Angie Harmon at The Daley Gator

I promised to do more Angie Harmon blogging, and I like the slideshow technology: "DaleyGator DaleyBabe Angie Harmon" (via Wombat's Rule 5 Roundup).

VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Interviewed on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, June 26, 2011

The transcript's at Fox News, "Rep. Michele Bachmann Talks Earmarks, Obamacare and Gay Marriage..."

It's a good interview. She responds to the Los Angeles Times hit piece from this morning, "Bachmann's had her share of government aid." And the Times updates, "Michele Bachmann denies benefiting from government aid." And Wallace's "Are you a flake question" comes at the very end, so that gives it a different context from the 30 second video clip that that's gone viral today. It's definitely not quite as alarming. Bachmann responded at length earlier in the interview, after Wallace asked, "Why are you suddenly a frontrunner?" She spent at good amount of time discussing her background, and does so again at the end of the clip.

See also, Hot Air, "Wallace: Sorry for the “flake” question." (Via Memeorandum.)

RELATED: At Marathon Pundit, 'Michele Bachmann: "I grew up in John Wayne's America'."

'Are You a Flake?' Chris Wallace Insults Michele Bachmann on Fox News Sunday

And Wallace handled Jon Stewart so well.

This is shameul.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Wallace has apologized but I'm going to look for the full interview and update.

Also at Legal Insurrection, "Chris Wallace Palinizes Michele Bachmann" (via Memeorandum). And Ed Morrissey, "Great moments in journalism: “Are you a flake?”"

Britney Spears 'Honored' to Meet HMLA-169 Marines Who Made 'Hold It Against Me' Video in Afghanistan

Now if we could just get her to rethink her position on gay marriage.

At London's Daily Mail, "Patriotic Pop: All American Girl Britney Spears gives lucky U.S. Marines the VIP treatment."

And on Twitter.

NYPD Raids Homosexual Eagle Bar During Gay Marriage Celebration!

Well, you can't make this stuff up.

A report from Kenneth in the (212), "Did the NYPD Raid the Eagle Last Night as the LGBT Community Celebrated Marriage Equality?" Hmm. Kenneth in the 212? Actor212? Maybe Carl Salonen was also on hand? Coincidences? Who knows? They apparently share common interests. And what fun!

Anyway, see New York Times, "Sudden Inspection at Gay Bar Mars Victory Celebration for Some" (via Memeorandum):"

An unannounced inspection that several agencies carried out at a gay bar in Manhattan on Friday night occurred at nearly the same time that patrons were celebrating the passage of legislation in Albany legalizing same-sex marriage.

Police officials said on Saturday that the inspection was part of a routine operation planned long ago. But Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said that he was troubled by descriptions of what took place at the Eagle bar, on West 28th Street off 11th Avenue, and that the actions amounted to a raid.

“I am going to ask the police commissioner to conduct a formal investigation concerning the circumstances around this raid,” he added.

The inspection occurred late at night, Mr. Stringer said, and while it was “true that there are these multiagency inspections, I think this one was ill-conceived and ill-timed given the circumstances surrounding the marriage equality celebration, on Pride week.”

According to those present, about 100 people were mingling at the Eagle, when representatives from the New York Police Department and three other city agencies, as well as from the State Liquor Authority, showed up, at nearly the same time as a vote by the State Senate to legalize same-sex marriage and as the thrill of victory was swirling through the place.

“I was on the roof deck, smoking a cigar and having drinks with friends, and all of a sudden, the police showed up and started shining flashlights in everyone’s face and offending everyone,” said Thomas J. Shevlin, a financial markets researcher and the treasurer of the Stonewall Democratic Club.

“Basically, it is offensive,” Mr. Shevlin, 40, said. “It is real serious harassment that they come out on pride weekend.”

Life is so unfair!

'Heck of a First Week for Bill Lueders'

According to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism on Twitter:

Well, as I reported earlier, Lueders may be the one who "should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack," according to Ann Althouse.

And that's because not only is Lueders the author of the main hit piece against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, but he's also now basically pulled his initial report on the alleged altercation, replacing it with a version featuring a disclaimer:

10:15 p.m.: This story is updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations.

Yet there is no "update" at the bottom of the report. It's been airbrushed, and Althouse is demanding answers this morning, "How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders's attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?"

The first thing I want to note is the common sense angle. The story's extremely fishy, mainly because it's impossible to envision Prosser administering a deadly choke-hold to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. As I noted before, "The idea that Prosser got Bradley in a 'choke hold' is outlandish, and perfectly suited to the left's progressive thuggery agenda." And as Althouse writes today, agreeing with progressives that Prosser should resign if the allegations were true:

But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event." I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.

That's a big point for me, because it's not just an age thing, but that here are two people who essentially represent the epitome of the legal profession at the state level. It's inconceivable to me that a sitting judge would try to choke a judicial colleague in her chambers, but again, leftists don't think logically, despite endless claims to being "reality-based."

Another thing to note is that the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is funded by George Soros, the messianic multi-billionaire behind such neo-communist attack outfits as the Center for American Progress. These people do not "report." They destroy. And that's the context for understanding Bill Lueders, whose deed pushes the evil meter way over to the right.

But read Althouse's entire indictment. For example, Althouse reads the various news reports and determines that two independent sources say Justice Bradley came at Justice Prosser with "fists raised." That's a lot of information to be left out of initial reports, and Althouse notes:

Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.

I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?

More discussion, and then she continues:

In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.

Well, actually that did occur to me when I quoted Althouse last night, and I went to sleep knowing that truth would come out. And the truth is still coming out, but of course it's no surprise that we're finding apparently evil deeds here: Progressives are evil!

And more at Althouse:

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Precisely.

And again, read the full post, because Althouse is going Alinsky on the left, especially Ian Millhiser's, "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office." Check the link, but Althouse turns the table:

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

More at Memeorandum. And Instapundit.

Aliyah

A timely follow-up to yesterday's Allison Benedikt blogging.

At Jeruslalem Post, "Talking seriously about aliya."

Let’s be honest: English-speaking Jews will not make aliya because you showed them a brochure extolling the financial benefits of immigration.

That’s not because they are waiting for more money, but because it’s not about money.

Young Diaspora Jews in the West are not seeking comfort, but challenge. They don’t want to blindly follow in the footsteps of their parents, but are nevertheless willing to explore Jewish life and tradition as a source of authentic identity. More than anything else, they want to feel that their lives are a product of their own initiative.

(I should know. In 1999, at the age of 18, I left a beloved community in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a red 9- seater Chevrolet Suburban, bought for me by my parents when I learned to drive at 16, in order to join the IDF.)

The real challenge of aliya, therefore, is not bureaucratic. It’s not about reducing the paperwork or improving the benefits package. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anything that could change the mind of an American Jew, especially a young one, on the question of whether or not to remain American. Hard, but not impossible.

Faced with these facts, we must ask ourselves if we actually know how to bring American Jews on aliya. For the first time, we find ourselves competing for their attention in a completely open marketplace, without the pressure of parents or tradition. Are we up to that challenge?

Go read the rest at that link.

I guess there's a crisis in Israel over the issue of aliyah. Check the article above, but the reference is to the essay by Isi Leibler of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "The collapse of Zionist leadership."

New York Gay Marriage Vote Energizes Europe

I thought the direction of influence would run the other way, because, you know, Europeans are so gay. But apparently not. At New York Post, "NY gay marriage vote bolsters French backers."

Islam Encourages Rape

Commentary from Pat Condell (via Gates of Vienna).

The silence of Western "feminists" is literally killer:

'I am a Democrat because I believe that government should take care of its citizens...'

Seriously?

Check the homely one at about 55 seconds.

I was once a Democrat. It hasn't been that long ago since the party turned neo-communist, but back in the day my sense was that government would promote equality of opportunity. It's shocking to me that young people have learned somewhere that it's the government's job to take care of them. These are the same type of people who argue that the Constitution's preamble, which calls in part to "promote the general welfare," actually means that government would establish a welfare dependency state. It's kind of astonishing. "Welfare" simply means "well-being." But in the minds of the progressives, "welfare" means government handouts, kind of like Peggy Joseph who swooned when Obama was elected, saying how he was going to pay her gas and mortgage. I write about America's relative standing in the world, the balance of power, and so forth, which is more in the realm of international relations. But nation-states can rot from within, from decadence and sloth, and when I see these young people here, most of whom can't speak intelligibly, well, I'm going to have to adjust my theories a bit. Sheesh.

In any case, Robert Stacy McCain has a different takeaway, "Good News: College Democrats Succeed in Recruiting Stupid Ugly Losers! (Video)." And yeah, there's that alright.

Gilad Shalit Five Year Anniversary

At Haaretz, "Shalit family members chain themselves together outside Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem."

Also, Noah Pollak at Commmentary, "“Human Rights Community” Agrees: Gilad Shalit Should Remain in Captivity."

New York Churches React to Gay Marriage Vote

At WIVB-TV Buffalo, WIVB-TV Buffalo. A mixed reaction among church groups, but this part is heavy:

In response to the State Senate's vote Friday night , the New York State Catholic Conference released a statement saying, in part:

"The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled. We strongly uphold the Catholic Church's clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman."

Check the full statement here.

And at the Jackson Sun, "Same-sex marriage vote is a national issue."

VIDEO: New Jersey Nets Dance Tryouts

Cool.

Tryouts were yesterday in Brooklyn. The NBA homepage is here.

Bradley Charged Prosser With 'Fists Raised'?

At Althouse, "An alternate account of the Prosser-Bradley confrontation surfaces: Did she "charge him with fists raised"?"

And from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Justices’ feud gets physical: Prosser, Bradley clashed on eve of union ruling":

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley late Saturday accused fellow Justice David Prosser of putting her in a chokehold during a dispute in her office earlier this month.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the Journal Sentinel.

Sources told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred. Some confirmed Bradley's version. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.

A joint investigation by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism first reported on the incident early Saturday, stating that Prosser "allegedly grabbed" Bradley around the neck.

Before Bradley spoke to the Journal Sentinel, Prosser issued a statement that said: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

"No comment" is basically being taken as "I did it" by progressives, which is typical. But just think about this for a moment. The idea that Prosser got Bradley in a "choke hold" is outlandish, and perfectly suited to the left's progressive thuggery agenda. They're losing in Wisconsin, losing badly. This sounds like a desperate gambit, and I think Althouse really is on to something:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

We've been talking about evil a lot around here lately, but this time it's not me making charges. And it's not Robert Stacy McCain. My criteria earlier was that speech per se wasn't evil, it was the action. That's a kind of ad hoc thing, but evil's a lot like obscenity: You know it when you see it.

Progressives are evil. My money is that these are false allegations, and if so, seems like Bradley should resign.

Erik Kain of Forbes: Wishy Washy Pussy

Well, if Alex Knapp only knew!

And E.D. Kain responds, at Ordinary Gentlemen, "Classical Liberalism in America":

So, for many readers of my work there’s a sense that I am wishy-washy on a number of issues (though hopefully they also notice where I am consistent: against the war on drugs, for non-interventionism, gay rights, immigration, civil liberties, etc). In my humblest of opinions there are certain tangible truths and certain areas of dispute where the issues become quite a bit more murky. There are also times when the truth and the realm of possibility are not always aligned. So I write a lot about how to reconcile these things (if only to placate myself), and I try to strike a balance.

Well, no. I'm calling bullsh*t.

Readers will remember from 2009 that Erik Kain launched a campaign of workplace harassment and intimidation against this blog, "E.D. Kain Alleges Defamation: True/Slant Blogger's Workplace Intimidation Attempts to Shut Down American Power!" And, "E.D. Kain Contacts Department Again: Intimidation Campaign Escalates; Fake 'Apology' Seals Moral Indictment Against True/Slant Blogger!"

All the background at the links.

E.D. Kain's a sleaze-blogger. Contacting someone's place of work, to silence them, or to get them fired, is un-American. And for me it's unforgivable. I think I've had six episodes of these now, and I'll be writing more about the latest of these soon. Just let it be noted that E.D. Kain changes his position from week to week because he's a sycophant. He keeps a finger to the breeze to see how the debates are going, and makes careful moves not to alienate his rim-station allies. Indeed, here's E.D. at Forbes, on the same-sex marriage vote this weekend: "New York Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" (which links to his man-crush, RawMuscleGlutes' Milky Loads). The tragedy is the guy's actually got some talent. But to be a good writer takes conviction, and that stuff just doesn't grow on trees. Too bad. Losers. All of them.

We Should Ban Muslims From All Airlines Flying into Western Countries

From Jason Bradley, at The Western Experience, "In the Spirit of Civility and Brotherhood, Let’s Ban Muslims."

A New Constitutional Understanding of War Powers?

Bruce Kesler takes Charles Krauthammer to task, quite effectively, at Maggie's Farm, "Krauthammer Goes From Frying Pan to Fire, and Misses the Point."

Weekend Rule 5

Starting things off with Theo's "Red Corset Totty..."

And see Randy's Roundtable, "Thursday Nite Tart: Vanessa Marcil."

And at Bob Belvedere's, "Rule 5 Saturday: Caterina Murino."

Plus, just breaking at Maggie's Notebook, "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Ana Beatriz Barros."

More, at American Perspective, Maggie's Notebook and Zilla of the Resistance.

Don't miss: Astute Bloggers, Blazing Cat Fur, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Doug Ross, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, PACNW Righty, Pirate's Cove, Proof Positive, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, and Zion's Trumpet.

And my friends Marathon Pundit and Marooned in Marin.

Drop your links in the comments!

The Implosion of Counterinsurgency

At the video is the fascinating exchange where General Petraeus endorses torture in the case of the ticking time bomb. Keith Olbermann, whose "Countdown" program has been resurrected, smeared Petraeus on this in a recent segment, with quotes from other top officials who essentially impugn the general's reputation.

More video from the testimony at Gateway Pundit, "American Hero General David Petraeus: “I Disagree With Barack Obama… I’m No Quitter”."

Yeah. A hero. Not to Keith Olbermann.

Anyway, on the implosion of counterinsurgency, see National Journal, "Washington Losing Patience with Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan."

John Nagl is the kind of guy who brings to mind F. Scott Fitzgerald’s wicked line in The Great Gatsby about people who succeed at such an early age that “everything afterward savors of anticlimax.” A star at West Point and a Rhodes scholar, the native Nebraskan was only 37 when he landed on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in January 2004. In that article, Nagl offered an inside-the-Sunni-Triangle tutorial on what he came to call “graduate-level war.” Nagl’s mantra: “We have to outthink the enemy, not just outfight him.” In an era when small but wily bands of nonuniformed insurgents could stymie America’s mighty military machine with stealthy guerrilla attacks and roadside bombs planted in the night, the U.S. had to figure out how to hunt down the bad guys and cut off their support from the local population. Nagl, after studying the British and French colonial experience, as well as America’s handling of the Vietnam War, helped to develop what has since become famous as U.S. “counterinsurgency doctrine,” or COIN. As his celebrity grew, Nagl proselytized about it everywhere, even on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.

By the late 2000s, the precocious Army major had become part of a brain trust around America’s uber-general, David Petraeus, the commander who implemented the Iraq troop surge. Commissioned by Petraeus, Nagl helped to author the official counterinsurgency manual that has since reoriented American military doctrine, shifting the center of gravity from rough-and-ready conventional war fighters to cerebral specialists in irregular warfare and targeted response. After retiring from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in early 2008—even though he seemed to be on the fast track to four-star fame—Nagl took over a little-known think tank, the Center for a New American Security, and turned it into what journalist Tara McKelvey called “counterinsurgency central in Washington.”

Brilliant and brash as ever at the advanced age of 45, Nagl delivers a sober endorsement of the military’s current COIN strategy in Afghanistan, which, because it was adapted from Iraq, is partly his brainchild. It is a strategy that many experts believe is not working—and the skeptics may now include President Obama himself. “I think any sane person would be disillusioned,” Nagl says over a lunch of mussels and mozzarella salad at Finemondo, a lushly decorated restaurant around the corner from his office. Even some of those around Petraeus (who is retiring from the military to run the CIA) are losing heart. But Nagl says that the Janus-faced core of COIN strategy—winning over the Afghan population with kindness, aid, and a multibillion-dollar policy to “clear, hold, and build” towns and villages while ruthlessly killing off insurgents—is just starting to succeed. He laments that the debate in Washington is dominated by critics who complain that the war is almost 10 years long and already more hopeless than Vietnam.

RTWT.

Yet another reason I'm unhappy with the president. Cut-and-run is one thing, but running when the tide is turning is another. George W. Bush refused to abandon Iraq, and that's when the consensus from all quarters was that the war was a "fiasco." We persevered in Iraq, and it's a stable emerging democracy today. In Afghanistan, I'm not confident we'll be able to say the same thing a fews years from now.

Too Hot for Huffington Post: 'The Hamas - Oops, Gaza - Flotilla'

I first read of Huffington Post's censorship of David Harris at Power Line, "Too Hot for HuffPo."

Harris is the Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and his essay's posted at AJC's website. An excerpt:

George Orwell, where are you? You could have a field day with this story.

Actually, you anticipated it when you wrote about the Ministry of Truth in your classic book, 1984. What were the ruling party's slogans on the outside of the 1,000-foot-tall building housing the ministry? Weren't they "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength"? And didn't the ministry rewrite history at will to ensure it always served the party's interests?

The Gaza flotilla spokesmen are inverting the truth and rewriting history at will to serve their interests. And what are those interests? To prop up the Hamas regime in Gaza and delegitimize Israel.

While they are entitled to their own opinions, however misguided, they are not entitled to their own facts.

They cannot separate Hamas from the equation. Much as they might try, the central fact is that Hamas is key to understanding Gaza today.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Don't take my word for it. Check with the United States and European Union, both of which have designated Hamas as a terrorist entity.

You can see why that's an "Oops!" Doesn't jibe too well with the neo-communist narrative.

More at Ron Radosh, "The Huffington Post Censors AJC’s David Harris, for Telling the Truth about the New Flotilla."

And linked there, Howard Jacobson, "Why Alice Walker shouldn't sail to Gaza."