President Obama Statement on Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions

The president said the U.S. will seek "justice" following the attacks. And U.S. Marines are on the way to the region. We'll see how it goes throughout the day.

I'll be teaching today. More commentary and analysis this afternoon.

Mitt Romney Hammers Obama Administration's Response to Violence in Egypt and Libya

Freedom's Lighthouse reports, "Mitt Romney Hammers Initial Obama Administration Response to Attack on U.S. Embassy in Egypt." And at the Washington Times, "Romney hammers Obama over response to assaults on diplomatic missions."

More at WaPo, "Romney calls Obama administration response to Libya attacks ‘disgraceful’." (At Memeorandum.)

The progs are going apeshit over this, but no matter Romney's criticism, the attacks on Americans raise serious questions about the administration's foreign policy, and events could throw the presidential campaign into turmoil. Toby Harnden has more on that, "How murder of U.S. ambassador to Libya plunges Obama's re-election campaign into crisis." (At Memeorandum.)

Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens Killed in Attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi

My prayers and condolences go out to the ambassador's family, and to the families of the others who were killed in Libya.

The New York Times reports, "U.S. Envoy to Libya Is Killed in Attack: Died After Rockets Fired in Revenge for Anti-Muslim Film."

I'll of course have more on this story later today. Meanwhile, Jake Tapper reports, "The Politics (Ugh, Yes, the Politics) of the Attacks on the US Diplomatic Posts in Benghazi and Cairo." (Via Memeorandum.)

April Rose Maximum Exposure: Back to School Edition

She's smokin'!

Speaking of back to school, see the Los Angeles Times, "California community college board OKs new registration policies":

According to a recent survey by the chancellor's office, more than 470,000 students began the fall semester on waiting lists, unable to get classes they need, while overall enrollment dropped from about 2.9 million in the 2008-09 academic year to 2.4 million in 2011-12. The number of class sections offered, meanwhile, decreased from 522,727 in 2008-09 to 399,540 in 2011-12, a nearly 24% decline.

State funding was cut by $809 million since 2008.

"Some students will struggle for any number of reasons, but having said that we are at a point in time where we don't have as many resources as we used to and we've got to place some criteria around registration," Himelstein said. "This will place priority on students who are motivated and showing good progress above those who in some cases quite frankly are meandering through the system."

Harsh.

Nation Pauses to Reflect on September 11 — Progressives Mount Pathetic Political Attacks on Bush Administration

I spent the day teaching. Normally each year on September 11, and the day before or after, so that all my classes benefit from the discussion, I recall where I was that morning and how the terrorists attacked us. Although there were ceremonies around the country today, it seems that each year the nation is more detached from the day's events and 9/11 feels more like a plain old historical milestone. This is especially true for young people. If some of my students are 17 or 18-year-old freshmen then they were 6 or 7-year-olds in 2001. I always pull up on the projection screen the first chapter of The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes." Reviewing just a few paragraphs, using the example of American Airlines Flight 11, students are introduced to the shocking efficiency of the 19 terrorists on that clear late-summer day. Sometimes we have a lot of discussion. This year students seemed to have less knowledge of this history, and also less opinion of the war on terror. I try to impart the ways that the country has changed over these last few years, and that young people today are the generation of Americans living in the shadow of the largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.

I thus tend to discuss September 11 as a matter of the civic culture. I don't talk politics. The attacks mean different things to different people, and I personally try to put myself in the shoes of the fallen, their families, and of the first responders. Unlike past years, there wasn't much of a dramatic build-up to the 2012 anniversary. But reading around the horn on my breaks and during office hours, it was amazing --- if not shocking, though I'm inured to it by now --- to see how intensely politicized the day became. Progressives really went after President Bush, of all people, and his administration. In Groundhog Day-like redundancy, the left replayed the old canard that the Bush administration failed to prevent the attacks and that the response to 9/11 was inept and morally bankrupt. Yeah, I know. Where have we heard those things before? Martin Longman at Booman Tribune really got off on some kind of supreme arrogance, to the effect that since he knew people --- that neighbors and co-workers suffered --- he had some elevated understanding of events. It's the moral fallacy of hubris --- again. Booman took the whole "I knew people who suffered" meme to the sickly opportunistic conclusion that we shouldn't politicize the day, unless of course it was to attack the hated Bush regime. So trite. So small. And so typical for the hate-addled progressives of the antiwar left. See, "Thoughts for 9/11." President Obama comes in for criticism too, conveniently, but since it was Bush in power at the time, clearly that's the "leadership" Booman decries.

And don't miss idiot Robert "Che" Farley piling on at Lawyers, Guns and Money. Read it at the link for the context, but slamming the Bush administration, our Patterson School national security "expert" writes: "...who knew that putting a staggeringly inept man surrounded by frauds, liars, and sociopaths into the White House could lead to bad things?"

Perfessor Farley is responding to Kurt Eichenwald's essay at today's New York Times, "The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings." Folks can read it at the link. How pathetic. NewBusters has this, "On 9-11 Anniversary, New York Times Op-Ed Blames Bush." Plus Abe Greenwald offers a must read piece at Commentary, "Nobody Was Prepared for 9/11."

And don't forget Greenwald's classic piece from last year at Commentary, "What We Got Right in the War on Terror."

Plus, from this morning's Los Angeles Times, "9/11 -- 11 years later: A nation pauses to reflect and mourn anew."

BONUS: At American Glob, "Liberals Stupidly Believe Foreign Policy Is Obama’s Secret Weapon."

At Least One American Killed in Attack on U.S. Consulate in Libya

At USA Today, "American shot dead in Libyan attack on U.S. Consulate."

And Robert Stacy McCain reports, "We Are Prepared to Come Kill You UPDATE: One American Killed, Another Wounded in Libyan Attack."

PREVIOUSLY: "Egypt Protesters Scale U.S. Embassy Wall."

Egypt Protesters Scale U.S. Embassy Wall

At the Los Angeles Times, "Egypt protesters pull down US flag at embassy in Cairo."

CAIRO — More than a dozen Egyptian protesters, angry over what they called an anti-Muslim video, scaled the outer wall of the fortress-like U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and took down an American flag.

In its place, they raised a black flag that read: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" before Egyptian security forces sought to tame the crowd.

And at the New York Times, "Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya."

And In the Hour of Darkness ... She Is Standing Right In Front of Me...

From this afternoon's drive-time, at The Sound L.A., this seems appropriate given the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks:

Canelo vs. Lopez at MGM Grand

There's a big fight this Saturday at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.

While we were visiting the hotel had placed the fight ring in the main entrance lobby.

And my oldest took a shot of your humble blogger:

PREVIOUSLY: "Labor Day Weekend in Las Vegas."

Lana Del Rey: 'Video Games'

Here's the viral video from the pop sensation:

PREVIOUSLY: "Lana Del Rey Nude GQ Photo Shoot."

Steven Spielberg 'Lincoln' Teaser

At Film, "First Footage From Steven Spielberg’s ‘Lincoln’ Features a Bit of the President’s Most Famous Speech" (via Memeorandum).

Also at the Wall Street Journal, "‘Lincoln’ Teaser Trailer Released."

Plus, Allahpundit has commentary, at Hot Air, "Video: “Lincoln” teaser trailer."

'Bachelor Pad'

I was figuring out this show as it was going along. My wife was watching as well. But by the conclusion, when host Chris Harrison explained the final rules, I could see what kind of strategic game was at hand. And man, what a payoff! A classic display of self-interested, Machiavellian television. A rare treat. Is Nick an asshole? Perhaps. But he played for keeps. Apparently he had no partners throughout and even Rachel wasn't committed to him at earlier points in the show. But that's all I can say because it's all new to me. Definitely an explosive finale.

I don't see video for last night's episode, but here's the website. And see Lincee Ray, at the Huffington Post, "'Bachelor Pad' Finale Recap: The Most Disturbing Finale Ever." Also at E! Online, "Bachelor Pad Finale: A Proposal, Betrayal and So Many Tears."

Tourists Run for Their Lives After Spooking Buffalo at Yellowstone National Park

The tourists are smiling after that little run down, but a brute animal like that will kill you if it gets the chance:

You can see how close the tourists were to the buffalo at The Blaze, "THE STUNNING MOMENT A WILD BISON CHARGES A CHILD IN YELLOWSTONE!"

Today's Poll Numbers

It was a big day for presidential horse race polling. And after all of it I'm still not convinced Obama's pulling out a decisive advantage at this point, but I'm honestly concerned that trends could be favoring the Democrats in Ohio, and perhaps some of the other swing states --- and that's taking into consideration the horrible media bias in both polling and reporting. And note I say could be.

Earlier this evening, Scott Pelley on CBS Evening News reported that Obama's up 6 points in Ohio. This would be the Quinnipiac/CBS/NYT swing states poll. I think it was 50 to 44 over Romney, but the survey's not posted yet at any of the websites. If that's correct (and I'll post the numbers when they're up), the findings would be within one point of the Public Policy Poll out today on Ohio, which has Obama up by 5 points in the Buckeye State. I don't trust either polling outfits, so there's that. And Ed Morrissey fisked PPP in any case, noting how the internals were off, with Democrats oversampled and independents undersampled: "PPP puts Obama up 5 in Ohio":

Ohio looks deadlocked if one considers the modeling used, and even perhaps edging toward Romney when looking at the independents. I’d wait on hitting panic buttons here until seeing something with a better likely-voter model.

And see William Bigelow at Big Government as well, "Despite Media Hype, No Bounce for Obama in Swing States":

Politico’s “Unnamed Sources” say Ohio is lost for Mitt Romney. Like hell it is. They say Obama got a serious bounce from the DNC. Like hell he did.

Whatever bounce Obama got was in the blue states. In the swing states, it’s still way too close to call. Today’s Rasmussen poll results show that in the eleven swing states, including Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, which total 145 electoral votes, it’s Obama 46% and Romney 45%. In 2008, Obama won these states 53% to 46%. So how does the MSM try to spin the evidence so Obama looks like he’s unbeatable? Let’s look at Ohio, for example. Politico reported (using uncredited sources, of course), that Ohio is lost for Romney:

“Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now.”

I didn’t know Axelrod and Plouffe were working for Romney, but hey, they’ll go where the money is.

But, as usual, Politico was relying on Obama-leaning polls to support their narrative; yesterday the PPP poll (which is always weighted toward Obama because of PPP’s affiliation with the SEIU) showed Obama up by five in Ohio. Hmmm. According to the Gravis marketing poll taken last Tuesday, Romney was up three in Ohio. Who’s telling the truth? ....

*****

Every race in the swing states is close right now, and the unconscionable skewing of the polls by the MSM shouldn’t discourage Republicans. The MSM has lied before, they are lying now, and they will lie in the future. The Obama campaign has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Romney, they have the power of incumbency, and Romney simply is not going away. And all of this is before Romney has even attacked Obama in ads and the debates.

Hey, Dems, this show ain’t even close to over; we’re just getting warmed up.

For all that, I'm not going to just wave my hand and wish away the numbers. If the election were held today Romney would lose. So it's going to take some hard campaigning, winning debates for the GOP ticket, and reasonably fair media coverage down the final stretch (fingers crossed).

Still, I think progressives are foolish for preemptively spiking the football the way they have been. Martin Longman at Booman Tribune is especially cocky about a Democrat victory. There's no cost to being wrong, of course. Progressives will just claim the GOP stole the election anyway, so better to demoralize folks now.

But I'm not one to call it quits in any event, and I'm not sure exactly which conservatives are throwing in the towel, for all the hand-wringing. John Hinderaker simply backed off his predictions for a big Romney win, and the left immediately pounced. Really. Has anyone actually caved?

My hunch is that while Obama indeed pulled out a bit of a bounce (and props to Nate Silver, who I promised a shout out if his predictions proved correct), the race will settle back down to a rough dead heat over the next couple of weeks --- and then perhaps the October debates might have some impact on the campaign. See Stephen Hayes, at the Weekly Standard, for more along those lines, "Two More Months":

One day after the Democratic convention ended here, and a week after the Republican convention wrapped up in Tampa, and American politics is basically all tied up. Here’s the top line on Real Clear Politics 60 days before November 6: The RCP average for the presidential race shows a dead heat (Obama +0.7 percentage points), the Senate is 46-46 with 8 tossups, and the generic congressional ballot is tied....

Keep reading.

And see also Robert Stacy McCain, at American Spectator, "Omens of Doom?":

Sixty-four days remain in the 2012 presidential campaign. Election Day is nine weeks from tomorrow, both party conventions are now in the rearview mirror, and Mitt Romney's uphill battle to unseat President Obama has reached its most crucial phase. Everything that happened before today was merely prelude to this, the heart of the fall campaign season, and no "expert" can confidently predict today what the final result will be on November 6.

These basic facts are important to establish at the outset of any discussion of the current state of the race, because there are many influential people who would like you to believe that the outcome of the election has somehow already been determined, and that they have clairvoyant insight on what that outcome will be. But why bring Nate Silver into this?

Silver is the poll-analyzing guru of the New York Times, whose reputation as a wizard was developed in crunching baseball statistics before being applied to political campaigns. On Saturday afternoon, Silver published an analysis which asserted that Obama now has a nearly 80 percent chance of winning the election, with 317 Electoral College votes and 52 percent of the popular vote. All of which is very interesting -- and very important, if true.

However, baseball isn't politics, and public-opinion polls are not batting averages or on-base percentages or any other such metric of past performance. Readers of Michael Lewis's bestseller Moneyball may appreciate this distinction, especially if they have any extensive experience in following polls and election campaigns....

 To put it as bluntly as possible, the economy sucks, and the attempt by Democrats to exculpate Obama for this situation -- to place the blame on Republicans, or to say that the economy would suck even worse if Romney were elected -- is perhaps more difficult than Nate Silver's statistics suggest. If somebody were to offer you 4-to-1 odds on that proposition, how much would you bet? Mitt Romney's campaign reportedly raised $100 million last month, and the Obama campaign's embarrassed silence about its own August fundraising suggests that Democratic donors are less confident than the wizard of the New York Times.

And for good measure, check Bryan Preston as well, at PJ Media, "Seriously, Don't Panic About the Latest Polls."

It's going to be a hard fought campaign down to the wire. Neither side should get complacent, although I agree that Team Romney needs to clarify its message and hammer President Obama on his big-government radicalism. We've never had a president like this, and the point hasn't been driven home to the average man-on-the-street. No one else can do it. Romney has to get more personal and less managerial, lest he end up being the Michael Dukakis of 2012.

The Last Efforts of a Dying Ideology

If you read my post yesterday on the hubristic progressives, then consider this piece from Sarah Hoyt a continuation, but instead focusing on how some on the right have been suckered into the left's brazen propaganda of inevitable victory, "Spreading Fear and Despondency."

Progressives will attempt to demoralize you, they'll send you stuff like this to prove their inevitability, but mark my words: It's still a dead heat. The election is too close to call and there remain so many unaccounted for variables in play that to assume victory is outright folly. Don't be suckered.

I'll have more on this in the days ahead.

Supporters of Freedom Are All Zionists Now

From David Horowitz, at FrontPage Magazine, "Reflections of a Diaspora Jew on Zionism, America and the Fate of the Jews."

I looked for a good pullout quote, but it's all good, and classic Horowitz. Read it all at the link.

The Sadly Obligatory Biker Chick Sitting on Joe Biden's Lap Post

The photo was being wildly circulated on Twitter yesterday, so here's my contribution. Via Right Truth, "What Is It With Joe Biden Kissing Women and Having a Biker Chick Sit On His Lap?"

It wouldn't be that bad I suppose, but frankly the scene is fraught with more improper sexual tension than you could possibly imagine. Biden's practically making out with the lady. What a freak. And the looks on the gentlemen bikers next to them tell it all.

More at Twitchy, "Awkward: Joe Biden is photographed with a female biker in his lap."

Mitt Romney 'Meet The Press' Interview, September 9, 2012

Linkmaster Smith has it, at The Other McCain, "Mitt Romney Spars With David Gregory On Meet The Press."

Legal Battles on Voting May Be Critical Issue in Election

Something I haven't focused on much in my weekend analyses, at the New York Times, "A Tight Election May Be Tangled in Legal Battles":

The November presidential election, widely expected to rest on a final blitz of advertising and furious campaigning, may also hinge nearly as much on last-minute legal battles over when and how ballots should be cast and counted, particularly if the race remains tight in battleground states.

In the last few weeks, nearly a dozen decisions in federal and state courts on early voting, provisional ballots and voter identification requirements have driven the rules in conflicting directions, some favoring Republicans demanding that voters show more identification to guard against fraud and others backing Democrats who want to make voting as easy as possible.

The most closely watched cases — in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania — will see court arguments again this week, with the Ohio dispute possibly headed for a request for emergency review by the Supreme Court.

In Wisconsin, the home state of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, the attorney general has just appealed to the State Supreme Court on an emergency basis to review two rulings barring its voter ID law. But even if all such cases are settled before Nov. 6 — there are others in Florida, Iowa and South Carolina — any truly tight race will most likely generate post-election litigation that could delay the final result.

“In any of these states there is the potential for disaster,” said Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “You have close elections and the real possibility that people will say their votes were not counted when they should have been. That’s the nightmare scenario for the day after the election.”

More at that top link.

Senator Dianne Feinstein Walks Out of Interview When Asked Why She Won't Debate Her Oppenent

There's so much symbolism here the significance is astonishing. It's literally as if Feinstein believes there's no reason to be accountable to the political process. And keep in mind, why should she? California's the bluest of blue states and the power of incumbency practically guarantees reelection for a milquetoast placeholder like Feinstein. I cringe at how undemocratic it seems, but then again, change takes time, especially in California. Perhaps things won't go well for the state's Democrats in November, especially on Proposition 30, and the seeds could be sown for substantial political change going forward. We'll see. Via Instapundit:

Chicago Teachers Union Will Strike for First Time in 25 Years

The New York Times reports, "With No Contract Deal by Deadline in Chicago, Teachers Will Strike."

It turns out the communists and Occupy protesters are turning the strike into a class-warfare campaign for worker's solidarity. Here's the World Workers Party on Twitter:

Victory to the #CTU! Their strike will have implications for public education and teachers' unions across the U.S. #ctustrike
— Socialist Worker (@SocialistViews) September 10, 2012

A collection of articles from the Socialist Worker is here. And a commentary here, "The meaning of our struggle in Chicago."

Plus Marathon Pundit reports, "Strike out: Chicago public school teachers walk out; non-union charter schools still in session."

There should be marches and picketing tomorrow --- and thus plenty of photos and video of commies gone wild. I'll be updating. This ought to be something else.

Added: From Anne Sorock, at Legal Insurrection, "Chicago Teachers Union strikes, publishes Gloria Steinem endorsement."

The View From the Other Side: 'Anger and Denial' On the 'Wingnut Right'

Here's my previous entry, "A Two-Point Change in the Polls is Not a 'Bounce' — Especially With the Undercover Media Cognoscenti in the Tank."

I'm sure folks might quibble here and there with the analysis, but the fact is the election's been basically deadlocked for months. And while conservatives would love to see Mitt Romney holding a huge lead in the polls, it just ain't happening. What explains this? The country is nearly evenly divided, of course. Barack Obama remains popular among left-leaning voters (who give him the benefit of the doubt) and by reasonably objective indicators the mainstream press has been harder on Mitt Romney than it has on the incumbent (I could cite numerous media attacks on Romney, and untold numbers of underreported negative stories on Obama, but no need, since partisans will believe what they want to believe).

That said, I don't think the much dreaded "wingnut" right of the Republican coalition is inventing conspiracy theories as to why Obama remains competitive. And thus it's infinitely intriguing to see the left's response to John Hinderaker's piece, cited at my essay above, "Why Is This Election Close?" (at Memeorandum). Read the Hinderaker essay before some of the radical responses below. What amazes me is how dramatically divergent are the two sides. And also interesting is the caricatures that progressives use to describe the reviled "wingnuts," that, and the left's cocoon of psychological displacement and self-delusion.

Here's Mark Kleiman, for example, "From Denial to Anger: wingnuts v. the American people":

I’m always happy to see people dealing with reality, even if they do so badly. So it’s good to see a faction of the right-wing commentariat pivot from pretending that Clint Eastwood gave a great speech and the Democrats had a bad convention – while explaining that the polling results showing otherwise are rigged – to trying to figure out why their guy is losing an election they thought was a tap-in, and still think should by rights be a tap-in. They’ve moved on from Denial to Anger.

There are links to both Power Line and National Review at that entry, but again, it's the perception of reality that's striking. So to clarify: Eastwood didn't give a great speech, although he pushed just enough of the right buttons to have a huge impact; the Democrats didn't have a "bad convention," perhaps, but only if one ignores the completely FUBAR voice vote on God and Religion, the lies DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told to deny her party's failures, and the stream of far-left wing activists and party hacks spouting hateful attacks on Republicans with nary a mention of the administration's failed policies. But again, it's all in the perceptions.

But checking further around the horn, what do we find?

Well, Booman Tribune's Martin Longman, who I noted yesterday lives truly in an alternative universe, has this, "Stupid Republicans":

It would be hard to exaggerate Assrocket's stupidity. If he believes anything he's saying, he's an idiot. I wonder whether his readers will punish him for being such a bad prognosticator, or not. Anyone who has predicted that not only would Mitt Romney win this election, but win it in convincing fashion, obviously cannot even figure out how to use an Electoral College calculator. Assrocket should know that the Democrats have a solid 247 Electoral College base. And if the Dems don't totally screw things up, they probably will enter the 2016 cycle with a solid base in excess of the 270 Electoral College majority required to win.

It is possible for Mitt Romney to win, but not by more than 291 votes, and that is not a decisive margin. You can look back at 2004 and see that as pretty much the best the modern Republican Party can do.

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess. It's not like Democrats have been winning landslide presidential elections, in recent decades, and that's if the Democrats even won. (And demography is not necessarily destiny, since people can change voting preferences, especially during an economic depression.) All that matters is 270-to-win, in any case, so this blather about how large an electoral vote is meaningless. All Romney has to do is win a few states that Obama took in 2008, especially Ohio and Florida, and things could be over for the Democrats. While Longman can act like an all-knowing political Solon, dissing Republicans as "stupid," President Obama doesn't have the luxury of hubris, and has in fact been shitting bricks according to some reports. (And for the record, keep Booman Tribune in mind if you're thinking about ramming a Republican victory down progressive throats after November 6.)

Now, how about over at No More Mr. Nice Blog, a colleague of Booman, "WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK OF AMERICA":

Verbatim John Hinderaker, from a Power Line post titled "Why Is This Election Close?":

I am afraid the problem in this year's race is economic self-interest: we are perilously close to the point where 50% of our population cares more about the money it gets (or expects to get) from government than about the well-being of the nation as a whole. Throw in a few confused students, pro-abortion fanatics, etc., and you have a Democratic majority.

Shorter Hinderaker:

Hey, American people, we think you're a bunch of leeches, bomb-throwers, and morons. Vote for us!

The mask is really off here: If you look forward to getting Social Security and Medicare benefits, or unemployment benefits if you lose your job, or Pell grants if you want to go to college, you're contemptible. You're not American. Sink-or-swim is the American way.

Oh boy!

Yeah, the mask is really off --- the welfare entitlement state! Steve M. practices the simple caricature I mentioned above. Now we could quibble with Hinderaker's phrasing, but the fact remains that, yes, 50 percent of Americans are receiving income from some kind of federal transfer program, and that fact weighs on the historic tradition of individualism and self-sufficiency in American politics. The question is whether all of those receiving benefits of some sort, especially among those who aren't Social Security retirees, consider this a lifelong dole with little care about returning to gainful employment of some sort. There's certainly no lack of evidence that large numbers of the Democrat base expect long-term welfare handouts, and these slackers in fact lovingly refer to the handouts as "Obama bucks." Other examples abound (remember Peggy Joseph upon the election of "The One"). So let's be honest: The average working wage-earner paying substantial portions of his or her income in taxes has all the right to be concerned about the basic moral "well-being of the nation as a whole" when it comes to hard work and personal responsibility. That's the kind of sweat that built this country, not the ever growing welfare state entitlement dole that Democrats will defend to the death.

Okay, how about over at Barbara "Mahablog" O'Brien, "Obama Pulling Away?":

The Right is genuinely baffled as to why their guy isn’t winning by a mile. Those of you with a morbid fascination with psycho-political pathology might get a kick out of some of their arguments today — see Power Tool John and Andrew McCarthy, for example. It’s beginning to dawn on them that they could lose. They are still hopeful that some reservoir of undecided voters will break to Romney at the last minute, but now they are entering the second-guessing phase. Have they been too “conservative,” or not “conservative” enough?

Although we may never solve the mystery of why Mitt Romney wants to be President, I am getting the impression that he, and much of the rest of the Right, thought this election would be easily winnable. All they had to do was present a candidate who looks like he could play a President on teevee, and all those folks disappointed in President Obama would flock to him. And it isn’t happening. And they are so lost inside their own echo chamber they have no idea why.

What I think is that the Democratic convention reflected what the electorate actually thinks and feels right now, and the Republicans missed that by a mile. The cut taxes/deregulate to create prosperity gag is old, and tired, and no one outside the rightie echo chamber believes it any more. And every local, state, and national candidate for office for the past several election cycles has been promising jobs, jobs, jobs, and the promises don’t cut it. Without a credible, clearly articulated plan, they might as well promise fairy dust and unicorns.

While I can't speak for "every local, state, and national candidate" running for office this year, the fact is that it was President Obama's speech that was hammered by people on the left for being extremely short on specifics and vision. Indeed, far-left blogger Kevin Drum dissed Obama for "phoning it in." And Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker, clearly no friend of the GOP ticket, hammered Obama's speech, noting that "There’s still plenty of time left for Obama to live up to his promise to tell us the truth. Let’s hope we hear a lot more detail in the weeks ahead about what he really means when he implores us 'forward'." So again, it's all about perception, and if Barbara O'Brien wants to attack conservatives as stuck in the echo chamber bubble, she might first step outside herself and draw a deep breath of reality.

Alright, I'm just getting started here! Let's see what Zandar the Stupid's got up his sleeves, "Your Insanity Is Exquisite, Sir":

John Hinderaker's clean break with political reality is so snowflake-intricate, so crystalline perfect in its construction, that part of me feels bad stomping all over the thing like a drunken brontosaurus with a restless leg syndrome having a panic attack during an earthquake. I mean, it takes serious and sustained, considerable effort to build a Fortress of Denial like this, each brick lovingly collected from the fetid swamps of internet bullshit that he resides in, much like Yoda's Dagobah home (only without all the personable rustic charm) and held in the hefty walls by the mortar of utter cluelessness...

Zandar is one of those progressives who virtually speaks a foreign language decipherable almost exclusively to the scummiest dirtbag trolls of the progressive fever swamps. Folks can continue reading Zandar the Stupid at the link. He hasn't debunked Hinderaker so much as pissed on him. And as is the case with political blogging, Zandar eschews any self-reflection as to the weaknesses of his side. As mentioned, Team Obama is worried about reelection. The race is tight and things could still go against the Democrats. All this left-wing victory stomping is badly premature at this point, and exceedingly self-absorbed, as if that needed to be pointed out.

Now, last but not least, check out the diarist "Armando" at Daily Kos, "Wingnuts argue conservatism being failed: by the American People." The post is mostly a cut-and-paste from some of the bloggers I've cited here already, but the kicker is the Ayn Rand theme with the picture of the Objectivist philosopher at the entry. I don't actually hear too many folks on the right quoting Ayn Rand to make the case against Obama. There's been a resurgence of her work, no doubt, and we had some buzz a few years back about people "going Galt," but the fact is veep-nominee Paul Ryan has renounced Rand's theories as atheist and I can't think of a single mainstream Republican who wants to abandon the basic outlines of the safety net as we have it today. What folks like Ryan want to do is put that safety net on sure footing. They want to modernize the American welfare state for a society and post-industrial economy that bear little resemblance to the American economy and demographics of the Great Depression and New Deal. It's the Democrats who are stuck in a time warp. It's the denizens of the fevered leftist redoubts who're in denial about what it's going to take to revitalize the country, put our economy on sound footing, and get people back to work (and off the dole). And on that note, and in detail, don't miss Walter Russell Mead, "Noise vs. Knowledge: America’s Longest Presidential Campaign."

The Democrats offered virtually nothing of substance at the convention in Charlotte. And the president in particular was just going through the motions, giving what many panned as a barely warmed-over State-of-the-Union leftover address.

The progressives used to call themselves "the reality-based community." And some still do, I'm sure. The problem is the left's reality is not the objective reality that people usually refer to when they speak of realistic-based, reality-driven thinking. Is Mitt Romney going to win? Who knows? But he's certainly not out of the ball game, not by a long shot. And by implication, President Obama's not pulling away. I laid out how I felt at my earlier essay on Nate Silver and the purported Democrat convention bounce. My hunch at this point is that Obama has a very good chance to win, but it could be a squeaker, cobbling together just enough of his 2008 electoral coalition to go over the top. And to be really accurate here I'd need to go back and look at the state level data, for example, in Florida (where Obama holds a 1.7 percent lead in the RCP average) and Ohio (where Obama holds a 1.5 percent lead in the RCP average); and we'd have to factor in other things like campaign spending, and GOTV efforts, and voter enthusiasm (see Charlie Cook on the latter, "Obama’s Enthusiasm Deficit Could Soon Haunt Him"). Consider it basically a dead heat. Or at least consider the reality that it could be a dead heat and that Team Obama's freaking out that it's a dead heat, and that "The One" could well be packing his bags for a permanent golf vacation come January.

So there you go. Neither side needs to be over-confident at this point, but if I were a concern troll I'd warn the progressives not to get too cocky.

RELATED: See Jennifer Rubin, "Whistling past the graveyard at the Democratic convention."

CARTOON CREDIT: Dr. Sanity, "DENIAL, DENIAL, AND STILL MORE DENIAL!"

Jay Whiston, British 17-Year-Old, Killed After House Party Crashed by Facebook 'Friends'

Another one of those incredible teen tragedies you couldn't imagine happening when you were a kid.

At Telegraph UK, "Teenager stabbed to death after Facebook party is gatecrashed":

A promising A-level student was stabbed to death after a quiet house party spiralled out of control when gatecrashers spotted an invite on Facebook.

Jay Whiston, 17, collapsed after being stabbed in the stomach during an altercation over a mobile phone at the party in a quiet suburb of Colchester, Essex.

Partygoers described how the well-behaved teenage gathering, at which the host’s parents were present, descended into chaos as a large number of uninvited guests turned up and began to cause trouble.

According to witnesses, Mr Whiston, who lived with his family in Clacton, was stabbed when he attempted to intervene in a row over a mobile phone.

Paramedics, who were called to Marlowe Way in Colchester shortly after 10pm on Saturday evening, rushed Mr Whiston to Colchester General Hospital but he was pronounced a short time later.

Last night his grieving mother Caroline Shearer, 47, warned parents everywhere of the devastating impact of knife crime.

See also London's Daily Mail, "Boy, 17, stabbed to death as Facebook gatecrashers storm suburban house party supervised by parents of teenage girl."

A Two-Point Change in the Polls is Not a 'Bounce' — Especially With the Undercover Media Cognoscenti in the Tank

President Obama has seen at most a two or three point change in the polls from two weeks ago, in the days just before the GOP convention. Frankly, the changes are practically imperceptible. The polls are basically where they were in early August, when Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan as his running-mate --- when at that time it could've been said that the GOP ticket got a small bounce (and nobody in the MSM was saying any such thing, surprise). As I reported earlier, the so called "convention bounce" phenomenon is essentially ephemeral. Looking back at earlier election years, the gains after the conventions evaporated as the general election campaign wore on in the last couple of months. In other words, the final leg of the presidential race matters. The last stages of the campaigns will turn undecided voters into "decidedes" and one of the campaigns will emerge as the clear leader at the final stretch.

So that's why I'm getting some good laughs from Nate Silver, the so-called wonder kid of horse race polling. Poor Nate has been jonesing horribly for even the slightest blip of an Obama-Biden bounce. He squeezed out a "hint" of a bounce in his writing the other day, and last night he went all out with a major commitment in political analysis: "Sept. 8: Conventions May Put Obama in Front-Runner’s Position." Oh my! Talk about iconoclastic political reporting! Step back from the ledge, Nate. Think of the children!!

But the fact is that Obama's a wildly likable incumbent who's had virtually the entire MSM establishment in the tank. Yeah, he's the front-runner alright, doh. The big story is why the Democrat ticket hasn't pulled out a prohibitive lead by now. Lord knows the press is trying. They even went undercover to pick up some Obama swag from the convention in Charlotte: "Too good to check: Media buying Obama swag under fake names at Democratic convention?"

The wonder kid reports that Obama might ultimately pull out a five-point post-convention bounce --- we won't know until later this week, when the tracking poll surveys catch up with sample respondents queried after the convention. I'll give Silver a big shout out later in the week if he's on the money. But in the end, any bounce won't matter much. The race will be neck-and-neck down to the wire of November 6. We have boatloads of political advertising to expect by then, and of course the presidential debates, which could make a big difference. Indeed, Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg have more on that, at the Times, "Five Crucial Factors to Watch, Just 58 Days From the Election" (via Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — Two months before the election, President Obama and Mitt Romney agree on one thing: the collection of states where the race will be decided.

As Mr. Obama opened a two-day bus tour of Florida on Saturday, Mr. Romney set his sights on trying to put Virginia back in the Republican column. Television advertisements from both sides were filling the airwaves in those two vital states and six others from Nevada to New Hampshire, while outside groups supporting the candidates tested for traction elsewhere.

With the political conventions over, the battle to determine whether Mr. Obama will win re-election or Mr. Romney will become the 45th president of the United States is fully engaged. The race has been deadlocked, according to many measures, and each side was predicting that it would see no lift from its convention. That seems to have been true in Mr. Romney’s case, while Mr. Obama’s aides were hopeful that new polls due out this week would prove them wrong.

But for now, Mr. Obama may hold a slight edge because the race remains essentially tied, which means voter disappointment has not turned into a resounding call for his defeat despite the challenging economic climate.

“Now, our friends at the other convention were more than happy to talk about what was wrong with America but not talking about what they’d do to make it right,” he told supporters on Saturday in Seminole, Fla., only a few miles from the site of the Republican convention.

Mr. Romney, speaking to veterans in Virginia Beach on Saturday, referred to the disappointing jobs report released a day earlier. “This week has not been a lot of good news,” he said. “But I’m here to tell you things are about to get a lot better.”

Continue reading.

The five factors: The electoral map, the debates, the ads and messaging, possible third party bids in some states, and campaign finance.

I'm making no bets at this point. I mostly think that Obama could lose and lose badly, but there's so much that can happen between now and election day. And I don't trust the media to get the real story out about who the president really is and how badly his administration has led the country. My gut instinct is that the wisdom of the American people will prevail, and that we'll see a political retrenchment in November in the furtherance of good government and basic political decency. That would mean, obviously, that voters will throw the Democrat bums out on their sorry asses.

So, keep checking back here for all your political reporting and analysis needs.

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Denies Accusing Republicans of 'Undermining Israel Security' in Interview With CNN's Don Lemon

Israel Matzav has the video, "Dumb Dumb Debbie claims to be 'misunderstood'.'

Watch it at the link. Wasserman Schultz repeatedly lies that she was "misrepresented" by Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner, which she tries to blow off as a "conservative blog."

But Klein has responded, "Confronted with audio, DWS makes another erroneous statement about the Washington Examiner." That's a detailed fisking of Wasserman Schultz's lies, but this part is key:

Asked by CNN anchor Don Lemon if she had any regrets about this episode, Wasserman Schultz said she did not. “I regret that the Examiner has repeatedly taken what I said out of context,” she added. “If they had printed the entire quote, and if they had actually told ambassador Oren what I actually said, I think his response would have been different.”

But when I posted audio of her comments, I actually included the 28 seconds leading up to her Oren quote and the 38 seconds after it. I did so to purposely bend over backwards to provide even more context to her quote than was even needed to show I transcribed her accurately in my initial report.

For what it’s worth, it isn’t just the conservative media that is saying I quoted her accurately. The Washington Post looked at her initial accusation of a misquote and concluded: “Klein’s quote was exactly accurate, meaning Wasserman Schultz falsely accused the Examiner of misquoting her. The DNC chair earns Four Pinocchios.” The fact checkers at PolitiFact gave her their “pants on fire” rating.

What’s odd about this whole episode is that Wasserman Schultz could have put this issue largely to rest initially by simply clarifying her point and saying that her statement was misunderstood. Instead, she keeps digging in – claiming that I reported things that I didn’t and accusing me of misquoting her when I went out of my way to provide full context of her remarks.

Well, she wouldn't do that, because then she'd have to admit that she was wrong in the first place. Leftists don't to that, especially Israel-bashing leftists like the DNC chair, whose own office has been under fire previously for attacking American Israel supporters as "Jewbags."

PREVIOUSLY: "'Not All Democrats Are Anti-Israel, But Almost All Anti-Israelis Are Democrats."

How Big Is the Student Loan Default Problem?

The New York Times reports, "A Big Default Problem, but How Big?":

Long-range projections by the Department of Education estimate that the default rate over 20 years, for borrowers who began repayment in 2009, is 17 percent; among students who attended profit-making colleges, the predicted default rate is 49 percent.

It is messy, though, to compare those long-range estimates with the official default rate published by the Department of Education. The long-range estimates are calculated on the dollar amount of loans in default, while the official rate is based on the number of borrowers in default.

Looking at defaults another way, about 15 percent of all borrowers have been in default at the end of the last six fiscal years, which ends Sept. 30, according to Department of Education data. Currently, 16 percent of borrowers are in default, nearly twice the official default rate.

Actually, you can't really default on government loans. They can't be wiped out through bankruptcy, for example. You're on the hook for the money you borrowed, no matter what. More on that from the Times, "Degrees of Debt: Debt Collectors Cashing In on Student Loan Roundup" (via Memeorandum):

Unlike private lenders, the federal government has extraordinary tools for collection that it has extended to the collection firms. Ms. [Amanda] Cordeiro has already had two tax refunds seized, and other debtors have had their paychecks or Social Security payments garnisheed. Over all, the government recoups about 80 cents for every dollar that goes into default — an astounding rate, considering most lenders are lucky to recover 20 cents on the dollar on defaulted credit cards.

I've probably said this before, but I'm not sympathetic to students who take out too much debt. I worked my way through college and didn't take loans until graduate school. I borrowed a ton of money, but my payments are commensurate with my career and earnings. I don't know what young people are thinking when they take out nearly $100 thousand in loans for some worthless degree in post-epistemology gender collectivist studies, or whatever the going discipline these days. Half of these idiots end up at the Occupy Wall Street protests looking like abject progressive scum. It's ridiculous.

More at Memeorandum.

Farewell to London 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics

At Independent UK, "Farewell to Games that exceeded all our hopes":

Two sporting extravaganzas, a record-breaking medal haul for Britain, disabled sport showcased as never before … no wonder even the Aussies say it was better than Sydney...

And see, "Editorial: A magical summer: Were the £9bn Games worth it? Of course, for a Britain that is a better, happier country."

BONUS: At London's Daily Mail, "Revenge of the Blade Runner! Pistorius destroys opposition as he takes gold in the Olympic Stadium's final event."

The Party That Obama Un-Built

From Kim Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, "Where is the next generation of Democrats?":

Charlotte, N.C. - Julian Castro is no Barack Obama. And for that, Democrats have themselves to blame.

The focus of this week's Democratic convention was President Obama. Lost in the adulation was the diminished state to which he has brought his broader party. Today's Democrats are a shadow of 2008—struggling for re-election, isolated to a handful of states, lacking reform ideas, bereft of a future political bench. It has been a stunning slide.

The speech by Mr. Castro, the young and charismatic mayor of San Antonio, was the Democrats' attempt to recapture the party optimism that then-Senate candidate Obama sparked at the 2004 convention. John Kerry didn't win, but that year marked the start of an ambitious Democratic plan to revitalize the party.

In 2006, Nancy Pelosi muzzled her liberal inclinations to recruit and elect her "Majority Makers"—a crop of moderate and conservative Democrats who won Republican districts and delivered control of the House for the first time in 14 years.

Democrats in 2006 also claimed the Senate, with savvy victories in states like Montana and Virginia. The party thumped Republicans in gubernatorial races, winning in the South (Arkansas), the Mountain West (Colorado), and in Ohio (for the first time since 1991). A vibrant candidate Obama further boosted Democratic ranks in 2008.

By 2009, President Obama presided over what could fairly be called a big-tent coalition. The Blue Dog caucus had swelled to 51 members, representing plenty of conservative America. Democrats held the majority of governorships. Mr. Obama had won historic victories in Virginia and North Carolina. The prediction of liberal demographers John Judis and Ruy Teixeira's 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority"—lasting progressive dominance via a coalition of minorities, women, suburbanites and professionals—attracted greater attention among political analysts.

It took Mr. Obama two years to destroy this potential, with an agenda that forced his party to field vote after debilitating vote—stimulus, ObamaCare, spending, climate change. The public backlash, combined with the president's mismanagement of the economy, has reversed Democrats' electoral gains and left a party smaller than at any time since the mid-1990s.

Of the 21 Blue Dogs elected since 2006, five remain in office. The caucus is on the verge of extinction...

Continue reading.

And keep in mind, much of the destruction of the old-line Democrat Party can be laid at the feet of the radical nutroots left, which is way more extreme than anything the tea party has even dreamed of. But don't tell that to the legacy media. You'll be ostracized as a "conservative troll."

No, the Faux Family-Friendly Speeches at the Convention Didn't Fool Me One Bit — the Democrats Are Socialist Collectivists In All But Name, Bent On Transforming Society Just as Barack Hussein Promised

See Stanley Kurtz, "Are Republicans Fooling Themselves?":

Overall, the Democrats put on an effective show. With the possible exception of the McGovern convention, this was the most left-leaning Democratic gathering in memory. Some of that may have been counterproductive, particularly on social issues. To the extent that Republicans dismiss this convention as either a failure or relatively meaningless, however, I think we’re fooling ourselves.

This election could go either way. If Obama squeaks by, he will have done so with the help of a Democratic party that has taken a large, open, and disturbingly leftist turn. I think we’re missing the significance of that. It is completely accurate to say that the Democrats are pushing a bogus reformulation of the American way of life — slapping a bunch of flags on their Julia ad and turning classic conceptions of civic and religious community into covers for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is becoming the new normal in this country, and Obama and his convention have only helped to cement the change.

Conservatives can puncture these arguments all we like, but we can’t cut through the media filter. More than that, the conservative case can’t break through the left-controlled education system that has profoundly shaped the Millennials. True, youth unemployment is giving many second thoughts about Obama, yet it’s been more a matter of sapping Millennial enthusiasm than of changing attitudes and ideas.

Do demographics doom the expansive liberal welfare state, regardless? In some sense, they do. Yet if Obama is in the driver’s seat as our fiscal woes mount, he will use the crisis to further his restructuring. California is our advance guard — our Greece — yet their budget crisis is two months away from prompting one of the boldest redistributionist transformations this country has seen in years (even if barely anyone knows it yet).

Only the Romney campaign can cut through the cultural, educational, and media filters and force a debate over the Obama Democrats’ bogus redefinition of the American dream. The media can ignore what conservatives say, but they still have to cover the candidate. With the exception of his welfare ads, however, the Romney campaign has avoided an assault on Obama’s ideology. Romney’s entirely plausible strategy is to downplay the ideological battle (Ryan nomination notwithstanding).

More at the link.

And see the extremely radical Booman Tribune, which spews the classic progressive cover for the hard-left's transformation agenda, "Mr. Kurtz? He Dumb."

No Kurtz isn't "dumb." He's just willing to get out there and expose things others are afraid of mentioning. That said, recall the Wall Street Journal also argued the same basic point as Kurtz, "Obama Was Honest When He Said He Wanted to Remake America."

And remember, this is the party that voted three times --- three times, without blinking an eye --- to vote God out of the public realm --- voting against public opinion polls that find overwhelming majorities affirming the role of God in their lives and in the life of the nation.

Plus, at the video above, man-and-woman on the street interviews show Democrat after Democrat agreeing that Americans are part of the government, and by implication not of the civil society that is supposed to form an associational bulwark against coercive tyranny. So, yes, the hard-left Democrats are indeed changing --- more rapidly than most have noticed --- the basic notions of civil society and the social contract. Don't miss Linkmaster Smith for more comments on that, at The Other McCain, "Democrat Transition Into Communist Party Continues Apace."

Conservative Trolling

Lots of folks are talking about this piece from David Weigel, "The Age of Trolling: How a small band of conservatives generated half of the Democratic Convention’s headlines."

Linkmaster Smith offers an abstract take, "@DaveWeigel Nearly Discovers Capitalism, Shrugs It Off As ‘Trolling’." And at AoSQH, "Slate's 'Conservative' Writer Dave Wiegel: When the Conservative Media Reports Stories the Partisan Liberal Press Embargoes, It's 'Trolling'."

And this is good, from "streiff" at Red State, "Dave Weigel: Conservative Journalism = Trolling":

I usually don’t devote much time to thinking about the third tier Democrat enablers who make up much of the press. This includes anyone at Buzzfeed, anyone at Politico, Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, and, of course, Dave Weigel.

Today I’m going to make and exception for Weigel because his recent article in Slate is really instructive on how the media operates and how it expects us to operate....

According to Weigel, it is “trolling” to report on the Democrats excising God from their platform and their kowtowing to their radical islamist element by not acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is somehow “distracting.” He thinks that the goat rope that followed, the booing of the mention on God and the hapless, befuddled Anthony Villaraigosa’s declaring against all evidence that two-thirds of the body had voted to restore both God and Jerusalem to the platform. It is “trolling” to mention a prominent California delegate compared us to Nazis.

In short, for conservatives to report anything that interferes with the organized fellatio of Obama that passed for mainstream media coverage of the Democrat convention is equivalent to internet trolling.

This is what we are up against this fall. We aren’t fighting bias in the media, we are contending with palpable hostility from a media that is viscerally committed to the re-election of Barack Obama.

Well, it's not just "this fall," but otherwise a very nice summary.

And see American Glob, "In Which Dave Weigel Forgets He Was a Member of JournoList" (via Instapundit here, and more here).

Oh, and by the way, some of the most objectionable "trolling" would be that of Yid With Lid and his reporting on the Dems' God and Jerusalem clusterf-k, which Dunetz broke himself, with a boost from the Weekly Standard. See, "Democrats Strip Pro-Israel Language From Platform." So, CWCID. Kudos to Yid With Lid. That was one of the more important stories coming out of Charlotte. Really. A Blogspot blogger handing the MSM hacks their asses? Definitely doesn't fit the accepted narrative.

Homeless Man Kills Pelican for Food

He was hungry, had no luck fishing, and said WTF?

A man's gotta eat. (And perhaps too proud to be an Obama food stamp dependent, who knows?)

At KTLA Los Angeles, "Homeless Man Charged, Accused of Choking Pelican to Death:

MALIBU, Calif. (KTLA) -- Prosecutors on Friday charged a homeless man with animal cruelty, accusing him of killing a pelican with his bare hands.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies arrested 30-year-old Sergio Alvarez late Wednesday afternoon after horrified witnesses claimed they saw the man trying to choke a pelican near the Malibu Pier.

The pelican struggled briefly before going limp in Alvarez's hands, according to sheriff's reports.

And at Los Angeles Daily News, "Hungry homeless man sentenced to 60 days in jail for choking pelican to death."

And don't miss the comments there, which run along the lines of, "Hey, three hots and a cot ... the dude won't be hungry now..."

Lana Del Rey Nude GQ Photo Shoot

At London's Daily Mail, "No clothing needed! Lana Del Rey is more than comfortable in her own skin as she strips off for nude GQ shoot."

And at GQ, "Lana Del Rey covers GQ!"

'Not All Democrats Are Anti-Israel, But Almost All Anti-Israelis Are Democrats

That's the post title from William Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection.

And linked there is Joel Engel's entry, at the Weekly Standard, from 2004, "From Me to Jews":

The evidence is overwhelming that acceptable anti-Semitism has moved from right to left on the political continuum, and that its philosophical home now resides in the Democratic party, which has become less the party of liberals than of leftists. Even before Al Sharpton stood as a presidential candidate last year, Democratic politicians genuflecting for black votes--Al Gore, Bill Bradley, and Hillary Clinton, for example--often trekked up to Harlem to kiss his ring. And yet, this was a man who in previous years had either led or instigated two anti-Jewish demonstrations, one in Crown Heights and one in Harlem, which together resulted in the deaths of eight people. Does that matter to Democrats and John Kerry? Apparently not. Sharpton was rewarded with a choice slot at the Democratic National Convention, something that is impossible to imagine being given to the likes of former Republican David Duke, whose incitements have frankly born far less blood than Sharpton's.

Yeah, well, Sharpton's a star on the far-left hate-channel MSNBC, so there you go.

Dems Tone Deaf on the Moral Crisis

From Star Parker, at WND:

Maybe Democrats have some slick salesmen, like Bill Clinton and our current president, who can sell you swampland and have you convinced that you’ve bought choice beachfront property.

But the omission of any mention of God and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital from the Democratic Party platform, which were in it in 2008, and then the almost failed attempt to add them after the fact, showed the clear truth about the 2012 Democratic Party.

It took three boisterous floor votes to add these principles to the platform – and listening to the ayes and nays in the third vote, it is questionable that they actually got the two thirds that were needed.

The omission of these key principles from the Democratic platform was the party equivalent of what journalist Michael Kinsley calls a political gaffe – when a politician inadvertently says what he really believes.

Party operatives panicked when they realized that the platform, as initially drafted, showed today’s Democrats exactly for who they are – the home base for the nihilism, radical moral relativism and welfare statism that defines today’s far left.

But the Democrats are the party of the entertainment industry. They know how to create fiction and appeal to fantasies.

So the party of the radical left brands Republicans as extremists...

Hmm...

Nihilism? Check. Radical moral relativism? Check. Welfare state dependency? Check.

Looks like Parker's hit the nail on the head. The progs no doubt will be coming after her for speaking truth to power. She must be destroyed!

William Jacobson Reviews '2016: Obama's America'

The movie is a devastating exposé of Barack Obama, and especially the "guard dog" media that enabled this president's election.

See, "Legal Insurrection 2016":

Dinesh D’Souza found a theory — the anti-colonialist ideology of Obama’s Kenyan absentee father — which explains Obama.  I found the theory interesting, but unnecessary.

There are plenty of left-wing politicians and academics who share the same desire to bring American down several notches, who accept the rise of Islamists as necessary to counter the West and Israel, and who view government as a tool for redistribution of wealth both domestically and internationally … and who did not have an anti-colonial Kenyan father.

Whether Obama is a product of his desire to emulate his father’s anti-colonialism, or just another leftist product of our educational system and a left-wing upbringing, the result is the same.  We have a disaster on our hands.

The film demonstrates how Obama cunningly used race both for his advancement and to deflect scrutiny of his ideology.

I did not need this movie to know that.  Almost four years ago I saw that Obama’s use of race as a political weapon was the defining byproduct of the 2008 campaign

The most depressing aspect of the film was the cover-up by the mainstream media. Obama was the least vetted candidate ever, someone with associations which would have been disqualifying for anyone else.

That too was no surprise.

 Continue reading.

Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman Apologizes, Takes Leave Following Repulsive Anti-Christian Comments

At Instapundit, "PARTY OF HATE: FL DNC Boss Apologizes, Takes Leave of Absence After Saying Christians ‘Want Jews to Die’."

Also at the Palm Beach Post, "Damage control: Palm Beach County Dem chair apologizes for anti-Christian rant."

Blake Lively Gucci Première

Below is the director's cut, discussed at New York Daily News, "Gucci unveils complete ad for its Premiere fragrance spot with Blake Lively:

The TV spot, helmed by director Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive), was shot in the iconic Sheats Goldstein Residence in Beverly Hills. This longer version also features shots of a desert landscape.

And People Magazine reports, "Blake Lively Reveals Her Beauty Secret Weapon."

Also at Glamour, "Blake Lively on Her Love of Fragrance, How NOT to Do Your Makeup, and What She Learned About Style from Gossip Girl," and London's Daily Mail, "Cupcake queen Blake Lively reveals her secret to staying slim: 'Being 25 years old and having a good metabolism'."

The 'Born That Way' Theory of Homosexuality Has Been Extended to Pedophilia

I was hesitant on this one, but Robert Stacy McCain's essay is too good to ignore.

See, "The Problem With Sexual ‘Rights’.'

There's a long build-up to climax, if you will, but here's the gist of the controversy:

If you’re going to read the whole article at Gawker, be prepared to cope with feelings of outrage at how the “born that way” theory of homosexuality has been extended to pedophilia.

The writer of the article, Cord Jefferson, is at pains to distinguish between the term pedophile and the term child molester and, although few parents will give a damn about such semantics, it is enlightening in this regard: The scientists interviewed by Jefferson are interested in determining how crime can be prevented by persuading pedophiles not to act on their “sexual orientation.”

Yet this possibility — that persons need not act on their idiosyncratic sexual impulses – is entirely rejected by the rights-oriented legal philosophy that inspired Justice Kennedy’s Lawrence decision or Judge Wolf”s ruling in the Kosilek case. Both Kennedy and Wolf seem to presume that people have a right to satisfy their sexual desires, and there was an entire caucus at the Democrat convention dedicated to defending such rights.

If, however, the safety of citizens requires that certain sexual desires be sternly repressed, the objection of “rights” loses its force, and even such a liberal as Ta-Nehisi Coates is outraged by the tone of moral neutrality with which Cord Jefferson examines the claims of scientists about pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

Noel Sheppard notes that the Gawker writer is a “self-professed progressive,” and it is remarkable how the logic of progressivism inexorably leads to conclusions that even progressives find themselves compelled to reject — at least for now, that is.

Perhaps, as with homosexuality, our academic, legal, scientific and cultural elites can successfully destigmatize pedophilia, upending society’s moral consensus in such a way that our dread of child molesters is replaced by a horror at the benighted bigotry of those who fail to understand the science that proclaims that they’re “born that way,” and that this endows pedophiles with rights which no well-meaning person can oppose or criticize.

Oh, what wonders the “emerging awareness” provides!

The Gawker article in question is "Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children." It's so unmentionably depraved I prefer not to link. I did read Ta-Nehisi's post and was frankly surprised he doesn't go there --- surprised, because if you're progressive and favor homosexual rights it's not a stretch to legitimize pedophilia, which is, of course, child rape. Oh, you can get in trouble for saying it (that pesky thing called political correctness), but again, read that depraved piece at Gawker and you'll see what I mean.

And kudos to Noel Sheppard for going through that horrible piece of garbage to the very end, where in fact the writer confesses he's a "self-professed progressive." Sick, I know, but that's what progressive ideology is all about. See, "Gawker: 'Pedophilia Is a Sexual Orientation'."

Also concise and to the point is Clayton Cramer, "Born That Way."

God, Jerusalem and American Foreign Policy

From Caroline Glick:

There are two reasons for Americans' enduring interest and concern about Israel. And they were both revealed this week at the Democratic National Convention when the story broke about how this year's Democratic platform differs from its 2008 platform. First it was reported that the platform contained no mention of God.

Then it was reported that unlike the 2008 platform, this year's Democratic Party platform made no mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This year's platform watered down the language on Israel in other significant ways as well.

It did not refer to Israel as the US's "strongest ally" in the Middle East. It did not call for the continued eschewal of the Hamas terror group by the international community. It did not mention US opposition to the Palestinian demand for the so-called "right of return" - through which Israel would be destroyed by an influx of millions of foreign Arabs in the framework of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. But whereas these other deletions were generally ignored, the platform's silence on Jerusalem generated a maelstrom of criticism that exceeded even its deletion of God.

Significantly, rather than treat the deletions of God and Jerusalem as separate issues, the media and the Democrats themselves presented them as two sides of the same coin. When on Wednesday the party's leadership decided to restore the language of the 2008 platform on God and Jerusalem - but not on Hamas, the so-called "right of return," and Israel's strategic significance to the US - they opted to do so in the same amendment.

The widespread perception of God and Jerusalem as related issues tells us something important about the American character. And it tells us something equally important about Obama and the party he leads.

Prof. Walter Russell Mead described Israel's place in the American mindset last year. As he put it, "Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America."

Mead continued, "Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don't 'get' Israel also don't 'get' America and don't 'get' God."

By removing both God and Jerusalem from the platform, Obama and his fellow Democrats stirred the furies of that American soul at its foundations.

They showed they don't "get" Israel or God. And by extension, they don't "get" America.

No doubt. And read it all at the link.

Ben & Jerry's Sues Caballero Video Over 'Boston Cream Thighs' and 'Peanut Butter D-Cups'

This is too funny to pass up, at the Los Angeles Times, "Ben & Jerry's sues over 'Ben & Cherry's' porn series":

PHOTO: Ben Greenfield and Jerry Cohen get comfortable at the local XXX theater for a screening of "Chocolate Fudge Babes."

Caballero Video in Canoga Park, one of the area's oldest pornography studios, sought to pay homage to Ben & Jerry's with its X-rated "Ben & Cherry's" flicks. The ice cream maker wasn't impressed.

The Vermont company, known for frozen treats such as Boston Cream Pie, Peanut Butter Cups and Chocolate Fudge Brownie, sued Caballero this week in federal court alleging trademark infringement.

The DVDs, according to the filing, involve "blatant and outrageous copying and misappropriation of the Ben & Jerry's intellectual property." Ben & Jerry's won a court order temporarily halting the studio from marketing and selling titles such as "Boston Cream Thighs," "Peanut Butter D-Cups" and "Chocolate Fudge Babes."

The DVD producer, known officially as Rodax Distributors Inc., must stop offering the 10 titles in its Ben & Cherry's series as the case proceeds and remove all online mention of the X-rated products, according to the court order.

Caballero also was ordered to get rid of packaging that mimicked Ben & Jerry's distinctive containers, which feature cows, grassy fields, puffy clouds and the slogan "Vermont's Finest." Caballero's version incorporated similar elements as well as actresses posing seductively under the phrase "Porno's Finest."

Neither Caballero nor Ben & Jerry's could be reached for comment.

Well, Ben and Jerry couldn't be reached for comment because they're probably out packing fudge at a nearby Occupy Wall Street protest, the damned pervert freaks!

Also at iOWNTHEWORLD, "Ben and Jerry’s Sues Porno Company For Spoofing Their Flavors."

Radical Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky Cheers Democrat Party Becoming More 'Progressive', i.e., Communist

Via Weasel Zippers, "Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky Tells Kremlin TV She’s Happy Democratic Party Becoming More Communist…"

And Americans for Legal Immigration linked my Benita Veliz post from yesterday, and here's this from the comments:

Sadly the Democrat party has moved so far left it knocking on the door of communism and I really don't believe the rank and file party members understand the day of the blue dog is gone now we're left with misfits and radicals.

So true.

PREVIOUSLY: "Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn’t Know)".

Our National Debt Is Now More than 16 Trillion Dollars

A great clip from the House Republican Conference.

And don't miss this piece from Mark Steyn, "A Nation of Sandra Flukes" (via Memeorandum):

Sandra Fluke has been blessed with a quarter-million dollars of elite education, and, on the evidence of Wednesday night, is entirely incapable of making a coherent argument. She has enjoyed the leisurely decade-long varsity once reserved for the minor sons of Mitteleuropean grand dukes, and she has concluded that the most urgent need facing the Brokest Nation in History is for someone else to pay for the contraception of 30-year-old children. She says the choice facing America is whether to be “a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn’t apply to our bodies and our voices” — and, even as the words fall leaden from her lips, she doesn’t seem to comprehend that Catholic institutions think their “voices” ought to have freedom, too, or that Obamacare seizes jurisdiction over “our bodies” and has 16,000 new IRS agents ready to fine us for not making arrangements for “our” pancreases and “our” bladders that meet the approval of the commissars. Sexual liberty, even as every other liberty withers, is all that matters: A middle-school girl is free to get an abortion without parental consent, but if she puts a lemonade stand on her lawn she’ll be fined. What a bleak and reductive concept of “personal freedom.”

Obamanomics 101

It's Andrew Klavan, via Instapundit and The Other McCain: