Hip Hip Hooray for John Hawkins! — '7 Ways Conservative Activists Are Being Harassed By the Left'

In one of those all-too-common episodes, yesterday I saw purported conservative Scott Jacobs, a.k.a AblativMeatShld on Twitter, join up with progressives in a lame attempt to slap down my argument that the Kimberlin case is an epic partisan battle over free speech. Check the comments at Popehat, where one can see how the proprietor there deleted all the ad hominem, off-topic comments hijacking the thread. No worries, though. You can see some of Jacobs' related tweets here, here, and here. I'm thinking anger management might help. The dude blocked me with this tweet, and then wished he could choke me to death with the very next one:

People like that pile of shit are why God denies me the power to choke people via TCP/IP...
— AblativMeatshld (@AblativMeatshld) June 12, 2012

Unfortunately, a lot of people involved in the Kimberlin affair still don't understand how progressives work. For example, Racist Repsac3 works by infiltrating the other side, attempting to undermine those with the most powerful moral clarity --- and hence those most dangerous to the leftist agenda. Then idiots like "AblativMeatsld" get suckered into a false alliance of convenience, which is shown soon enough to be a suicide pact with the devil.

C'est la vie.

So, I'm pleased to see John Hawkins out with a great new piece at Townhall, "7 Ways Conservative Activists Are Being Harassed By the Left" (via Right Wing News):

The harassment that seems to follow people who get caught in the crosshairs of Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin has started to put a spotlight on the staggering level of abuse that many activists, columnists, and bloggers on the Right have to endure just to exercise their First Amendment rights. If liberals had to deal with 1/10 of the same amount of harassment that conservatives do, it would be a front page story in every major paper in America and Barack Obama would be giving speeches about it. Unfortunately for those of us in the new media on the Right, we're considered important enough on the Left to try to destroy us, but we’re not important enough to the Right to draw the funding we need to get appropriate legal protection, to properly investigate stories, and to insure that an independent blogosphere still exists five years from now (Sorry, pet peeve). Since many people are unaware of what goes on behind the scenes, it seems like a good time to catalogue just some of the tactics liberals are using to try to stifle free speech on the Right.

Read it all at the link.

I'm still shaking my head at all of the examples John uses to illustrate his argument.

In any case, despite the death-wish tweets I'm getting, I can only reiterate my point that it's all about "how 'free speech' is defined and who's speech will be protected." There will be some fair and respectful people on the left who recoil from Kimberlin's tactics. But mostly, these same people will rationalize it as foreign to progressive ideology when it's in fact central to it. The left can't win the debate. It can only destroy its opponents. The sooner folks figure that out the better.

Now, in other developments, see Robert Stacy McCain, "‘Team Kimberlin’ Meltdown Continues." And following the links takes us to Dan Collins at The Conservatory, "Neal Rauhauser's About to Have a Very Bad Day."

Also, at Patterico, "More Evidence Emerges of Brett Kimberlin’s Involvement in Nadia Naffe Litigation Against Me."

BONUS: From Bob Belvedere, "The #BrettKimberlin Report [D+17] Part IV: Why’s Everybody Always Pickin’ On Me?"

Los Angeles Kings Win Stanley Cup

This is banner headline material over at the Los Angles Times.

See, "Los Angeles beats N.J. Devils, 6-1, in Game 6," and "L.A.'s new royalty, Kings turn tumult into Stanley Cup triumph."

And at the New York Times, "Devils’ Hopes Disappear in a Flurry of Penalties":

LOS ANGELES — If the Stanley Cup playoffs test anything, they measure players’ ability to maintain discipline in the midst of fatigue, pressure and frustration.

By losing that discipline early, the Devils lost any chance they had to win their fourth Stanley Cup. Steve Bernier’s boarding penalty on the Los Angeles Kings’ Rob Scuderi in the first period proved to be the turning point in the Kings’ 6-1 victory in Game 6 on Monday night.

The Kings scored three power-play goals as the result of that penalty.

“I wish I could take that play back,” Bernier said.

The Devils’ captain, Zach Parise, refused to blame Bernier for the defeat.

“We feel for him,” Parise said. “In that situation, you’re going to feel like it’s your fault. But it’s not his fault.”

Moments before Bernier’s hit, Los Angeles center Jarret Stoll skated across the ice to check the Devils’ Stephen Gionta into the boards at the red line. Devils Coach Peter DeBoer yelled at the officials for failing to call a penalty.

As Scuderi chased after the puck behind the net, Bernier led with his left shoulder and left elbow in pinning Scuderi, who fell to the ice, bleeding from his nose and upper lip. Bernier received a game misconduct at 10 minutes 10 seconds of the first period, as well as a five-minute penalty that forced the Devils to play short-handed for the latter infraction’s duration.

“As the first guy, you need to finish your hit,” said Bernier, who added that he did not see Stoll’s hit on Gionta and did not believe he deserved a penalty.

Here's that hit:

And more from the New York Times, "Kings 6, Devils 1: Kings Capture the Cup With an Early Outburst."

Citizens United and the Wisconsin Vote

I blogged on the left's money excuse earlier, but Michael McConnell is a professor of law at Stanford who previously sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

McConnell's essay is at the Wall Street Journal (via Althouse and Google):

In the wake of Wisconsin's recall election, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell and other commentators disappointed with the result are not blaming the electorate or the apparent success and popularity of Gov. Scott Walker's reforms. Instead, they are singling out the Supreme Court's 2010 campaign-finance decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, as the reason for Mr. Walker's 7-1 spending advantage.

Citizens United held that associations of Americans, including corporations and labor unions, have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates for public office.

In a sense, Citizens United did have an important effect on the Wisconsin election. But the effect was almost exactly the opposite of what many pundits imply.

Labor unions poured money into the state to recall Mr. Walker. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the NEA (National Education Association), the nation's largest teachers union, spent at least $1 million. Its smaller union rival, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers), spent an additional $350,000. Two other unions, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, which has more than one million government workers) and Afscme (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), spent another $2 million. Little or none of these independent expenditures endorsing a candidate would have been legal under federal law before Citizens United.

By contrast, the large spenders on behalf of Mr. Walker were mostly individuals. According to the Center for Public Integrity, these included Diane Hendricks, Wisconsin's wealthiest businesswoman, who spent over half a million dollars on his behalf; Bob J. Perry, a Texas home builder, who spent almost half a million; and well-known political contributors such as casino operator Sheldon Adelson and former Amway CEO Dick DeVos, who kicked in a quarter-million dollars each. Businessman David Koch gave $1 million to the Republic Governors Association, which spent $4 million on the Wisconsin race.

These donations have nothing to do with Citizens United. Individuals have been free to make unlimited independent expenditures in support of candidates since the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976).

I have seen no published reports of any corporate expenditures on behalf of Mr. Walker, though presumably the $500,000 Chamber of Commerce contribution to the Republican Governors Association fund came largely from corporate sources. Several groups also ran issue ads that presumably benefited Mr. Walker; these groups are not required to disclose their donors and may have received corporate contributions. Corporations and unions could run issue ads before Citizens United, as long as they did not clearly refer to a candidate.

For the most part, though, Mr. Walker's direct, big-ticket support came from sources that have been lawful for decades.

His opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, got his support primarily from labor unions, whose participation was legitimized by Citizens United. Without that decision so demonized by the political left, Mr. Barrett would have been at even more of a financial disadvantage.

Speaking generally, Citizens United is likely to benefit Democrats more than Republicans...

RTWT at those top links.

Neal Rauhauser Fingers 'Beandogs' in Mike Stack 'SWAT-ting' Case

Robert Stacy McCain has the story, "HUGE! Neal Rauhauser’s Vicious Lies Exposed by Yet Another Leaked E-Mail."

Stack is the guy whose involvement in exposing the Anthony Weiner sex scandal resulted in him being “SWATted” and, subsequently, harassed by Rauhauser, who became obsessed with a paranoid conspiracy theory of WeinerGate.

And see Brooks Bayne at The Trenches, "BREAKING: Neal Rauhauser Believes SWATter is One of His Own."

And following the links takes us to this background report from 2010: "Desperate Dems Hire E-Thugs."

Worries in Euro Zone Shift to Italy From Spain

Well, I'm not surprised at all.

At the New York Times, "Worry for Italy Quickly Replaces Relief for Spain":

VENICE — Concerns grew on Monday that Italy could be the next victim of Europe’s financial infection, leading nervous investors to sell Italian stocks and bonds and damping euphoria over a weekend deal to bail out Spain’s banks.

Italian officials privately expressed concern that the 100 billion euros, or $125 billion, that Europe pledged to Spanish banks might not stop the troubles from spreading.

Italy’s main stock index was Europe’s worst performer on Monday, a day when United States stocks were also dragged down and investors flocked yet again to the safe harbor of American and German government bonds. Even the Italian prime minister, Mario Monti, a European technocrat who came to office after the euro crisis forced out Silvio Berlusconi last November, has begun to acknowledge the dangers posed to his country’s 1.56-trillion-euro economy ($1.95 trillion).

The main fear is that Italy cannot grow its way out of a recession fast enough to pay a mountainous national debt. Other concerns include the fact that Italy, with the third-largest euro zone economy after those of Germany and France, will have to shoulder a large portion of the bailout bill even as it grapples with its own sharp economic downturn.

Because Italy does not have enough economic growth to generate the money itself, the government will probably have to borrow it at high interest rates, adding to an already heavy debt load.

“There is a permanent risk of contagion,” Mr. Monti told an economics conference near Venice over the weekend, speaking by telephone. “That is why strengthening the euro zone is of collective interest.”

Prices of Italy’s government bonds reached their lowest level in months. Investors apparently found little assurance that the euro currency union was any closer to solving its underlying problems — not with parliamentary elections in Greece this weekend that could determine whether the currency union is strong enough to retain its weakest members.

Investor euphoria in Europe over the Spanish bailout deal Monday morning was short-lived, giving way to an essentially flat day on many European stock markets. But Italy’s benchmark index was the Continent’s worst performer, ending down 2.8 percent.

Continue reading.

Israel's 64 Years

A video from the IDF News Desk.

And see Pamela's post from Sunday in New York: "CELEBRATING 64 years of Israel! June 3, 2012. NYC."

'Just Getting Started'

Via Tammy Bruce and Bad Blue.

Brett Kimberlin, the Speedway Bomber, Claims He Was Victim of 'SWAT-ting'

At Lonely Con, "Brett Kimberlin Claims He Was SWAT-ted, Local Law Enforcement Disagrees."

Also at Twitchy, "Bloggers work to debunk Brett Kimberlin’s new claim that he was a SWAT-ting victim."

BONUS: At Politco, "Conservative bloggers targets of 'SWAT-ing'."

Memories Are Vivid for Veterans of USS Iowa

At the Los Angeles Times, "Ex-Iowa sailors salute the ship as it makes its final port call":

When the big guns of the battleship Iowa pounded Japanese troops during World War II, John Wolfinbarger could feel it in the boiler room deep below decks.

It was 1944, and Wolfinbarger was 19. He was a Colorado boy who suddenly was in the sweltering Pacific, his ship shuddering with each blast. Every couple of days, he'd have to crawl into a hot boiler and scrape burnt fuel oil from its pipes. It was grimy, cramped, tedious work — and he treasures the memory of it, just like a legion of other former Iowa sailors who will salute the ship Saturday as it's towed two miles to its permanent home as a waterfront museum in San Pedro.

Wolfinbarger, 88, will be among the hundreds of Iowa veterans on hand.

Sailors often get misty over old ships, and those who served on the biggest U.S. battleship ever built are no different. The nearly 70-year-old Iowa played a crucial role in their lives, and its story can be told in the everyday experiences of unsung men like Wolfinbarger.

"I don't want to say I enjoyed it — war is never joyous — but it was an honor," he said.

Wolfinbarger first hauled his sea bag aboard the Iowa in the Marshall Islands.

His immediate impression was that of any other swabbie surveying a great, gray vessel 15 stories high and almost as long as three football fields.

"I thought, 'Oh, my achin' back!'" he said.

Wolfinbarger, who later went to work in coal mines and sawmills, slept outside on the teakwood deck instead of in the hot, crowded quarters below. For nearly two years, he rolled out a blanket under one of the ship's famous 16-inch cannons that could hurl 2,700-pound shells more than 24 miles.

When the Iowa was attacking the Japanese stronghold of Saipan, Wolfinbarger was stationed high in a crow's nest. It was the only battle he witnessed, and he hated it. Even worse was the aftermath, with broken bodies bobbing near the beach, families who hurled themselves off cliffs rather than endure what they thought would be American torture.

"It was horrible," Wolfinbarger said. He spent the rest of his tour down in the boiler room.

Four years after being present for the 1945 Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay, the Iowa was decommissioned by a Navy trying to cut costs. It returned to duty in 1952 and soon was dubbed "the gray ghost of the Korean coast."

Richard Blair remembers it well. He had a number of jobs in his 45 months on the Iowa, including handling phones for its commanding officer during battles in the Korean War.

"I spent my 19th birthday in Wonsan Harbor and we were firing day and night, day and night," said Blair, a retired banker and medical office manager. "That day — Aug. 19 — I spent about 12 hours on the bridge with the captain, and we blew up everything we possibly could."

Continue reading at that top link.

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikipedia Commons.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush Claim Reagan Wouldn't Be Conservative Enough for Today's GOP

Jeez, the progs got a kick out of this story at Memeorandum. See BuzzFeed, "Jeb Bush: No Place For Father, Reagan In Today's GOP."

And see the commentary from Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, "ONE LESS THING TO WORRY ABOUT."

House Oversight Committee Will Vote to Condemn Attorney General Eric Holder

At CBS News, "House committee schedules contempt vote against Holder" (via Memeorandum).

[VIDEO PULLED]

Also at Nice Deb, "House Oversight Committee Schedules Contempt Vote for Holder."

Calls Grow for U.S. Military Intervention in Syria

At the Economist, "Syria, Changing calculations: Talk of military intervention is getting louder but is unlikely to be heeded soon":

SINCE the massacre of more than 100 people in Houla on May 25th, talk of setting up buffer zones on Syria’s border has grown louder in Western government circles. Reports on June 6th of a similar slaughter of at least 78 villagers near Hama have turned the volume up still more. Hitherto, all Western governments agreed that direct military intervention, which would almost certainly have to accompany the creation of those zones, was out of the question. That is changing.

Military planners are now pondering in detail the prerequisites for securing a buffer zone. Officials in Britain, France and the United States have all said that military intervention “cannot be ruled out” in due course. Though almost no one thinks it will be done soon, calls for intervention, especially in Washington, are growing.

Read it all at the link.

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

RELATED: At the Weekly Standard, "Listen to the Children of Kafranbel."

Paul Lemmen at 'An Ex-Con's View' Targeted For Writing About Brett Kimberlin

Popehat has a lengthy must-read essay on the left's ongoing campaign of lawfare: "Shut Up, They Explained: Another Blogger Threatened With Imprisonment For Writing About Brett Kimberlin."

The latest blogger to be targeted is Paul Lemmen from "An Ex-Con's View."

I first learned about (and interacted with) Paul through Zilla Stevenson's blogging. Zilla has been organizing free speech blogbursts for awhile. And I exchanged a few emails with Paul after Zilla sent out some posts through her contact list. I was skeptical  about interacting with Paul at first. He's a felony ex-convict and one of his crimes was impersonating U.S. military personnel. I think that's too much for a lot of people to accept, but once I exchanged a few emails with Paul I found that he is a genuine man of repentance. And the more I read of Paul's opinions the more I'm convinced that his is an exceedingly necessary voice in the conservative battle against the left's totalitarian anti-free speech jihad.

Folks need to read the whole Popehat post at the link. The essay includes an interview with Paul, and I like this passage especially:

I asked Paul Lemmen what he felt he had to bring to the discussion of Kimberlin, and why he thought it was important that his voice be heard.

I believe that as a career con-artist, I have quite a bit of insight into what he is doing. . . . [I believe it is] necessary to show up the differences between myself, an ex-con that has accepted responsibility for his crimes and Brett Kimberlin, someone who has not, who has in fact, avoided his responsibilities as he has avoided paying the civil judgment levied against him. I feel that if there is to be future acceptance of ex-cons that have made the very difficult decision to adhere to the lawful conduct expected by society, those who resist in their unlawful conduct must be exposed and the public made aware of them.

And so Paul Lemmen will continue to write.

Following the link takes to Paul's most recent entry at the blog, "Brett Kimberlin’s Parole (or Lack Thereof)."

And for the record, Paul is on probation and under the supervision of an officer. His commitment to keep on blogging while under attack carries potentially grave consequences. And note that there is no hard evidence that Brett Kimberlin or his henchmen are the ones responsible for making threats to his freedom. Yet, as Popehat writes, the coincidental and inferential nature of the threats are overwhelming. This episode has the Kimberlin network written all over it. Whatever the case, this is one more example of what's at stake for people standing up for right.

And I want to reiterate my argument that this is indeed a partisan battle. Kerry Picket has a report on Florida GOP Congresswoman Sandy Adams, who has issued a new letter to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into the recent SWAT-ting of conservatives. See: "PICKET: FLA Congresswoman leads 87 member effort demanding Swat-ting investigation from DOJ" (via Memeorandum). There are no Democrat signatories to the letter. And while some Democrats may still get on board, so far it's a Republican effort to bring attention to the matter. That is, it's a partisan response to what Republicans see is a left-wing attack on the freedom to blog. As always, I will update my views on this when I see evidence that the effort to expose the Kimberlin network has bipartisan support.

More this at The Other McCain, "Florida Rep. Sandy Adams Leads 85 House Republicans in ‘SWATting’ Letter."

IMAGE CREDIT: Michelle Malkin, "Bloggers under fire: Arizona conservative lawyer/activist targeted by left-wing Arizona State Bar."

Life of Emily

From Dan Mitchell, "You’ve Met Julia the Moocher, Now Meet Emily." (Via Instapundit.)

Added: There's now a Memeorandum thread and a post on Emily at Hot Air.

New Mitt Romney Ad 'Jolt'

Via The Hill, "Romney 'Jolt' video knocks Obama for saying private sector 'doing fine'."

The Left's Totalitarian, Anti-Free Speech Mindset

I think anyone who's out there standing up for freedom and justice is well familiar with the left's program to clamp down on conservative speech.

I'll be having lots more on this today concerning the Kimberlin network's alleged SWAT-ting campaign, but in the meantime check Pamela's post, "ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: Robert Spencer, Ray Bradbury Dead, Censorship On the Rise."

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels: Let's Be Done With Public-Sector Unions

At Fox News, "After Walker victory, Indiana governor suggests public unions should go" (via Memeorandum):

On the heels of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's history-making recall victory, the governor of nearby Indiana with his own record of curtailing union benefits suggested public-sector unions are past their prime and should be abolished.

"I think, really, government works better without them," Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told "Fox News Sunday," when asked whether public-worker unions should even exist.

Daniels had cracked down on collective bargaining for state workers as soon as he took office in 2005, six years before Walker and his GOP allies in the state legislature started down the same path -- triggering a backlash that forced him to stand for election this past Tuesday. Walker made history as the first governor to survive the recall test, beating Democrat Tom Barrett.
Daniels said that vote should send a message about the problems with public-sector unions.

"I think the message is that, first of all, voters are seeing the fundamental unfairness of government becoming its own special interest group, sitting on both sides of the table," he said.

See also Dan Collins, "THE DEATH OF PUBLIC UNIONS?"

Why Do You Build Me Up...

I would have been about 8 years-old when this was a top hit, from The Foundations.

Video from back in the day is here.

Mariela Castro Endorses Barack Obama

At the clip, Christiane Amanpour is like a schoolgirl fawning over Mariela Castro.

But see Mary Anastasia O'Grady, at WSJ, "Castro Endorses Obama":

President Obama has received yet another endorsement, this time from the daughter of Cuban military dictator Raúl Castro. Mariela Castro proclaimed her support for the sitting president 10 days ago, during a visit to the United States. "I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart," she said in a CNN interview in New York.

The dictator's daughter, who is a vociferous proponent of the Cuban status quo, was ostensibly in the U.S. to discuss matters pertaining to her field of expertise, which has something to do with advocating for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights. As the Cuban-born writer Carlos Alberto Montaner put it in a syndicated column last week, "Mariela is tolerant of sexual preferences and intolerant of all the rest." He added: "For her, freedom and emotional coherence are something very specifically situated south of the navel."

Notwithstanding her "work" as what she calls "a sexologist," the Communist Party official did not shy away from carrying water for Uncle Fidel and her despotic daddy while on American soil. Much of her time was spent promoting the party line and disparaging human-rights defenders. Among other pearls from the child of privilege came the claim that in Cuba "people who dissent don't go to jail." She also put on the table again Cuba's view that if the U.S. wants to win the release of U.S. Agency for International Development contractor Alan Gross, who has been languishing in a Cuban jail since December 2009, it should agree to release the five convicted Cuban spies who are in jail in the U.S.

Ms. Castro's affinity for the American president aside, it is passing strange that the administration even issued her a visa. It claims it is doing all it can to free the ailing 63-year-old Mr. Gross, and Ms. Castro's desire for entry presented an opportunity to make that point to the regime. But apparently the importance of pleasing the Obama base in San Francisco, where she was invited first to talk about homosexual rights, was an even higher priority than the "high-priority" Mr. Gross.

The State Department defended the visa decision on free-speech grounds. But that's hard to square with its history of using visas as a policy tool. There are many examples of elected Latin American officials and military brass being refused travel to the U.S. for reasons that override their rights to express themselves. Two prominent examples come to mind. First, numerous members of the Colombian military—which is under civilian command—and in some cases members of their families, have had their U.S. visas pulled by the State Department merely because the soldiers were accused by left-wing nongovernmental organizations of human-rights violations. Even when acquitted, most never had those visas restored.

Then there was the visa-yanking by the Obama administration when it decided in 2009 that the Honduran Supreme Court was undemocratic because it had ruled that President Manuel Zelaya's removal from power was constitutional. Team Obama also pulled the visas of members of the interim government, even though it took power in strict adherence to the constitution and with the backing of the major political parties, the Catholic Church and the country's human-rights ombudsman. Those visas were not returned even when the interim government presided over a free and fair election and left power on schedule.

Only last week did the State Department announce that some—not all—of the victims of this injustice may reapply for entry to the U.S. Over the years, visas have also been pulled for allegations of corruption on the part of elected officials in other countries.

So if the bar that has to be cleared is set by democratic standards, human-rights records and anticorruption, how in heaven's name did this regime mouthpiece sail into the U.S. while her father is holding an American hostage?

Continue reading.

Well, Fidel endorsed Obama, so that might explain some of this.

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."