Obama Administration Knew of Petraeus Infidelity in Late-Summer 2012

It wasn't just the FBI that was aware of Petraeus's affair last summer, but top officials in the administration. The Wall Street Journal reports, "FBI Scrutinized on Petraeus: Complaints by Female Social Planner Led to Email Trail That Undid CIA Chief":

A social planner's complaints about email stalking launched the monthslong criminal inquiry that led to a woman romantically linked to former Gen. David Petraeus and to his abrupt resignation Friday as Central Intelligence Agency chief.

The emails began arriving in Jill Kelley's inbox in May, U.S. officials familiar with the probe said. Ms. Kelley, who helped organize social events at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., told the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the emails, which she viewed as harassing, the U.S. officials said.

That FBI investigation into who sent the emails led over a period of months to Paula Broadwell, Mr. Petraeus's biographer, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, according to the U.S. officials.

FBI agents were pursuing what they thought was a potential cybercrime, or a breach of classified information.

Instead, the trail led to what officials said were sexually explicit emails between two lovers, from an account Mr. Petraeus used a pseudonym to establish, and to the destruction of Mr. Petraeus's painstakingly crafted image as a storied Army general.

Mr. Petraeus admitted to an affair in a letter to CIA employees announcing his resignation.

In the aftermath of the investigation, some lawmakers are aiming criticism at the FBI and the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, who knew about the email link to Mr. Petraeus as far back as late summer. A House Republican leader also learned of the matter in October. Some argue that Mr. Petraeus shouldn't have resigned; others said that the FBI should have formally notified Congress earlier.

The top Senate Democrat on intelligence issues said Sunday she would investigate the FBI's handling of the inquiry, and why the matter wasn't shared earlier with Congress.

"It was like a lightning bolt," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) on "Fox News Sunday." "This is something that could have had an effect on national security. I think we should have been told."

Read it all at the link.

And listen that Fox News report and interview with Rep. Peter King at the clip.

It's simply astonishing the number of questions that are being raised. And the White House doesn't want Petraeus testifying? The whole thing's obscene.

Lots more at Memeorandum.

Heidi Klum Leaves Little to the Imagination in Skimpy Gown at MTV Europe Music Awards

Amazing.

At Londons' Daily Mail, "Frock horror: Heidi Klum shocks in revealing tie-up blue and gold dress as she arrives to host the MTV EMAs."

Lots of pictures at the link.

Remembering California's More Than 700 Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan

At the Los Angeles Times, "California's Iraq and Afghanistan war dead remembered."

A Progressive Surge

The editors at The Nation spike the football:

A country reeling from one disaster has dodged another. While President Obama’s re-election inspires varying degrees of hope among progressives, it has evoked one common sentiment: relief. Democracy may not be reborn, but a living symbol of plutocracy was defeated by the voters on November 6.


It’s worth remembering, before Mitt Romney settles into a comfortable 1 percent retirement from politics, that his victory would have imperiled the security of all but those insulated by extreme wealth from concerns like being able to find safe, warm housing in the wake of a hurricane. A Romney/Ryan win would have been viewed as a validation of a radical individualist worldview that runs counter to every value progressives hold dear. It would have collapsed the space the left needs to gain strength, and it would have empowered social forces—from the religious right to the Tea Party voter-suppression machine to Wall Street and corporate elites—that form an intractable bloc of opposition to progress for all those struggling for equality and opportunity in today’s United States.

This right-wing coalition was defeated at the polls by a “rising American electorate,” a coalition of women, African-Americans, Latinos, the young and unionized blue-collar workers in Midwestern battleground states. These voters not only provided Obama with his margin of victory but carried several stalwart progressives in high-profile Senate races to exhilarating wins: Massachusetts’ Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who emerged as a champion in the fight to regulate the financial sector, took Scott Brown’s seat despite a furious effort by Wall Streeters to stop her; Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, who despite a deluge of negative Super PAC ads, costing upward of $31 million, overcame his Republican rival with his populist labor-based campaign; and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, who prevented a vulnerable Democratic seat from being snatched by former Governor Tommy Thompson and will become the first out gay or lesbian to serve in the Senate, where she will join the ranks of a record number of women senators. Thank you, voters, for that fitting response to the Republican war on women.

More at that top link.

And see also iOWNTHEWORLD, "U.S. Communist Party Crows Over Obama Victory."

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House on Flickr, "President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama embrace Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden moments after the television networks called the election in their favor, while watching election returns at the Fairmont Chicago Millennium Park in Chicago, Ill., Nov. 6, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)."

Looks like Obama's about to start bawling again. Sheesh.

'Cloak and Shag Her'

At Director Blue, "BEST PETRAEUS AFFAIR HEADLINE: It's the New York Post Hands Down, No Contest."

I've got additional scandal coverage going live overnight, so check Bad Blue in the meanwhile, and Instapundit.

Petraeus Benghazi Scandal: 'Social Liaison Officer' Jill Kelley Identified as Second Woman

Boy, the weaves of this tangled web are being unraveled, and it just sordid and spiteful.

At the New York Post, "Petraeus' mistress sent harassing e-mails to military liaison: official."

And at London's Daily Mail, "Revealed: The glamorous social liaison officer who complained to FBI about emails from Petraeus's 'jealous' biographer mistress."

Lots of photos at that second link, and more at Memeorandum.

And check this out, from Israel National News, "Broadwell: Petraeus Knew of Benghazi Plea for Help":

Military expert Paula Broadwell, who was allegedly improperly involved with resigned CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, confirmed in October that the CIA annex in Benghazi asked for reinforcements when the consulate came under attack on September 11. She also acknowledged that "there was a failure in the system."

Broadwell was speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, on October 26. Her lecture, which is on YouTube under the title "Alumni Symposium 2012 Paula Broadwell," now has added value, because based on the recent disclosures, it can now be assumed that she indeed knew exactly what it was that Petraeus knew about the attack.

Broadwell confirmed the reports on Fox News that the CIA annex asked for a special unit, the Commander in Chief's In Extremis Force, to come and assist it. She also said that the force could indeed have reinforced the consulate, and that Petraeus knew all of this, but was not allowed to talk to the press because of his position in the CIA.

"The challenge has been the fog of war, and the greater challenge is that it's political hunting season, and so this whole thing has been turned into a very political sort of arena, if you will," she said. "The fact that came out today is that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements.

The alumni video is here.

Lots more at Memeorandum.

This story's just now getting rolling. Broadwell had all kinds of inside information, drawn apparently from her access to Petraeus. When added all together, dating back to September 11, 2012, the Benghazi scandal truly is of the magnitude of Watergate, and graver still, for Americans were killed and the causes of their deaths covered up.

I'll have more...

Sunday Cartoons

At Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies."

And at Jill Stanek's, "Stanek Sunday funnies: “Forward” edition."

CARTOON CREDIT: Net Right Daily.

Forward! Canada Lures Energy Workers from U.S.

Well shoot, it's not like it's a tight labor market in the U.S. energy sector, or anything.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Canada looks to lure energy workers from the U.S.":

EDMONTON, Canada — With a daughter to feed, no job and $200 in the bank, Detroit pipe fitter Scott Zarembski boarded a plane on a one-way ticket to this industrial capital city.

He'd heard there was work in western Canada. Turns out he'd heard right. Within days he was wearing a hard hat at a Shell oil refinery 15 miles away in Fort Saskatchewan. Within six months he had earned almost $50,000. That was 2009. And he's still there.

"If you want to work, you can work," said Zarembski, 45. "And it's just getting started."

U.S. workers, Canada wants you.

Here in the western province of Alberta, energy companies are racing to tap the region's vast deposits of oil sands. Canada is looking to double production by the end of the decade. To do so it will have to lure more workers — tens of thousands of them — to this cold and sparsely populated place. The weak U.S. recovery is giving them a big assist.

Canadian employers are swarming U.S. job fairs, advertising on radio and YouTube and using headhunters to lure out-of-work Americans north. California, with its 10.2% unemployment rate, has become a prime target. Canadian recruiters are headed to a job fair in the Coachella Valley next month to woo construction workers idled by the housing meltdown.

The Great White North might seem a tough sell with winter coming on. But the Canadians have honed their sales pitch: free universal healthcare, good pay, quality schools, retention bonuses and steady work.

"California has a lot of workers and we hope they come up," said Mike Wo, executive director of the Edmonton Economic Development Corp.

The U.S. isn't the only place Canada is looking for labor. In Alberta, which is expecting a shortage of 114,000 skilled workers by 2021, provincial officials have been courting English-speaking tradespeople from Ireland, Scotland and other European nations. Immigrants from the Philippines, India and Africa have found work in services. But some employers prefer Americans because they adapt quickly, come from a similar culture and can visit their homes more easily.

Right.

The Canadians need workers to power their energy sector. The Obama regime wants immigration reform to power our Democrat welfare sector.

Nope, America's not relinquishing global economic leadership to our competitors. No sir. Everything's fine and dandy. Just move along. Nothing to see here.

IMAGE CREDIT: iOWNTHEWORLD, "Running On Empty."

UPDATE: Linked at Blazing Cat Fur and Lonely Conservative. Thanks!

Progressives Launch Revenge on Applebee's as Company Downsizes in Response to ObamaCare

Look, I wrote about this yesterday.

The business community's had the writing on the wall for sometime. The election simply cleared up the uncertainty in the decision-making environment. Gateway Pundit has the video, "NY Applebee’s CEO Zane Tankel Says He Won’t Hire Because of Obamacare (Video)."

And taking their go-ahead from the Thug-in-Chief, the progressives have launched retaliatory attacks. At London's Daily Mail, "Calls to boycott Applebee's after CEO threatens hiring freeze and layoffs over Obamacare."

More at Twitchy, "Applebee’s targeted after franchisee mulls hiring freeze in response to Obamacare," and "Libs call for boycott of Papa John’s as CEO anticipates cut in workers’ hours."

Plus, "Insanity: Papa John’s, Olive Garden, others attacked as racist for anticipated responses to Obamacare."

Boeing Veterans Day Video: 'Their Story'

This is running on television. Saw it earlier today:

BONUS: From Bruce Kesler, at Maggie's Farm, "Veterans Day: We Don't Know What the Future Holds, But We Know Who Holds the Future."

Image Problem: Cathy McMorris Rodgers Says GOP Needs to Become 'More Modern'

This is interesting.

McMorris Rodgers is making the case for better salesmanship, or "saleswomanship," as the case may be.

At The Hill, "McMorris Rodgers: GOP needs to be more ‘modern’ not ‘moderate’":

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) on Sunday said the GOP didn’t need to adopt “more moderate” positions, but rather needed to become “more modern” by being better inclusive of women and minorities.

“I don't think it's about the Republican Party needing to become more moderate. I really believe it's the Republican Party becoming more modern,” said McMorris Rodgers, during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

More at the link.

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, seen at the longer clip at the link, is having none of it. He blusters about how moderate vs. modern is "a distinction without a difference."

Right.

My sense is that McMorris Rodgers is hesitant to sell out conservative values --- she's been a leader on fiscal conservatism in Congress --- and wants to make the case for the better articulation of conservative principles. I don't know if the "modern" argument is the winner, but ether way, adopting "moderate" positions will only strengthen progressivism. This is the left's meme since the election, that the GOP is extremist, although it's just more of the same "Operation Demoralize," only of the post-campaign variety.

'I voted to fix it, you voted for the stupid short sighted @ssh0les who broke it...'

Here's this must-read ass-stomping comment at Small Dead Animals:

Featured Comment:

Davenport said: "I'm going to head off The Phantom here, who doubtless will show up shortly with some rant about how this is all FEMA's fault'."

I love it:

Do you want to know why the power is STILL off on Long Island, Davenport? Read this here: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Sandy-LIPA-Outages-Power-Long-Island-Defense-Military-178115341.html

In it you will find reference to a report from 2006, SIX YEARS AGO, which found that Long Island Power Authority had not done the basic maintenance required to secure the power grid from weather damage. The maintenance they're talking about here is tree cutting mostly, and replacing bad power poles.

I lived in New York in the 1990's. I could have written that report. The f-ing power went off every time it snowed because they didn't cut trees and the trees ripped the lines down. They also didn't plow the roads, but that's a story for another day.

You want to know why they don't cut the f-ing trees Davenport? It isn't because they are stupid, it isn't because they don't know, it isn't because private enterprise is inherently corrupt, it isn't even because union workers are a bunch of rent-seeking layabouts. Its because every time they go to cut down a tree, some local Greenies get up a petition or a court order to make them stop. So they stop. So the trees break and knock down the power lines. Same thing all over the North East until you get up into snow country, where even the f-ing tree huggers know better.

Well -this- time it all came home to roost the same day, and every overhanging branch from New Jersey to Connecticut took out a line.

UPDATE: My good friend Norm Gersman comments: "This post is absolutely incorrect. I live in an area as leftie as any. our trees by the wires are annually cut , and look ridiculous, no one says a bad word because it must be done. the present problem of down wires was caused mostly by falling trees a good distance from the wires. what are we going to do? Clear cut every tree for 100 feet on either side of the wires?"

Norm's in Great Neck, which is the focus of this story cited by the writer at SDA, "Officials Want Military to Take Over Power Restoration on Long Island":

LIPA [Long Island Power Authority], which had earlier set a goal of restoring 90 percent of all customers by Wednesday, has declined to respond to the withering criticism. Officials say the company was focused on restoring power and not engaging in a debate with politicians.

Newsday reported Friday that LIPA was warned as long ago as 2006 that it was not prepared to handle a major storm, that it badly needed to replace outdated technology and did not keep up with critical maintenance.

Among the issues the utility was warned about include a 25-year-old computer system not capable of tracking outages, and failures to keep up with basic tasks like replacing rotting poles and trimming trees near power lines, the paper said.

Well, LIPA isn't taking interviews at the moment, so I'll come back to this debate, LOL!

Email Shows Difficulties of GOP Hispanic Outreach

I meant to post on this the other day, from Robert Stacy McCain, "You Stay Classy, Luis Cortez!":

Unless luiscortez@hotmail.com is a parody account, I think the e-mail he sent me eloquently refutes certain Republican arguments for “Latino outreach”:

Nice article pal. Let me simply explain what happened to your pathetic white party. yes, white party. not white republican party, just white party. it all boils down to laziness. first, you jackasses brought the black as slaves to work your fields because you were too fucking lazy to do it yourselves. what happened? the slaves fucked your white women and multiplied their population while the white man was getting drunk and fishing. then, incredibly, after not learning your god damm lesson the first time, you import latinos in the latter part of the 20th century to work your construction and blue collar jobs. and what happened, they fucked your white women and multiplied their populations while you were getting drunk and watching Nascar. But worse for you, this time you really did yourselves in! why!!?? because the last time, you imported slaves from Africa. A long ways from here. This time you imported them from Latin America!! Now they are not only coming to America to work, they are bringing their whole families and starting families here!! When will you jackass white people learn???!!! Mccain, you are not “The other Mccain”. You are just another fucking idiot white man! Now get the fuck out of the country and let the latinos lead you jerkoff!

Thank you for explaining this, Mr. Cortez: Hispanics who vote Democrat don’t do so because of policy issues, but because they identify the Republican Party with white people and a lot of Hispanics hate white people.

Continue reading.

The Left's Values Voters

From Christopher Caldwell, at the Weekly Standard, "Values Voters Prevail Again":

Had this presidential campaign been a chess match, one move would have merited a row of exclamation points. A chess master will violate the rules of strategy as neophytes understand them (“You’re gonna lose your Queen!”) but only because he sees possibilities on the board that are invisible to others.

In January, the Obama White House set out to pick a fight with the Catholic church over contraception. A Health and Human Services directive ordered that all insurance plans cover contraception, morning after pills, and sterilizations with no exceptions for religious conscience. This looked like an act of folly. Not only was it an affront to the free exercise of religion, but Catholics are the largest group of swing voters in the country. They are heavily concentrated in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other potential swing states. And it was in the name of Obamacare—the most unpopular federal program in living memory—that the administration thumbed its nose at them.

The Obama campaign understood that “reproductive rights” are similar to “gun rights.” Even if the number of people who care about protecting them is small, all of them vote on the issue. And in a country that now has as many single women as married women, the number is not small. President Obama won the Catholic vote on the strength of a landslide among Hispanics. (Non-Hispanic Catholics opposed him 59-40 percent.) His pollster Joel Benenson credits him not just with identifying new demographic groups but also with figuring out how to appeal to them. “He won,” Benenson wrote in the New York Times, “because he articulated a set of values that define an America that the majority of us wish to live in.” For this election he is right.

Not since Jimmy Carter has a Democrat won an election this way. “Values” campaigns have favored Republicans. The journalist Thomas Frank warned in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that Republicans were talking about the Bible and gays and abortion in order to distract attention from their failed economic agenda. “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about,” Frank wrote. In Republicanism he saw a movement “of working-class guys in Midwestern cities cheering as they deliver up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life.”

That is elegant writing, but the argument was wrong in three ways...

Keep reading.

Caldwell's most important point is that the Democrats are forcing their values on the rest of America, and Obama is the Enforcer-in-Chief.

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "Sandra the Riveted of the Grift Generation."

'If the President wanted to send a gesture of magnanimity in victory, this wasn't it...'

At the Wall Street Journal, "The President's Tax Bludgeon":

Mr. Obama's hard line will cheer his left flank, which wants him to drive Republicans into submission on taxes and everything else. Apart from the joy of humiliating the GOP, the calculation seems to be that tax rates don't matter to the economy. So raise rates with impunity, pocket the extra revenue, and only then discuss whether to cut any spending or reform the tax code or entitlements.

But to what end? Congress's Joint Tax Committee estimates that raising taxes on income over $250,000 ($200,000 if you're single) will raise $823 billion over 10 years on a static revenue basis. That includes all revenue from increases in marginal income tax rates, capital gains, dividends, reinstating the phaseouts of deductions for the wealthy and also treating dividends as ordinary income.

That's only $82 billion a year in extra revenue when the federal deficit in fiscal 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So even if Mr. Obama gets his way, his tax increase would only cut the deficit by about 7.5%. And that assumes the tax increase would have no impact on economic growth. If growth slows below its already paltry pace, tax revenue would rise by less than expected despite the higher rates.

Well, O will just go after more revenue, taking the tax hikes to lower levels of income. They'll get creative about it, but they'll do it one way or another.

2012 Election Marks a Political Realignment

Here's more along the lines I argued the other day, at the Los Angeles Times, "Nonwhite voters and cultural shifts make 2012 election pivotal":

The 2012 election marked the point at which a new American electoral coalition solidified its hold on politics, one built on the country's growing nonwhite population and on cultural changes that have given younger voters of all races a far different outlook on political issues from that of their elders.

The impact could be seen not just in Obama's reelection and Democratic successes in the Senate, but also in statewide referendums on same-sex marriage in which advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians unexpectedly won four out of four. In 2004, conservatives put marriage referendums on the ballot in hopes of boosting their prospects; just eight years later, the political impact had completely reversed.

If the new coalition holds, future historians will look back at this campaign as one, like Franklin D. Roosevelt's in 1936 and Richard M. Nixon's in 1972, that marked a long-term realignment of the nation's politics.

If it holds. One enormous difference separates Obama's reelection from Roosevelt's and Nixon's: Those were landslides; Obama won narrowly. Millions of votes remain uncounted, but the president's victory margin probably will be about 2.5 percentage points. Nor did he succeed in carrying large numbers of House candidates into office with him.

That difference measures the enormous weight of a poor economy, which pulled down Obama's prospects and imperils the support he assembled.

"One way to interpret this involves changing cultural values and demographics. When those things come together, you get these pivot elections, and that's what this was," said UCLA political science professor Lynn Vavreck.

But "the economy is a huge thing here," she added. The economy this year grew just fast enough for a candidate with the advantage of incumbency to win. "If it doesn't grow more quickly, the Republicans will win in 2016," she said.

As noted, the thing about realignments is that the evidence for them is in future elections. If the GOP takes back the presidency in 2016, or even 2020, the current Democrat resurgence will look like a function of a particular time and a particular candidate --- not a long term secular trend toward large-state progressive governance. It sure does look like something deeper and structural, no doubt. But Republicans still control the governorships in a majority of the states, and they retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives. We won't be seeing Democrat Party hegemony in government, which is the true hallmark of realignment. And we're still too polarized around competing conceptions of the role of government in society. That's quite different from the years of the New Deal realignment, where government continued to expand even during the 1950s under President Eishenhower.

Because Progressives Are All About 'Robust Debate' - Ann Coulter Disinvited From Fordham Speaking Event

The universities are the centers of ideological hatred and progressive intolerance, so this is no surprise.

At The Blaze, "UNIVERSITY PRES. SCOLDS STUDENTS FOR INVITING ANN COULTER TO SPEAK: ‘DISAPPOINTED’ WOULD BE ‘TREMENDOUS UNDERSTATEMENT’."

And at the school's newspaper, The Fordham Observer, "UPDATED: McShane Responds to College Republicans’ Cancellation of Ann Coulter Event."

Here's the letter from President McShane:

The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.

“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy — and one another — stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

And from the College Republicans, who collapsed faster than a New Jersey roller coaster in a hurricane:

The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter’s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely before Father McShane’s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

Ted Conrad, President Emily Harman, Vice President Joe Campagna, Treasurer John Mantia, Secretary

This is how the left wins. Coulter's routinely "disinvited" from universities, which serves no one but the progs themselves, who thump their chests in victory while sharpening knives for the next slash attack on vigorous debate. They simply can't stand their programs to be challenged, especially by someone as effective as Ann Coulter.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. Would Resign From Congress in Plea Deal on Corruption Charges

The Chicago way.

At The Conservatory, "Jesse Jackson, Jr. Reportedly Copping Plea Including Resignation from Congress."

And The Hill, "Report: Plea deal would end Rep. Jackson's career in Congress," and CBS News Chicago, "Former U.S. Prosecutor Negotiating Plea Deal For Jackson Jr."

Remember this guy was reelected while sitting on the inside of the Mayo Clinic. It's time for the f-ker to go.

John Podhoretz Parts Ways With Literary Commentary Writer D.G. Myers

Here's the story, "A Note."

And here's D.G. Myers' angry response, "Statement on my firing."

Myers claims that Podhoretz terminated their relationship because of the former's aggressive advocacy of same-sex marriage. Podhoretz in turn vehemently denies the allegation and frames the dispute as a matter of editorial purview. Myers was insubordinate to write about political topics on Commentary's exclusively literary blog.

Note that Commentary's main blog is heavily edited. All posts are discussed among writers and reviewed by at least two editors. On the other hand, Myers had a completely free hand at the literary blog, as long as he stayed within the topical parameters. Once he went off on an apparent diatribe against conservatives on gay marriage at the literary blog (a post he deleted at once when called out for insubordination), he'd abused the trust that was invested in him.

Read the whole thing, in any case. It's interesting to see the curtain back pulled back on the editorial process at the magazine, which is one of my very favorites.

EXTRA: I'll link straight to Myers' attack on conservatives at the main Commentary blog. Apparently a goofier version at Literary Commentary is what got the guy in trouble: "GOP Can’t Be the Party of Old White Men."

UPDATE: Linked at The Other McCain, "Podhoretz ‘Evolves’ on Gay Marriage; Editorial Insubordination, Not So Much."

Professor Grover Furr Denies Stalin's Crimes Against Humanity

The guy's a Stalinist holocaust denier.

At The Other McCain, "The Stalinist at Montclair State."

The murderous brutality of Stalin is one of the best-established facts of 20th-century history, and whatever “research” Professor Furr claims as the basis for his bizarre revisionism is likely akin to the “research” of Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Truthers and other fringe crackpots.

The crime is that this guy is teaching at a public university. It's not surprising, though. Recall my post on Professor Robert Farley, who claims to be an expert on counterinsurgency, who showed "Che" for his students in class: "Patterson School of Diplomacy, University of Kentucky, Screens Steven Soderbergh's Che to Commemorate Fiftieth Anniversary of Bay of Pigs."

America's campuses are the training ground for the revolutionary cadres. For more on this, lots more, see Legal Insurrection, "“Shock the System” week at College Insurrection."

Permanent Part-Time Is the New Normal

At the Wall Street Journal, "Health-Care Law Spurs a Shift to Part-Time Workers" (via Blue Collar Philosophy):

RT @mdrache: Dear Liberals, if you're upset about corps going to PT to avoid Obamacare, you should have read the law before you passed it.
— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) November 10, 2012

Some low-wage employers are moving toward hiring part-time workers instead of full-time ones to mitigate the health-care overhaul's requirement that large companies provide health insurance for full-time workers or pay a fee.

Several restaurants, hotels and retailers have started or are preparing to limit schedules of hourly workers to below 30 hours a week. That is the threshold at which large employers in 2014 would have to offer workers a minimum level of insurance or pay a penalty starting at $2,000 for each worker.

The shift is one of the first significant steps by employers to avoid requirements under the health-care law, and whether the trend continues hinges on Tuesday's election results. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, although he would face obstacles doing so.

President Barack Obama is set to push ahead with implementing the 2010 law if he is re-elected.

Pillar Hotels & Resorts this summer began to focus more on hiring part-time workers among its 5,500 employees, after the Supreme Court upheld the health-care overhaul, said Chief Executive Chris Russell. The company has 210 franchise hotels, under the Sheraton, Fairfield Inns, Hampton Inns and Holiday Inns brands.

"The tendency is to say, 'Let me fill this position with a 40-hour-a-week employee.' "Mr. Russell said. "I think we have to think differently."

Pillar offers health insurance to employees who work 32 hours a week or more, but only half take it, and Mr. Russell wants to limit his exposure to rising health-care costs. He said he planned to pursue new segments of the population, such as senior citizens, to find workers willing to accept part-time employment.

He described the shift as a "cultural change" toward hiring more part-timers and not a prohibition against hiring full-timers.

CKE Restaurants Inc., parent of the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's burger chains, began two months ago to hire part-time workers to replace full-time employees who left, said Andy Puzder, CEO of the Carpinteria, Calif., company. CKE, which is owned by private-equity firm Apollo Management LP, offers limited-benefit plans to all restaurant employees, but the federal government won't allow those policies to be sold starting in 2014 because of low caps on payouts. Mr. Puzder said he has advised Mr. Romney's campaign on economic issues in an unpaid capacity.

Home retailer Anna's Linens Inc. is considering cutting hours for some full-time employees to avoid the insurance mandate if the health-care law isn't repealed, said CEO Alan Gladstone.

Mr. Gladstone said the costs of providing coverage to all 1,100 sales associates who work at least 30 hours a week would be prohibitive, although he was weighing alternative options, such as raising prices.

Suck it, progs.

You voted for it. You're stuck with it ---- with a life of less prosperity and well-being.

Benghazi Will Unravel With the Sex Angle

Interesting comments from Charles Krauthammer, at the clip.

PREVIOUSLY: "Petraeus Mistress is Paula Broadwell," and "David Petraeus Resigns as Director of CIA."

'Wednesday'

From Mark Steyn, at National Review, "The Edge of the Abyss":

Amid the ruin and rubble of the grey morning after, it may seem in poor taste to do anything so vulgar as plug the new and stunningly topical paperback edition of my book, After America — or, as Dennis Miller retitled it on the radio the other day, Wednesday. But the business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge said long ago in an alternative universe, and I certainly could use a little. So I’m going to be vulgar and plug away. The central question of Wednesday — I mean, After America — is whether the Brokest Nation in History is capable of meaningful course correction. On Tuesday, the American people answered that question. The rest of the world will make its dispositions accordingly...

In 2009, the Democrats became the first government in the history of the planet to establish annual trillion-dollar deficits as a permanent feature of life. Before the end of Obama’s second term, the federal debt alone will hit $20 trillion. That ought to have been the central fact of this election — that Americans are the brokest brokey-broke losers who ever lived, and it’s time to do something about it.

Read it all.

Petraeus Mistress is Paula Broadwell

Ms. Broadwell is the author of a biography of the general, and she's reportedly under investigation.

From Fred Kaplan, at Slate, "Petraeus Resigns Over Affair With Biographer" (via Memeorandum):

The woman with whom Gen. David Petraeus was having an affair is Paula Broadwell, the author of a recent hagiographic book about him, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus.

And then from NBC's Richard Engel, "Petraeus' biographer Paula Broadwell under FBI investigation over access to his email, law enforcement officials say." Engle does not mention Broadwell as the mistress, but has this:

Broadwell's Twitter account describes her as a national security analyst and Army veteran. A biography on her website, which went offline Friday evening, said she is married to a radiologist and has two children, both boys. The family lives in Charlotte, N.C. The biography said she is a West Point graduate and a research associate at Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership and a doctoral candidate in the Department of War Studies at King's College London.

More at the Wall Street Journal, "CIA Chief Resigns Over Affair" (via Memeorandum).

Soviet-Style Snitching Right Here in Obama's America

Snitching wasn't just something that occurred historically in the Soviet Union, Orwell's 1984 makes a number of references to being "denounced" to the secret police for "thought crimes."

Well, history has a way of repeating itself sometimes, chillingly.

At iOWNTHEWORLD, "The Site Jezebel is Calling Schools to Make Trouble For Tweeters That Use the N Word When Referring to Obama – No Word On Whether They Do That to the Thousands of Students That Refer to Each Other as N***ers."

Even If the Historical American Order Is Finished, the World Hasn't Ended

From Lawrence Auster (via Saberpoint):

I just got a phone call from a long-time acquaintance I haven’t heard from in a long time. He said right off the bat: “America is finished and therefore you should shut down VFR.”

I hung up the phone. He called again. After saying that he hadn’t meant any disrespect, he explained that since America is finished, there is no point in conservative political activism, and therefore there’s no point in VFR. He said, “I have put my money where my mouth is,” since he had just resigned his job at a political activist organization, because there was no point in it any more, and is now going to focus only on his private life.

I explained to him, first, that VFR is obviously not a conservative political activist site (and having read VFR from the start how could he not know this?), but is primarily about understanding, and, through understanding, helping to cultivate a remnant.

Second, even if the historical American order is finished, which I believe it is and have said so repeatedly (which he also seemed to have missed), the world hasn’t ended, we are still living in it and have to try to make sense of it and figure out how we are going to live in it. Indeed, I continued, I and readers are at this moment trying to come to terms with the overwhelming disaster that has come upon us, and that’s part of what VFR is about.

He replied that he already understood my criticisms of liberalism, and others do too, and therefore there’s no point in my continuing to write such criticisms. He said it was “very strange” that I didn’t see that.

In other words, at the very moment that liberalism has gained a whole new level of power over the country, he believes we should stop paying attention to it and why people believe in it and how it operates and will continue to operate to harm us.

I told him that because he believes only in power, not in truth, the moment he sees no possibility of gaining power, he gives up...

Continue reading.

'The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration...'

At RealClearPolitics, "Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Petraeus: 'Timing Is Just Too Perfect'."

Ralph Peters is one of the most independent analysts you'll ever have a chance to see. He spoke at the David Horowitz West Coast Retreat in 2011 and his comments diverged quite sharply from most of the other speakers (folks who're some of the hardest of the hardliners on Islamic jihad, Andy McCarthy, Robert Spencer, etc.). Peters is original and provocative. He's got an interesting theory on the Petraeus resignation at the link, and since this whole thing reeks to hell, I think it's important to note that Peters really doesn't give in to wild conspiracies. This time things just really are too convenient.

Obama's Mean and Vindictive Campaign

From Carolyn Glick, "A time for courage, and action":

Mitt Romney wasn't a bad candidate. He ran a fairly strong race. He made a few errors. And he made many good moves.

Certainly he was adequate. And he was probably the strongest Republican candidate among the primary field of contenders. That is, he was the best man available to run against Barack Obama.

And he did a pretty good job.

Obama, on the other hand, was a horrible candidate. He was mean and vindictive. He was contemptuous and superficial. He ran on irrelevancies like abortion and a fictitious Republican war against women. He didn't give his supporters any reason to feel good about themselves.

Instead, he used class warfare to stir them to hatred of their countrymen.

Yet Obama won. And Romney lost.

In retrospect it is possible that the race was over before it began. A strong case can be made that Obama secured his reelection in 2009 when he bailed out the US auto industry and so temporarily stanched the hemorrhage of jobs in Ohio and Michigan. And maybe, with the youth of the 1960s now the Medicare recipients of the 2010s and '20s, there are simply too many Americans dependent on government handouts to care about what happens in the future.

An equally strong case can be made that Romney lost the election before he secured the Republican nomination. He may have squandered his chances when he took a strong position against illegal immigration in one of the early Republican primary debates and so arguably made winning Florida, and perhaps Colorado, a mathematical impossibility.

Many have argued that demography is destiny.

And the American electorate has changed tremendously in the past decade. Government dependency among the white working class has grown. Government dependency among an aging population and a rising tide of single-parent families has grown. And the Latino share of the vote has grown. Today some are arguing that Republicans today simply cannot win the presidency, regardless of their candidate.

All of this is important because for the past four years, most Republicans, and most non-leftists throughout the world, had been hoping that the Obama years would be an aberration. They had hoped and trusted that he would be a one-term president. All the policies he enacted during that term, on domestic and foreign policy alike, would be reversed by his Republican successor, elected by voters who understood they had been taken in by a huckster in 2008. The US economy - the anchor of US power and the engine of the international financial system - would come roaring back.

Continue reading.

Progressives Chant 'Karl Marx, Karl Marx' at Obama Victory Celebration

At Weasel Zippers, "College Students Chant “Karl Marx” and “Socialism” In Front Of White House at Obama Victory Rally…"

Expose This Politically Correct Jihadi Coddling Administration

Michelle was on fire the other night, on Hannity's. Watch the whole thing:

And see, "What about the Camp Bastion attack?"

Obama's Long March

From Ron Radosh, at PJ Media, "It’s the Culture, Stupid: Facing the Long Road Ahead":

If we can turn away from the elections for a moment, and the future of the Republican Party, a more fundamental problem exists. It is nothing less than the nature of the American culture. By the term “culture,” I am not referring to the social issues that usually come up when one talks about culture wars; i.e., abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. Rather, I am talking about the perception and outlook that stand beneath the way our American public define the very nature of civic life in our democratic capitalist society.

That is why I regularly borrow from the Left, as some astute observers of my previous column noted in some comments, the works of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, and particularly his theory of cultural hegemony. As I wrote in my concluding paragraph, we have to “wage a war of position on the cultural front and to do all possible to challenge the ascension of a failed intellectual liberal ideology, whether it is in the form of Progressivism, liberalism or socialism.” I’m referring to the kind of work Fred Siegel carries out in a new book he has just finished writing, and which I had the pleasure of reading in manuscript form, on the nature of American liberalism. When it is eventually published, I believe it can have the kind of impact that great works of history like Richard Hofstadter’s books had in the 1940s and ’50s.

Siegel shows that from its very inception, liberalism was a flawed ideology whose adherents substituted its would-be virtues as a way of distancing themselves from most Americans and their workaday lives; an ideology based on a view whose believers saw themselves as superior to most Americans, including those who were merchants, workers, or regular folk, who could not be counted on to comprehend the backwardness of their beliefs.

Continuing on through the post-war decades, Siegel deals with liberalism’s failure to accurately confront the issue of race; its love affair with the New Left and its moral collapse in the face of its anarchism and nihilism; the effects of McGovernism on the political collapse of the Democratic Party, and the resulting politics of “rights-based interest groups” and the new power of public sector unionism, a far different breed than that of the old labor movement of Walter Reuther and George Meany. If we want a different kind of social polity than the one we have now — based on catering to the power of competing interest groups that compose the core strength of the Democratic party — we have to address first the essential question of the kind of social order that liberalism has built.

I’m also referring to the work the intellectuals who edit National Affairs and those who edit The Claremont Review of Books — solid theoretical and analytical work on social policy, education, and law, all of which challenges the intellectual foundations of contemporary liberalism.

If you doubt that this intellectual work is necessary, you might ponder the question of why college-educated Americans are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats or among those even much further to the political Left. An answer appears in this article by Richard Vedder, which appears today in Minding the Campus. Vedder shows that the majority of professors who teach our young people in the humanities are primarily on the Left, as he writes, “62.7 percent of faculty said that they were either ‘far left’ or ‘liberal,’ while only 11.9 percent said they were ‘far right’or ‘conservative.’ The notion that universities are hot beds for left-wing politics has a solid basis in fact. Moreover, the left-right imbalance is growing — a lot. The proportion of those on the left is rising, on the right declining.” The latest research reveals that there are 5.7 professors on the left for each one on the right!

The irony is that this occurs only in the academy, since studies also show that more and more Americans define themselves as basically conservative rather than liberal. So it should come as no surprise that the suburban middle-class and university-educated Americans, having learned their liberalism and leftism at college, vote the way that they do. One study shows that 41 percent of Americans call themselves conservative while only 21 percent call themselves liberal. Thus, as Vedder says, the university faculties are truly “out of sync” with the country at large....

Another realm of mis-education is that of the popular media. This week, I have written about this in an article published in The Weekly Standard, which fortunately the editors have not put behind their firewall. It is titled “A Story Told Before: Oliver Stone’s recycled leftist history of the United States.” Stone’s TV weekly series premiers Nov.12th on the CBS-owned network Showtime, and will eventually be used by leftist professors in their own history courses on our campuses. It is, I show, nothing less than a rehash of old Communist propaganda from the 1950s offered up as both something new and as the true hidden history of our country’s past.

Imagine how many television viewers, many of whom know virtually nothing about how we got to where we are, will learn from this expertly edited documentary how and why the United States is basically an evil nation, on the wrong course, and supported the wrong side in all foreign policy crises throughout its modern history. We cannot disregard the effect this kind of miseducation has on the knowledge of our fellow citizens. Do you wonder why the polls show that most Americans think Barack Obama’s foreign policy the past four years was successful? It is because they are a generation educated from “historians” like the late Howard Zinn, political theorists like the linguist Noam Chomsky, and now from filmmaker Stone and his historian co-author, Peter Kuznick.

Finally, I have a recommendation. For your left-leaning friends and associates, I highly recommend a new e-book written by my friend, the eminent historian Martin J. Sklar. It is called Letters on Obama (from the Left):The Global Revolution and the Obama Counter-Revolution. Sklar is sui generis. He calls himself a Marxist historian and a socialist. Yet the positions he takes — which he argues are those in defense of liberty — are positions regularly associated with conservatives and Republicans. You might consider this naiveté or an oxymoron. But any serious reader should take into consideration the insights he presents and the intellectual case that he musters...

IMAGE CREDIT: The People's Cube, "October Revolution: This Time We Can Make It Work!"

Speaker John Boehner Caves on Amnesty

Lame.

At the New York Times, "Speaker ‘Confident’ of Deal With White House on Immigration":

WASHINGTON — Fresh off an election in which Hispanic voters largely sided with Democrats, Speaker John A. Boehner said Thursday that he was “confident” Congress and the White House could come up with a comprehensive immigration solution.

Immigration reform is “an important issue that I think ought to be dealt with,” Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in an interview with Diane Sawyer on “ABC World News.”

“This issue has been around far too long,” he said, “and while I believe it’s important for us to secure our borders and to enforce our laws, I think a comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others, can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

The words conveyed a new sense of urgency from Mr. Boehner, who said earlier this year that he thought it would be politically impossible to tackle a Republican proposal on the Dream Act, which sought to open a path to citizenship for some students in the United States illegally.

According to exit polls by Edison Research, President Obama won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote compared with Mitt Romney’s 27 percent, a gap greater than Mr. Obama’s 36-point advantage with those voters over John McCain in 2008.

Though Mr. Boehner did not elaborate on his ideas, nor give a time frame, many lawmakers want to tackle immigration legislation in the next session of Congress. The lame-duck session starting next week will be devoted to dealing with pressing tax and deficit issues.

Well, let's face it: Obama's got political capital and he's collecting dues from the opposition. But frankly, the political benefits of immigration reform (open borders amnesty) will accrue to the Democrats. No matter what Republicans do they'll still be attacked as racist. That's the way it is. We may get reform. But the Democrats will only pad their electoral constituencies.

See Jeff Goldstein for more on that, "'Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans'."

PHOTO: "'Phoenix Rising' for SB 1070 at Arizona State Capitol."

The Party of Victory

From Caroline Glick, at National Review:

Next to the American people themselves, Israel is no doubt the biggest immediate loser in the U.S. presidential election. President Obama’s foreign policy is predicated on the false notion that the U.S. and Israel themselves are the principal causes of the Islamic world’s antipathy toward them. Consequently, Obama has cultivated the anti-American, genocidally anti-Jewish Muslim Brotherhood and facilitated the Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt and Tunisia and its gains in strength throughout the Middle East. In addition, Obama has appeased Iran’s Islamist regime and has enabled it to reach the cusp of nuclear capability.

Obama’s policy of relying on the United Nations has placed Israel’s diplomatic viability at risk as the Palestinians and the international Left that supports and feeds on their cause use the U.N. to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. Finally, Obama’s animosity toward Israel has strengthened the hand of anti-Israel forces within the Democratic party. In the coming years, Israel will become an increasingly partisan issue in American politics.

While Obama’s reelection clearly places Israel in jeopardy, the plain truth is that the inevitable continuation of his foreign policies places the United States at risk as well. The jihadist assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi must be viewed as a sign of things to come, just as al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole were precursors of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. mainland. Obama is empowering the United States’ worst enemies in the Sunni and Shiite Muslim worlds alike. Thereby emboldened, they place America at increased risk.

Israel can and must take the actions necessary to mitigate the dangers that Obama’s reelection poses to its national security and indeed its very survival. It must embrace its advantages in economic growth, the domestic support it can count on from its deeply patriotic populace, and its demographic advantages — it is the only Western country with a high and growing fertility rate. It must boldly assert its national rights. In its relationship with the U.S., it must move from being a dependent to being an ally. It must take the military steps necessary to prevent Iran from making good its promise to annihilate the Jewish state. It must deter the Muslim Brotherhood–led Egyptian military from making war against it.

As for the U.S., Israel’s allies in the Republican party and the conservative movement must now take a serious look at their own foreign policy positions and reassess them in the light of the Republican defeat in Tuesday’s elections and in the face of the growing dangers to the country that are the inevitable consequence of Obama’s reelection. This is not merely a partisan interest. It is a matter of the United States’ own national security...

...today and in the coming months and years, there will be a lot of soul-searching in the Republican party and the conservative movement over what went wrong in the 2012 elections. And with that soul-searching will come the inevitable temptation to adopt the Democrats’ policy of appeasement in a bid to woo various constituencies — suburban mothers, for example, and perhaps Muslim communities in Michigan, Tennessee, Minnesota, and other states. But Republicans must understand that, while this is tempting, it is a recipe for repeated electoral defeats. Democrats will always and forever be able to out-appease Republicans. And so constituencies that want the American government to appease our enemies will always and forever vote for them. If the Republicans wish to return to power in the foreseeable future, they must boldly draw a distinction between themselves as the party of victory and the Democrats as the party of defeat.

More at the link.

PREVIOUSLY: "Obama Supporters Celebrate: 'No More Israel...'"

Revenge: Obama Says We Must Raise Taxes on the 'Rich'

Those making $200,000 annually are not "rich," nor are couples who're making $250,000 a year. And we don't have enough people at those income levels to fund the progressive grab bag for Obama's second term. Folks across the middle class are going to get soaked, even those at incomes of $100,000 or less.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Door Open to Compromise on Tax Breaks in 'Cliff' Talks":

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama invited congressional leaders to the White House next Friday to begin talks to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, opening the door to a possible compromise on taxes.

Mr. Obama said any deal would have to result in wealthy Americans paying more in taxes, but he notably did not repeat his campaign call to let the top tax rate rise on household incomes above $200,000 for individuals and above $250,000 for couples. That left open the possibility of raising tax revenue by limiting or eliminating tax deductions or other tax breaks for families above those thresholds.

Continue reading.

David Petraeus Resigns as Director of CIA

CNN is reporting.

Petraeus is said to have had an "extramarital affair."

Updates forthcoming...

12:07pm PST: At CNN, "BREAKING: CIA Director Petraeus resigning."

12:30pm PST: At London's Daily Mail, "David Petraeus resigns as head of CIA and apologises for 'unacceptable behaviour' after admitting to extra-marital affair."

12:38pm PST: There's lots of speculation at CNN. The administration's Benghazi debacle's coming in for major investigations in the weeks ahead, and the CIA will be in the crosshairs. More later. Meanwhile, check this poll at Theo Spark's, "Sorry but extra-marital affair is not enough to resign over! However it is enough to force him to resign when put under pressure by an administration desperate to hide the facts over Benghazi."

1:09pm PST: There's a huge Memeorandum thread building.

Charles Krauthammer Calls for Immigration Amnesty: 'Everything Short of Citizenship'

There's video at RCP, "Krauthammer Gives Election Post-Mortem: GOP Needs to Be Open to Amnesty." The key segment:

I think Republicans can change their position, be a lot more open to actual amnesty with enforcement. Amnesty, everything short of citizenship. And to make a bold change in their policy. Enforcement and then immediately after, a guarantee of amnesty. That would change everything. If you had a Rubio arguing that it would completely up-end all the ethnic alignments.

I can see the attraction politically, but amnesty's such a loathsome thing, a complete capitulation to progressivism, it's repulsive. But see Krauthammer's Friday column, FWIW, at WaPo, "The way forward":

They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority.

The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented and socially conservative (on abortion, for example).

The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back.

For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.

More at the link.

Mark Krikorian is having none of it, "Amnesty Is the Best Revenge":

The Chicken Little amnesty panic is underway among the Republican establishment. Boehner, Hannity, the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Norquist, Krauthammer, et al. are announcing that in the wake of Romney’s loss the GOP can’t survive unless it revisits the failed Bush/Kennedy amnesty.

Read it all.

Frankly, I'm not looking forward to four years of conservative infighting over facilitating the left's open borders agenda. But I doubt this issue is going away anytime soon. The soul searching's going to be deep on the right, and with the demographic shifts seen in the data, conservatives will keep coming back to the question of how to win the Hispanic vote. I'll have more on this topic, no doubt.

Californians Will Now Experience the Joys of One-Party, Union-Run Progressive Governance

I joked around earlier about the how California's the preview of a Democrat partisan realignment in --- and it ain't pretty. The Wall Street Journal lays out the case against unfettered blue-state radicalism, "California's Liberal Supermajority":

For Republicans unhappy with Tuesday's election, we have good news—at least most of you don't live in California. Not only did Democrats there win voter approval to raise the top tax rate to 13.3%, but they also received a huge surprise—a legislative supermajority. Look out below.

The main check on Sacramento excess has been a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses to raise taxes. Although Republicans have been in the minority for four decades, they could impose a modicum of spending restraint by blocking tax increases. If Democratic leads stick in two races where ballots are still being counted, liberals will pick up enough seats to secure a supermajority. Governor Jerry Brown then will be the only chaperone for the Liberals Gone Wild video that is Sacramento....

So now Californians will experience the joys of one-party, union-run progressive governance. Mr. Brown is urging lawmakers to demonstrate frugality and the "prudence of Joseph." As he said the other day, "we've got to make sure over the next few years that we pay our bills, we invest in the right programs, but we don't go on any spending binges." That's what all Governors say. Trouble is, merely paying the state's delinquent bills will require tens of billions in additional revenues if lawmakers don't undertake fiscal reforms.

The silver lining here is that Americans will be able to see the modern liberal-union state in all its raw ambition. The Sacramento political class thinks it can tax and regulate the private economy endlessly without consequence. As a political experiment it all should be instructive, and at least Californians can still escape to Nevada or Idaho.

With a Deep Sadness and No Little Fear

Hugh Hewitt's advice to glum conservatives, at IBD.

Looming Tax Hikes Come Into Focus After Obama's Win

At IBD, "Fiscal Cliff: Will Obama Yield On Tax Hikes In Time?":

Until President Obama's victory Tuesday, going over the fiscal cliff seemed like a distant possibility.

Reality may have begun to set in on Wednesday. Unless Obama yields, at least for now, on a central campaign plank — that taxes rise for higher earners — the Republican-led House will have little to gain by striking a deal before the tax cliff hits.
If tax hikes come to be seen as hurting the economy, the Republicans won't want to share responsibility.

The U.S. "may at least briefly go off the fiscal cliff at the end of the year," IHS Global Insight wrote. "This would be a recipe for turmoil in the financial markets, and would threaten such a severe shock to the economy that the pressure to come to some sort of compromise would be extreme."

Come Jan. 1, a series of tax hikes would take effect totaling $400 billion through the end of fiscal 2013 — just nine months.

On top of that, automatic spending cuts would kick in on Jan. 2, divided between the Pentagon and domestic programs. Extended jobless benefits would lapse and Medicare would slash payments to physicians.

Over the full year, the combined tax hike and spending cut would be at least 4% of GDP.

RTWT.

And see NYT, "Lawmakers Say They See Rising Urgency on Fiscal Deal."

Bill Whittle: An Unmitigated Disaster for This Country

This "Hot Seat with Bill Whittle" has some double meaning, since Bill's in the "hot seat" after being one who long ago predicted a tea party rout against the Obama regime. Another prediction bit the dust on Tuesday.

Resist Republican Despair

I think most folks are getting over this and tooling up for the long battle ahead, and I think Laura Ingraham evokes an excellent message (although scapegoating George W. Bush isn't helpful, especially in national security).

Kenneth Turan Reviews 'Lincoln'

At the Los Angeles Times, "Review: Steven Spielberg's 'Lincoln' a towering achievement":

Hollywood's most successful director turns on a dime and delivers his most restrained, interior film. A celebrated playwright shines an illuminating light on no more than a sliver of a great man's life. A brilliant actor surpasses even himself and makes us see a celebrated figure in ways we hadn't anticipated. This is the power and the surprise of "Lincoln."

Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by Tony Kushner and starring Daniel Day-Lewis as the 16th president of the United States, "Lincoln" unfolds during the final four months of the chief executive's life as he focuses his energies on a dramatic struggle that has not previously loomed large in political mythology: his determination to get the House of Representatives to pass the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery.

This narrow focus has paradoxically enabled us to see Lincoln whole in a way a more broad-ranging film might have been unable to match. It has also made for a movie whose pleasures are subtle ones, that knows how to reveal the considerable drama inherent in the overarching battle of big ideas over the amendment as well as the small-bore skirmishes of political strategy and the nitty-gritty scramble for congressional votes.

Continue reading.

Vote Fraud in Philadelphia?

This story was bubbling up all day yesterday, although Weasel Zippers has the hot headline, "Philly Polling Stations Where GOP Inspectors Were Kicked Out Had 90% Voter Turnout, 99% Voted For Obama…"

And see the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards."

The article takes the Democrat numbers in good faith. The rest of us know better.

Democrat Civility: Dead Pig in Romney T-Shirt Left at GOP Headquarters in Manhattan Beach (VIDEO)

No note was attached, but a dead pig, wrapped in barbed wire and wearing a Mitt Romney t-shirt, needs no further intimidating warnings.

At KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Dead pig left at Republican HQ in Manhattan Beach":

MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif. (KABC) -- A dead pig clad in a Mitt Romney T-shirt was left at a Republican campaign office in Manhattan Beach.

Manhattan Beach Police had to discard the pig's head and its feet in a trash bin, but not before several passersby saw it.

"I thought it was a dead body because of the way he approached it," said Manhattan Beach resident Andy Gaeta. "And then when he lifted the shirt, he saw the head wrapped in barbed wire and it's cut in half, the whole skull was. It looked like something from a butcher's market."

The pig was laid out at the doorstep of the Republican headquarters on Highland Avenue.

Tom Scully saw the display about 6:30 a.m. while he was out walking his dog.

"When I got closer I was like, 'Oh, this is kind of gross. There was like barbed wire on its head. It's nasty," said Scully.

Manhattan Beach Police Animal Control later removed the trash bin containing the pig's remains, taking it as evidence. Police say they're investigating the incident as an "illegal dumping of an animal carcass."

According to a police sergeant, they have no evidence suggesting any other crime was committed at this point...

There's video at the link.

No, not a crime, but pure Democrat villainy and hypocrisy no matter how bloodily you slice it.

The president who implored the nation toward greater civility after the Gabby Giffords shooting now has partisans exacting their "revenge" with macabre gangland-style political thuggery. It's going to be a long four years.

In Elections Since 1896, Obama Ranks 22nd Out of 30 in Size of Electoral College Majority

O's so-called "mandate" election doesn't seem all that impressive in historical context. See John Pitney, "Obama's Electoral Vote in Historical Perspective":

The 2012 race was the thirtieth presidential contest since 1896, which many scholars use as the beginning of "modern politics." If we look at those 30 contests, we find that the mean winning percentage of the electoral vote is 73.43% and the median is 71.27%.

In other words, President Obama's share of the electoral vote is below average for winning candidates. It ranks twenty-second out of thirty.

The data are displayed at the post.

Data Show Tectonic Shifts

I've been using the concept of plate tectonics in my discussions of Tuesday's elections. I'm seeing the term thrown out elsewhere as well, although I think it's better to really get a handle on the scope of things before jettisoning the demographic narrative outright, as some on the right are suggesting. That's not to say folks should cave to the left's demographics-is-destiny thesis. These idiots will call you racist no matter what you do. The point is to consider the real demonstrable shifts that are taking place. Here's this, from the Wall Street Journal, to that end, "Vote Data Show Changing Nation":

President Barack Obama's election victory exposed tectonic demographic shifts in American society that are reordering the U.S. political landscape.

The 2012 presidential election likely will be remembered as marking the end of long-standing coalitions, as voters regroup in cultural, ethnic and economic patterns that challenge both parties—but especially Republicans.

Older voters and white working-class voters, once core elements of the Democratic Party, have drifted into the Republican column. Rural and small-town voters, whose grandparents backed the New Deal, now fill the swath of the U.S. that leans reliably GOP.

But in cities and dynamic suburbs, a rapidly growing force of Latinos, Asian-Americans, African-Americans and higher-income whites emerged this week as the strength of Mr. Obama's winning Democratic coalition.

"The Democrats now own a coalition of emerging metro areas where the whites and minorities live together, and where they vote Democratic," said Robert Lang, a demographer who directs the Brookings Mountain West, a research center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

In northern Virginia's Fairfax County, for example, Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly represents a district where 20 years ago, he said, 3% of residents were born outside the U.S. Now, it is nearly 30%, with the majority Asian immigrants.

Mr. Obama won big there Tuesday, helping him to tally the once reliably Republican state of Virginia for the second straight general election.

Similar shifts throughout the U.S. help explain how Mr. Obama was returned to the White House on support from young people, minorities, women and upscale whites, a coalition virtually identical to the one that carried him to victory four years ago.

Some political analysts thought that coalition came together only because of the historic nature of Mr. Obama's 2008 victory and wouldn't prove durable. That belief didn't hold up this week.

The question now is whether Mr. Obama and other members of his party can solidify this coalition into a foundation of the Democratic Party.

Republicans said their party won a smashing victory in congressional elections just two years ago, when they took control of the House of Representatives, illustrating that there is no clear claim for either party.

The 2010 election, they said, shows that even with modest inroads among Latino and Asian-American voters, the GOP can build a solid majority on the foundation of its strong white support. Republicans enjoy historically high levels of control over governorships and state legislatures, which they say shows the party's potential if it can improve its message to minorities.

In any case, both Democrats and Republicans see new contours of a split electorate.

I've placed in bold a key point I raised as well, in my essay, "Democrat Partisan Relignment."

More later...

Do Dems Really Have an Emerging Majority?

From Megan McArdle, at The Daily Beast, "Is Demography Destiny?"

There's no pullout quote so read it all at the lnk. She's skeptical and raises a lot of provocative issues.

And see William Jacobson as well, "Hope already on the horizon":

I will have more in coming days on the flawed demographic narrative.

You know, the one which liberals love to push particularly since Tuesday that because the percentage of non-white people is growing, Republicans are doomed. Because skin color is destiny to them.

I'll be interested to see how all the numbers shake out. But two things I know. (1) If California's a model for the Democrats nationally, I wouldn't discount the realignment thesis too quickly. Republicans are facing a tough political environment. (2) That said, Americans can't keep spending like a drunken sailor (or they can't keep having bare-backer sex like a Castro District homosexual, to choose a different metaphor) without the bills coming due. Something will change. Political alignments could shift. And the Republicans could once again lead the charge toward both good government and political sanity.

I too will have more on this. I think there's more to the demographic tide than left wing talking points. Tuesday was a big election. It wasn't just that Romney was a flawed candidate or what have you. There's some tectonic shifts taking place. Conservatives indeed have some serious thinking ahead of them.

Voters Reject Death Penalty Repeal in California

The defeat of Proposition 34 was one bright spot in an otherwise deathly blue election in California on Tuesday.

At the Los Angeles Times, "California death penalty repeal, Proposition 34, rejected."

And see, "Californians say they oppose death penalty, then vote for it":

The Field Poll has been querying Californians on the death penalty for more than 50 years, and in 2011 there was a notable shift. Although 68% of respondents said they were in favor of keeping capital punishment, a percentage that had fluctuated only slightly since 2002, the answers grew more interesting when the question was phrased a different way. Asked whether they would rather sentence killers to life without parole or the death penalty, a significant majority of Californians in 2011 said they preferred the former -- 48% favored life imprisonment vs. 40% for state-sponsored execution. Since the poll started asking this question in 2000, death had always trumped a life-in-prison sentence.

Proposition 34 would have done precisely what voters in 2011 said they wanted, resentencing the 726 death row inmates to life without the possibility of parole and eliminating capital punishment as an option in future cases. Yet the initiative lost, 52.8% to 47.2%. What happened?

It's possible the 2011 poll just wasn't all that accurate. Or maybe voters changed their minds when the possibility of ending the death penalty wasn't just theoretical but real. Or perhaps some version of the Bradley effect was at play: Under this theory, white voters are sometimes inclined to tell pollsters they intend to vote for a black candidate even though they don't intend to do so. Similarly, a voter whose brain tells him the death penalty is a seldom-carried-out waste of taxpayer money that risks the execution of an innocent person -- but whose gut tells him that an eye for an eye is the true definition of justice -- might be inclined to tell pollsters that his brain is in charge. Once in the voting booth, the bile takes over.

Wrong. It wasn't that. The freak progressives always blame it on RAAAAACISM!!

No, it was an aggressive blitz by No on 34 forces that powerfully exposed the moral bankruptcy of the initiative. Heinous murderers were about to have their death sentences commuted. The voters woke up when confronted with the brutal truth about progressive "compassion." There is hope toward stemming the tide against the bloody brutal wave of progressive decadence and decay. Conservatives can't sit around and pout. They've got to redouble the fight, even in the bluest of (black and) blue states like California.

More at the San Jose Mercury News, "Death penalty proposition: Statement from No on Prop 34."