeed. And as a target of right-wing thugs myself, I can't help but admire Kimberlin's spunk--and his effectiveness.

Kimberlin actually has right wingers whining that he is using the court process against them. As a resident of Alabama who has held a front-row seat for the Bush-era political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, I can only marvel at the hypocrisy of conservatives claiming that the justice system is not working in their favor.

Right-wing bloggers have become so exorcised about Kimberlin that about 150 of them recently launched an "Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day." They even got Fox News and ABC News to cover the story and enlisted the help of such conservative luminaries as U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), author Michelle Malkin, and attorney Jay Sekulow in battling Kimberlin.

Anybody who can cause that many conservative panties to get into a bunch must be doing something right. So we decided to take a closer look at Brett Kimberlin and how he managed to rile the far right into a state of mass hysteria.

See what I mean? You can continue reading at the link, but the main point to note is that Kimberlin is the kinda fighter that progressives are looking for --- someone, not a "wussy," who can get conservatives "into a bunch." Never mind that Kimberlin's targets are not Democrat governors but generally small-time bloggers who must bear enormous costs to defend themselves. If someone like Kimberlin takes out people on the right, hey, let's pump it up as a model to emulate. For example, check out this diary at Daily Kos, "Profiles in Activism: Brett Kimberlin." You've gotta love it:

Brett Kimberlin is the founder of Justice Through Music, a non-profit organization that "uses famous musicians and bands to organize, educate, and activate young people about the importance of civil rights, human rights and voting".  This is a great cause and they're doing wonderful things over there with the young people.  The Justice Through Music website has some really powerful music videos on the subject of Bush torture and bigotry toward gay-marriage.

But more important is his Activist organization, Velvet Revolution. This is Change you can believe in!  Just two days ago, he won another victory, jailing right-wing hate spewer Aaron Walker for his venom. Kimberlin helped create Brietbart Unmasked, a fantastic website about what a piece of shit asshole motherfucker he was.  Velvet Revolution is also geared toward young adults of the Occupy generation, the future of this country.

Kimberlin has been very effective at countering the right-wing hate spewing machine.  Robert Stacey McCain (no relation but just as fascist) decided to attack him for his Activism with children for Justice.  Lets just say Robert Stacey McCain is on the run these days.  Erick Erickson of CNN fame got a nice little knock on the door. Seth Allen get the message as well.  This is what Activists do, shutting down hate speech one individual at a time.  If Brett Kimberlin can make a difference by himself, we all can.

Of course, with success comes more attacks, and of course the racist GOP is attacking Kimberlin for teaching Civil Rights to children.  On June 6, Senator Saxby Chambliss requested that Attorney General Eric Holder investigate Kimberlin and his non-profit education organization.  Activists should expect such attacks from racists when teaching Civil Rights, but you can trust the masters like Kimberlin to handle it.

Like Activists such as Brandon "Skabby" Baxter and Bill Ayers, Brett Kimberlin began his Activist career with explosives.  Being a true master of Alinsky's wise advice of "using your enemies rules against them", Kimberlin actually bought explosives while impersonating a DOD official (wow).  In 1978, he was accused by the fascist corporate police of murdering a co-worker.

Activists act. Kimberlin began a string of six bombings over the next few days, eventually taking a man's legs off.  He was convicted of bombing, attempted murder, perjury, drug trafficking, and impersonation of a federal officer, and sentenced to 51 years in prison.

An Activist's job is constant, and imprisonment was no obstacle for Kimberlin.  In 1988, he made news on NPR, admitting that he had sold marijuana to then Vice President Dan Quayle, a major revelation sending shock waves through the highest levels of the racist GOP.  From prision, ce coordinated with other Activists to continue the bombings to prove his innocence.

He studied how to use the system against his enemies, and used the legal system to his advantage.  By 1992, he had filed over 100 motions and lawsuits against his hate-spewing opponents, including some people he bombed. In 1994, after 13 years of unjust imprisonment, a wise Judge recognized Kimberlin for his Activism and released him on parole.

Continue reading.

For progressives, Brett Kimberlin's entire life of crime and deceit is justified in the name of destroying political opponents. For this Daily Kos diarist, even a campaign of domestic terrorism is justified --- and the "SWAT-ting" of folks like Erick Erickson is described as a "nice knock on the door." Even the innocents Kimberlin bombed are ridiculed as "hate-spewing opponents"

So I'll say it again: Folks need to just STFU about how this is all about "everybody's" free speech. It's not. It's ultimately a war over how "free speech" is defined and who's speech will be protected. Conservatives advocate fidelity to the First Amendment on principled grounds. Free speech is a birthright as an American, for friends and foe alike. For progressives, protected speech is advocacy that advances the leftist agenda, the agenda of state-building and raw power. Anyone who speaks out against that is branded a racist and criminal. This is someone who has to be silenced. The left will wage "lawfare" to do it, and if they have the power they'll change the laws to criminalize dissent and incarcerate opponents.

Does that sound extreme? It's not. Just take a look at Michelle Malkin's report out today, "Bloggers under fire: Arizona conservative lawyer/activist targeted by left-wing Arizona State Bar." (Via Memeorandum.) Folks can read the whole thing, but Michelle nails it at the conclusion:

Make no mistake: This is just another nasty battle in the Left’s long war to marginalize, demonize, and criminalize conservative dissent. The selective protection of free speech is unconscionable. The freedom to blog is under assault on so many fronts. It has to stop.

It is unconscionable. And I think it's equally unconscionable for people to minimize the partisan implications of the fight by holding progressives to a "better angel" standard that is not in their nature. I'll update my views when I see some of the heavyweights on the left standing up for people like Aaron Worthing and Patrick Frey. Maybe we'll see a few Democrats come out next week in favor of a Justice Department investigation of the SWAT-tings. I'll make note of it if they do. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath.

Imperial Irrigation District Director Anthony Sanchez, 34, Arrested on Suspicion of Felony Child Abuse After Video Shows Him Beating Stepson With Belt

The dude's whipping the kid like a dog.

Jeez.

At London's Daily Mail, "Man filmed whipping his son during game of catch arrested for child abuse."

Spain Gets €100 Billion to Save Banking System

At Telegraph UK, "Debt crisis: Spain bows to €100bn bank bailout":

Spain paved the way for a €100bn (£81bn) bail-out of its stricken banking sector on Saturday night as European leaders moved to bring a halt to the continued economic malaise hurting the eurozone.

The troubled country – the fourth-largest economy in the eurozone – said it would ask for a capital injection once the full extent of its banking problems were known.

In an early-evening speech in Madrid, finance minister Luis de Guindos said it would request assistance “for those banks that need it”.

He denied that it was a rescue of the Spanish economy as a whole, but rather “financial support” for the banks concerned.

Mr De Guindos said the amount eventually requested would depend on the capital required by banks, plus a “significant margin”. Euro area finance ministers confirmed that the amount could be up to €100bn.

Also at Business Week, "Spain Seeks EU’s Fourth Bailout With $125 Billion Request," and the New York Times, "Spain to Accept Rescue From Europe for Its Ailing Banks."

The news isn't surprising to me. I've been blogging on this for weeks. See: "Europe on the Brink of Collapse."

Conservatives Block Homosexual Marriage Law in Washington State

And this has radical leftists shitting bricks.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Washington state same-sex marriage opponents file to block new law."

SEATTLE -- Washington state’s same-sex marriage law was blocked from taking effect Wednesday when opponents submitted more than 230,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the measure — opening yet another contentious battleground for one of the nation’s most divisive issues.

State officials are expected to determine this week whether the measure qualifies for the fall ballot. Opponents of the law, passed on a bipartisan vote by the state Legislature in February, said they believe Washington voters will defeat the measure, joining every other state that has put the issue to a public vote.

“Thirty-two states have voted on this issue. No states have voted to redefine marriage. People think this country is divided down the middle on this issue, and that’s simply not true,” Christopher Plante, spokesman for Preserve Marriage Washington, said in an interview.

“The fact of the matter is, if you look at what Americans have done, from the deepest blue states like Maine, California and Wisconsin to the Bible Belt, when they’ve had a chance to define marriage as one-man, one woman, that’s what they’ve done,” he said.

More at the link, where you can see the freaked-out comments from the gay rights extremists.

Preserve Marriage has the background on the law should it go into effect, "The Threat to Marriage":

Marriage Would Be Redefined For Everyone

Contrary to what some people think, same-sex 'marriage' would not exist in the law alongside traditional marriage; as if it were a different expression of the same marriage institution they have always known. Marriage will be redefined for everyone. Our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman would be replaced by a new paradigm for marriage as the union of two people, regardless of gender.

Genderless Marriage the Only Legally Recognized Definition

This new, redefined version of marriage as a genderless institution would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage in Washington. Such a radical change in the definition of marriage will produce a host of societal conflicts that government - exercising its enormous enforcement powers - will have to resolve. Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs, traditions, morals or ethnic upbringing are at odds with the new definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not act according to the new legal orthodoxy.

Not a 'Live and Let Live' Issue

Legal experts on both sides of the marriage debate agree that the issue has profound impacts on society. Scholars from some of the nation's most respected law schools have written that the issue implicates a host of issues, ranging from religious liberty, to individual expression of faith, to education and the professions.

For example, these legal scholars predict 'a sea of change in American law,' and foretell an 'immense' volume of litigation against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations.

Racists and Bigots?

Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs. This is already occurring elsewhere:

Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.
Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies.

Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.)

Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction.

Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Christian innkeepers in Vermont and Illinois are being sued over their refusal to make their facilities available for same-sex weddings despite offers to refer the couples to other providers and in spite of the deeply-held religious views of the inn-keepers.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse 'marriage therapy' to a same-sex couple because she doesn't believe in gay marriage. She'd put her licensure at risk.

Those people - a strong majority of Washington voters - who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex 'marriages' would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.

The Needs of Children Take Second Place to the Desires of Adults

Perhaps most importantly, SB 6239 shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don't matter (especially fathers) - any two 'parents' will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father - that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children. And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct.

The Deconstruction of Marriage

An example of how SB 6239 contributes to the deconstruction of marriage is its provision decreeing that 'husbands' can be women and 'wives' can be men. Any person with an ounce of common sense knows this is not true!

When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase in female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married parents.

Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time - marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

And notice how the New York Times frames the issue: "Opponents of Gay Marriage Face Tougher Test in Washington State."

RELATED: At Rolling Stone, "The Fight for Marriage Equality Moves to State Ballots."

That's good!

PREVIOUSLY: "Coming to America: The Crackdown Against Considered and Empathetic Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage."

Long Overdue Minka Kelly Rule 5

It's been awhile, but longtime readers may remember Minka Kelly.

See: "Minka Kelly — Esquire's Sexiest Woman Alive 2010."

And now here's the latest on this fine lady at London's Daily Mail, "How low can she go? Minka Kelly switches from Angel to vixen in daring purple gown."

CNN's Don Lemon Interviews Erick Erickson on 'SWAT-ting' of Conservatives

I promised an update earlier, so here you go:

EXTRA: I think this is related to Ace's magnum post yesterday on Kimberlin, but not sure. Either way, this is interesting, "Comments Are Disabled Until Further Notice":

I apologize to most commenters.

Jimmah, however, has decided to set blog policy for me, and several others have decided to challenge me on the point as well.

I will have to end commenting until I can figure out how to ban them.

This is precisely how I wanted to spend my Friday night.

I know that everyone else -- everyone else -- was of course pleasant and wonderful as usual.

But there are some who just enjoy sabotage and fragging.

I don't know how to fix it at the moment, so I'm going to possibly simply destroy the blog by letting it go dark.

But I don't know what else to do.

You expect to be knifed in the front by your enemies. It's too much to be knifed in the back as well.

Again, I realize most people understand without being told.

My mistake here is thinking some people will understand if told -- no, the sort of person that doesn't know until told also won't know after he's told....

You can be stubborn about a lot of things, but when you get stubborn over another man's right to make his livelhood as he believes right, and to protect himself and his family as best he knows how, you've gotten stubborn about the wrong thing, and the last thing.

Well, that sure sounds familiar.

Some people are so persistently evil it really does mess up how you live you life. I'd say it's incredible, but after a while it's not.

Nude Protesters Flood the Streets in Montreal!

It's no joke.

See Worldwide Hippies, "Naked protesters flood Quebec streets before start of Montreal F1 Grand Prix."

Also at the National Post, "Naked protesters flood Quebec streets before start of Montreal F1 Grand Prix," and "Quebec tuition protesters clash with Grand Prix partiers in Montreal."

And of course, the obligatory left-wing death threats, at Telegraph UK, "Jacques Villeneuve receives death threats after criticising protesting students ahead of Montreal Grand Prix."

Residents in West Bend, Wisconsin, Fear for Safety After Recall Election

Gee, I wonder who could be sending out these letters of intimidation?

At WISN-TV Milwaukee, "Nasty letter circulates after recall election."

Smell of Death Lingers After Syrian Massacre

Here's the horrible headline at Syria's Day Press News: "UN Observers: Smell of Death Lingers & Grisly Sight at Syrian Village."

And see Telegraph UK, "Video purports to show Syria massacre aftermath":

UN and amateur footage shows bloody sheets, human and animal remains, and a distraught woman in the deserted village of Mazraat al-Qubeir where 78 people were reportedly massacred.

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Syria conflict spirals closer to all-out war":

BEIRUT — Bullet-pocked homes and bloodstained walls. Shell casings littering the ground in a ghost town still smoldering from the onslaught.

A United Nations observer team on Friday finally reached the site of Syria's latest apparent massacre, a now-abandoned farming village where opposition activists accuse pro-government forces of killing dozens of civilians this week in an artillery bombardment and grisly door-to-door executions.

"Young children, infants, my brother, his wife and seven children … all dead," said a grieving man in a video distributed by the U.N. "I will show you the blood. They burned his house."

The U.N.-led effort to negotiate an end to the fighting in Syria is a shambles, leaving a seemingly irreconcilable stalemate. In the absence of any meaningful moves toward peace, the conflict is evolving into the gruesome sectarian conflict that many have long feared.

President Bashar Assad cannot agree to the plan's core requirements — that he withdraw forces from populated areas and allow people to protest freely — without almost certainly losing his grip on power. He has made some concessions to the international community while trying to impose order by force of arms, with increasingly bloody results.

The emboldened opposition, backed by Washington and many Arab nations, has no intention of entering into a dialogue with Assad. Some elements of the fractured rebel militia movement have already declared that the peace plan, being pressed by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is dead.

"Where is Annan?" has become a familiar refrain on opposition videos of government assaults on rebel-held towns and villages.

Each side in the conflict is bolstered by its international backers. The United States and its allies insist Assad must go. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Stockholm this week that Assad's departure was not a precondition for talks, "but it should be an outcome."

But Russia, feeling burned by the Western-led bombing campaign last year that helped rebels oust longtime Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, refuses to accept what it sees as an effort to force "regime change" on Syria, its longtime ally and key trading partner.

Efforts to alter Russia's stance have proved futile. Meanwhile, the Obama administration and its allies show little appetite for military intervention in Syria...

Naturally.

It's just a reminder of how politically expedient was U.S. intervention in Libya.

PREVIOUSLY: "Time for U.S. Military Action in Syria."

Coming to America: The Crackdown Against Considered and Empathetic Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

Michael Coren is discussing gay marriage in Canada, but he might was well be describing the U.S.

See: "Canadian Crackdown":

A considered and empathetic opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with phobia or hatred, but that doesn’t stop Christians, conservatives, and anybody else who doesn’t take the fashionable line from being condemned as Neanderthals and bigots. This is a lesson that Canadians have learned from painful experience.

Same-sex marriage became law in Canada in the summer of 2005, making the country the fourth nation to pass such legislation, and the first in the English-speaking world. In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

Although precise figures about gay marriages in Canada are elusive, there are thought to be fewer than 30,000, after an initial surge of around 10,000 as soon as the law was passed. But if large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics. Again, definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign. The case is still under appeal, in human-rights commissions and, potentially, the courts.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as “Red Fred” because of his support for the labor movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial.

In the neighboring province of Saskatchewan, another case illustrates the intolerance that has become so regular since 2005. A number of marriage commissioners (state bureaucrats who administer civil ceremonies) were contacted by a gay man eager to marry his partner under the new legislation. Some officials he telephoned were away from town or already engaged, and the first one to take his call happened to be an evangelical Christian, who explained that he had religious objections to carrying out the ceremony but would find someone who would. He did so, gave the name to the man wanting to get married, and assumed that this would be the end of the story.

But no. Even though the gay couple had had their marriage, they decided to make an official complaint and demand that the commissioner be reprimanded and punished. The provincial government argued that, as a servant of the state, he had a duty to conduct state policy, but that any civilized public entity could accept that such a fundamentally radical change in marriage policy was likely to cause division, and that as long as alternative and reasonable arrangements could be made and nobody was inconvenienced, they would not discipline their employee for declining to marry same-sex couples. Anybody hired after 2004 would have to agree to conduct such marriages, they continued, but to insist on universal approval so soon after the change would lead to a large number of dismissals, often of people who had given decades of public service. This seemed an intelligent and balanced compromise. Yet the provincial courts disagreed, and commissioners with theological objections are now facing the loss of their jobs, with the situation replicated in other provinces and also at the federal level.

BONUS: Here's Pat Buchanan talking to Megyn Kelly a couple of weeks ago. Buchanan delivered the famous "culture war" speech to the 1992 RNC Convention. I don't agree with Buchanan on foreign policy and Israel, but few people have a better handle on the radical politics of gay marriage in the U.S.

'The Other McCain' Gets 10 Million Hits!

Robert Stacy McCain has a special event today: "TEN MILLION HITS! and Presenting … Our Top 20 Most Commented Posts."

And now more than ever, here's pulling for 10 million more.

(Check the archives, to catch my drift: "The Kimberlin Files.")

UPDATE: The Daley Gator comments, "Ten Million hits? Now The Other McCain is just showing off."

The Daley Gator is pushing 2 million hits. Here at AmPower, I'm pushing 4 million. Should reach that milestone sometime around late-September or October. If not, that means I'm slackin'!

MORE: From Evil Blogger Lady, "Congratulations to The Other McCain on its 10 millionth hit!"

Ernie Brown Jr. — a.k.a. 'Turtleman'

I mentioned that we'd been watching Animal Planet a couple of weeks back.

Well as "Monster Week" was winding down, my wife started watching "Call of the Wildman," and you gotta admit that this guy "Turtleman" is something else. He was interviewed on Fox & Friends this morning:

Scenes From Netroots Nation: Daily Kos 'A-Team' Relaxes Before Posting High-Impact Campaign Exposé at the Front Page

And these people mock conservatives as geeks?

My god!

See: "Netroots Nation 2012: Cheers & Jeers Dinner."

You can't make this stuff up --- and I didn't even RTWT!

I mean seriously, these idiots are making fun of Dana Loesch for her shoes?!!

ZOMG! Check the links and scroll down for all the gutbusting lulz!

Erick Erickson 'SWAT-ting' Case Featured at CNN

CNN had a couple of segments up yesterday. I'll post Don Lemon's interview with Erick Erickson later. This one's more of a straight news report:

Also, there's word out that at least 70 Members of Congress will call on Attorney General Holder to probe SWAT-ting attacks on conservatives.

RELATED: I had a lengthy Twitter exchange yesterday with Martin Longman, publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman (Booman) holds a really bad grudge over the Graeme Frost CHIPs controversy from 2007, which  partially explains why he went after Michelle Malkin in particularat his post mocking Friday's day of silence for conservatives. I kept pushing Longman (Booman) to update his post to apologize for not taking progressive attacks on conservative bloggers seriously. His response was to spam me with links and quotes about how HORRIBLE the right treated the Frost family, which was back when the Dems controlled the House. Poor guy. Here's his post: "National Day of Blogger Silence Joke."

Plus, I want to link Mandy Nagy's post one more time, it's so good, "National Day of Blogger Silence."

Dear Brett Kimberlin,

I learned about you in 2010, and I wrote this article about you on October 11, 2010.

Flashback: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist

You wanted me to shut up then, and you threatened to sue me.

Liberty Chick Threatened With Lawsuit

I did not go quiet.  And when you hit the radar again, as did you and your friends’ tactics, I didn’t shut up then, either.

As Hacked ChamberLeaks Emails Break, Left Scrambles to Hide Ties to Domestic Terrorist

Since then, you’ve done everything you could to try and shut me up, including falsely accusing me of crimes and inserting me into lawsuits.  And threatening even more lawsuits, based on more false accusations.  Your associates have bragged for a year that their relentless harassment of me, my family and those friends close to me has been all for your benefit. They have hounded people that I work with, trying to get me fired. They have defamed me repeatedly with false accusations of everything from drug use to murder.  They know every detail of my private life and they share it with the world.  They have terrorized me and others and tried to make us fear for our lives.  They, and you, have terrorized us long enough.

Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, and Their Campaign of Political Terrorism

Today, I go silent.  But that does not mean that I do not act. I take action.  And you should, too...

And conservatives were so hard on Graeme Frost!

Check Mandy's post for all the links.

Thank You Hater!

Dedicated to Über-Hater Walter James Casper III, who continues his leftist campaign of hate-trolling (and concern-trolling!) wherever conservatives might be gathering.

Via Ladd Ehlinger Jr.:

April Rose Maximum Exposure

Like I said, she's a lovely woman:

'Landslide'

The featured song yesteday, at Midnight Blue:

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Featured on CNN

She's a great lady:

RELATED: At Politico, "Romney taps McMorris Rodgers as top House surrogate."

Kimberlin-Tied 'Breitbart Unmasked' Targets Jeff Dunetz at 'Yid With Lid'

Jeff Dunetz reports, "Kimberlin's Cronies Go After The Lid" (via Memeorandum):

As I mentioned earlier this week today has been declared a national day of blogger silence/action to protect blogger freedom of speech. Since Ace suggested we use today to urge congress protect free speech the day has taken on more significance to me personally, yesterday

I was added to the attack list as the site BrietbartUnmasked which is run by Brett Kimberlin or his cronies started posting horrible internet slanders about me. Stacy McCain calls ”Breitbart Unmasked” Not Brett Kimberlinbecause of the claim that Kimberlin is not behind the site. If the proprietor of the site isn't Kimberlin or one of his cronies than it must be some sort of psychic because the nameless blogger running Brietbart unmasked posted details of the Kimberlin/Mrs. McCain incident , which "The Other McCain" has never discussed in public or published.

It started Monday evening when Brooks Bayne was being attacked by always-crazy Debbie Schlussel as an anti-Semite. As regular readers of this site know it really bothers me when people are falsely accused of Jew hatred so I began to defend him. This launched a barrage of hatred from Schulssel and her followers.

Rather than debate the reasons why we disagreed about Brooksbayne, they started tweeting links to Internet slanders, originally made about me over seven years ago. These lies included charges about me being a sexual predator, using hookers, etc.

Continue reading.

I've known Jeff for some time, first online, when he was still going by "Sammy Benoit," and then later in person at CPAC 2011. Jeff has discussed his past on the blog, so whatever allegations the Kimberlin people have, they aren't new. They're simply smearing Jeff for standing up against a gang of criminal harassers.

See also Liberty Chick's "synopsis" of the Kimberlin-linked campaign to destroy her.

BONUS: A great post from Zilla of the Resistance, "Silent Like a Carpet Bombing."

Elizabeth Warren Staffer Attacks Conservative Blogger Anne Sorock!

I would say "I can't believe it," except I totally can!

An aide to Elizabeth Warren swatted Anne Sorock's camera out of the way --- that is a physical attack on a citizen legally in her rights to video a congressional candidate in public.

This video is gold! No wonder the Daily Kos thugs are out to destroy Anne!

See Legal Insurrection, "Elizabeth Warren dodges questions at Netroots Nation – security guards block me":

As I was leaving the conference, I saw Warren once more as she entered a nearby hotel. I asked her if she’s a “role model to women of color?” Her staffer obstructed my camera and Warren ignored my question once again.

She physically obstructed the camera, with a swatting motion. That is serious!

PREVIOUSLY: "Daily Kos Targets Conservative Blogger Anne Sorock."

From @AceofSpadesHQ: It's Time for Congress to Stop Brett Kimberlin's Reign of Terror

I was looking for this early this morning, saw nothing, and kept checking back.

And now it's up.

From Ace of Spades HQ, an untitled essay, and call to action, on Brett Kimberlin's campaign of domestic terrorism.

It's ongoing and he has to be stopped.

I'll have more later. There's a lot of news on the story.

Obama Retracts Claim That the 'Private Sector's Doing Fine'

This is funny.

At the New York Times, "Obama Backs Away From ‘Fine’ Comment."

And the RNC is rapidly responding in supreme rapid response fashion:

More at the Lonely Conservative, with the link to the president's video comments: "Obama to Congress “Do As I Say!” and “The Private Sector is Doing Fine!”" (Via Memeorandum.)

Daily Kos Targets Conservative Blogger Anne Sorock

I commented at Anne Sorock's post yesterday, at Legal Insurrection: "Netroots Indian speakers defend Elizabeth Warren even if not really Cherokee."

There's video at the link.

Anne reported how the Daily Kos netroots nuts came after her like a swift plague. And now blog publisher William Jacobson updates, "Breitbart lives in the heads of Netroots Nation protectors of Elizabeth Warren":

Read the comments to the Kos article — it’s pretty much what you would expect and then some.  There were demands to ruin Anne’s career, calls to confront her if she reappeared at Netroots Nation, information about her including links to her non-profit research entity, and threats to use “black bloc” tactics on her.

But it didn’t stop there, another author at Kos posted another entry posting more information about Anne, and suggesting that she is racist.  Is also included this request for Kos readers to try to manipulate Google search algorithms:

May I ask that each individual who feels compelled to respond to this diary to be sure and spell out Anne Sorock’s name when referring to her inane behavior. This will allow the diary to better “brand” her ridiculous actions when individuals use the net to try to find out what sort of individual she truly is. Thank you.

As if that were not enough, yet a third Kos author posted about Anne:

The technique comes to attention as breitbarting moves beyond Breitbart’s own “Big” websites and O’Keefe’s antics, this time at the Netroot Nation conference in Providence, RI. Someone named Anne Sorock attended a panel with the express purpose of embarrassing Native American panelists with a question concerning Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry. She was exposed in the midst of her attempt, but posted her story anyway. As usual with breitbarters, she manipulated the event she wrote about both in words and in selective editing.

Why are the Kos folks so upset?  All Anne did was ask a question which they should be asking, why won’t Elizabeth Warren apologize for falsely claiming to be Cherokee?

These are typically Alynsky tactics — try to isolate the person and personalize the attacks.  Rather than address the progressive failure to confront Warren, they try to change the topic and make it all about Anne.

According to each of the Kos authors and many of the commenters,  what Anne did constituted “Breitbarting.”  Indeed, if you read the posts and comments, they are obessessed with “Breitbarting”...

Continue reading.

Amazing.

And I'll add that it takes a lot of guts to go behind enemy lines like that for some first hand reporting. Kudos to Anne Sorock!

ADDED: At Big Government, "Netroots Call Cherokee Advocate Sorock, Not Exploiter Warren, Racist."

I'll Have Another Won't Run Belmont Stakes

I was looking forward to this, the possible first Triple Crown winner since 1978.

See Sports Illustrated, "I'll Have Another's scratch at Belmont another big blow to racing."

Bloggers Mobilize to Protect Freedom of Speech

On Monday, Ace of Spades HQ announced that his blog would be going dark today to mobilize conservatives in a National Day of Blogger Silence. We're still waiting for his entry over there today, but a number of others have already posted. See Michelle Malkin especially, "Going dark to urge congressional action: Who will protect the freedom to blog?" An excerpt:

Sen. Chambliss and Rep. Marchant called specific attention to one terrifying tactic against these bloggers: SWAT-ting. These hoaxes occur “when a perpetrator contacts local police to report a violent incident at a target’s home.” Callers disguise their true identities and locations in order to provoke a potentially deadly SWAT/police response descending upon the targets’ homes.

As online conservatives and now ABC News have reported, recent SWAT-ting victims include New Jersey-based Mike Stack, a blogger and Twitter user targeted last summer after helping to expose disgraced former N.Y. Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner’s shady social media activities; California blogger Patrick Frey, a deputy district attorney at Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office who recently posted a bone-chilling account and audio of his summer 2011 SWATting at his blog, Patterico.com; and CNN Contributor and RedState.com managing editor Erick Erickson, whose Georgia home was targeted by a faker claiming an “accidental shooting” there late last month.

A common thread among these and other online targets: They have published web links, commentary, or investigative pieces related to Brett Kimberlin, the infamous “Speedway Bomber.” In 1978, Kimberlin was sentenced to more than 50 years in federal prison for drug dealing, impersonating a federal officer, and a week-long bombing spree in Speedway, Indiana. The violent crimes left one victim so severely injured he committed suicide. A civil court awarded the widow of the victim, Carl Long, $1.6 million. Kimberlin was released from jail in 2001, but has yet to pay up.

Check the post from Michelle's list of contact information.

There's a Memeorandum thread here, and check Robert Stacy McCain: "NATIONAL DAY OF BLOGGER SILENCE."

I visited the office of U.S. Representative John Campbell last Friday and will be following up today. See: "Is Convicted Terrorist Brett Kimberlin Abusing Tax-Exempt Status? Calling for Congressional Hearings on Continuation of Section 501(c)(3) Benefits." Readers from the 48th congressional district can call Cambell's office at this number: (949) 756-2244.

At the video above, Senator Saxby Chambliss speaks with Fox News anchor Brett Baier, and Chambliss' letter to Attorney General Holder is here: "Chambliss Demands Inquiry Into Attacks Against Conservative Commentators."

And Representative Kenny Marchant of Texas also spoke out: "Marchant Stands for Free Speech and with Conservative Bloggers Under Attack."

See John Hawkins for more information: "A Rundown of Alleged Blogger Harassment By Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, & Nadia Naffe." And at Bearing Drift, "National Day of Bloggers Silence."

And note something here: People keep saying that this isn't partisan, that everyone's free speech rights are involved. Sure, to a point. But I'll believe it's not partisan when the big left wing blogs step up to the plate. We've had at most a couple of progressives call out their brethren, but that's it. This is a progressive attack on conservatives. So for now I'll call it out for what it is. Frankly, progressives are more likely to mock conservatives than stand up in solidarity with them. As I noted yesterday, the left's whole program is to silence speech. Giving progressives the benefit of the doubt on this only works to silence conservatives.

I'll be updating, so check back.

Homosexuals Target Rockin' Conservative Dana Loesch After She Stands Up for 14-Year-Old Caiden Cowger

I just posted on the youngster last night: "Fourteen-Year-Old Caiden Cowger: Homosexuality is 'Perverted'."

It turns out that Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch defended Cowger on Twitter yesterday, and the homosexual radicals came after her with a vengeance. See, "The Advocate ‘Advocates’ the Bullying of Children Online."

Here's the Advocate's post: "CNN Contributor Defends Radio Host Who Said Obama Turns Kids Gay."

Here's the search tab for Dana on Twitter. The left has gone positively batsh*t crazy over this. The progs were spewing all kinds of vile and violent tweets at Dana, here, here, and here, for example. And Dana handled it like a champ. And check out some of the additional lies she's standing up against out there, at the so-called New Civil Rights Movement, "Tweet of the Day: Breitbart Editor Stands Up For 14-Year Old Who Says ‘Obama Is Making Kids Gay’":

To be clear, there is a difference between civic participation and hate speech. And to be clear, people of all ages are welcome in our national conversation, but hate speech, even under the mistaken shroud of “religious liberty” is not only wrong — it is contributing to an environment that is killing teens — especially LGBTQ teens.

Wrong.

There's no such thing as "hate speech." It's an invention of the left to attack conservatives. And as Dana's experience illustrates --- and Caiden's too --- the genuine hate comes from the left and is directed at those who dare to proclaim their traditional beliefs in public. (And the study cited at that link purportedly showing how teens are getting killed is a utterly preposterous and unrepresentative survey on LGBT youths sponsored by the extremist Human Rights Campaign --- the dishonest creeps.)

OBLIGATORY #FAIL: Charles "Jazzy McBikeshorts" Johnson can't contain himself. He jumps at the chance to attack Dana as a bigot: "CNN’s Dana Loesch Says Ending Friendships With People Because They’re Gay Is Just Part of Being a Conservative Teen."

What an utter douchebag. Jeez, dude, get a life.

The Growing Partisan Divide in American Politics

I mentioned Alan Abramowitz's The Polarized Public a few weeks back.

I'm reminded of Abramowitz as we keep seeing more commentators blaming Republicans for increased levels of polarization --- which is often labeled "hostage taking" in practical politics --- while in fact both parties in government have seen increased levels of high partisanship and cohesion. I'm sure I'll be talking a lot about this as the election season heats up. I've been watching MSNBC quite a bit of late and it's amazing the kind of intellectual cocoon the talking heads over there envelop themselves within. It's striking.

In any case, Pew Research had a new study out last week that affirms the growing patterns of polarization: "Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush, Obama Years - Trends in American Values: 1987-2012."

And PBS NewsHour has an interview with Andrew Kohut, the President of the Pew Center, "With Political Polarization at All-Time High, Americans Say 'Listen to Me'."

'Lilibet'

Simon Schama's cover story at Newsweek is worth a read, "The Greatest Day of Her Life":

Treetops Hotel was perched in the game park of Sagana, where a hunting lodge had been given by the “Kenyan people” to Elizabeth and her husband, Philip, as a wedding present five years before. They had stopped in what was still an African colony on their way to Australia to show the flag for Britain and its monarchy, now that Elizabeth’s chronically ill father, King George VI, was unable to take trips around what was left of the empire.

A violent, bloody Kikuyu insurrection was about to break out in Kenya, but the good looks and easy grace of the princess and her tall, impossibly handsome husband disarmed everyone who saw them in action. Then came the news that her father had died of a coronary thrombosis. There are no reports of how the young woman, instantly become Queen Elizabeth II, took the news. But the duke’s equerry, Michael Parker, who had conveyed it, noticed that Philip looked as if “half the world had dropped on his shoulders.” Elizabeth, on the other hand, switched immediately to duty.

Elizabeth was 26: the age of a graduate student, but she had graduated from the select academy of national-symbols-in-waiting. “Lilibet” was 10 before the possibility she might one day be queen arose, for it was assumed her uncle David, not her father, would succeed when the much-loved, gruff George V died in 1936. But what followed was an abdication rather than a coronation, as Edward VIII opted to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson rather than remain on the throne. From the day in 1937 when Elizabeth’s pallid, decent, stammering father had the crown set on his head in Westminster Abbey, she must have sensed both the weight and the perils of the destiny that awaited her.

During the war it was Winston Churchill and not George VI who had personified British bulldog indomitability. But Elizabeth and her younger sister Margaret became symbols of the royals’ refusal to play it safe from some distant imperial exile, for they remained in Britain through the Blitz. “They will not leave without me,” said their mother, “and I will not leave without the king, and he will never leave.” Buckingham Palace took a bomb in the courtyard, and the girls’ lodging at Windsor Castle was actually right on the line of Luftwaffe bombing from London to Bristol.

After the war Britain shrunk into austerity, and so did George VI, looking ever more gaunt. In November 1947, with the worst winter in living memory already gripping Britain, her wedding to Philip in Westminster Abbey was a desperately needed festive moment for a country where meat, confectionery, and most forms of glee were still strictly rationed. Already she understood public tact, saving clothes-ration cards for the bridal outfit, which, since 2,000 pearls were sewn in, must have been a truckload of coupons. The day after the ceremony, the princess laid her bouquet of orchids and myrtle (a sprig from Queen Victoria’s tree) on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the nave of the Abbey. The country was full of bitterly grieving families, so the gesture was money in the bank for the future of the British crown...

Continue reading.

Violence Erupts in Downtown Milwaukee as AFSCME-Sponsored Occupy Protest Turns Chaotic

Via Michelle Malkin, "Video: Post-election union protest in Milwaukee turns violent."

RELATED: At Marathon Pundit, "(Video) AFSCME boss gives race-baiting speech at Occupy Milwaukee rally" (via Memeorandum).