Arizona Immigration Bill Signed Into Law

Interesting piece at CSM, "What will Washington do about the Arizona immigration law?"

Also at Hot Air, "Video: Arizona governor signs controversial immigration bill." Plus, at NYT, "U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona." (Via Memeorandum.)

Andrew Breitbart Blocks Racist Repsac3 on Twitter!

I guess it's all in the timing, but, interestingly, Andrew Breitbart also banned Repsac3 today:

No surprise the issues are the same: Repsac3's racist bigotry. He was stalking Andrew with racially derogatory Twitpics, trying to smear conservatives.

These are the exact Alinsky tactics of folks like Captain Fogg, David Hillman et al., Ex-DLB, and James B. Webb. I can't believe how sick these people are sometimes.

PREVIOUSLY: "Repsac3 Banned from American Power."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the O.C.! ... UPDATED!!

I'm heading out to a campaign event in a little while, "Bill Hunt & Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the John & Ken Show - Live From Orange, CA."

The timing's pretty good, since Arizona's been in the news all week, and here's the latest: "Obama Slams Arizona’s Immigration Bill" (via Memeorandum):

President Obama on Friday strongly criticized restrictive immigration legislation pending in Arizona, calling for a federal overhaul of the nation’s laws instead.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active duty service members in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said that failure to enact immigration reforms would open the door to “irresponsibility by others.”

The “others” he cited in this case apparently referred to state lawmakers in Arizona, who have approved an immigration bill, which, if enacted, would require the police to ask people about their immigration status if officers have any reason to suspect that they’re in the country illegally. The state Legislature sent the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer, who hasn’t indicated publicly whether she will sign it.

Mr. Obama said the Arizona bill threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

Actually, see Michelle on this, "Arizona acts to restore immigration sanity, open-borders lobby up in arms."

No surprise that Obama's in bed with communist open-borders extremists on this. Pictured is the Spartacist table at the March 20 ANSWER protest:

**********

UPDATE: Some pics from the live broadcast of today's John and Ken Show, KFI AM-640. I didn't get a chance to take a good set of photos. One of the head security honchos ushered me away before I could get some solid shots:

And despite arriving before the 2:00pm start time, there was very little seating:

I went back out to the van to listen on the radio. Sheriff Joe came on the air at 2:00pm and I went back over to the hotel to see if I might be able to snag an angle. Here's a sign near the front desk:

The room was overflowing by now, however:

I listened a little longer out in the van, then left to check on my kid at his after-school kids club (he's fine). There's another Sheriff Joe Arpaio event tomorrow, so I might have more then ...

Repsac3 Banned from American Power

As readers know, I enjoy debating the crazy lefties, but sometimes things get out of hand. So, this is official: James Casper, a.k.a. Repsac3, is formally banned at American Power. Because he's so stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, I've tolerated his trollery for years. But since he's launched an unprovoked racist attack on me as "Halfrican," that's about all I can take. I don't care who originated the term or who uses it. It's repugnant and I don't condone it.

Most of all, I'm tired this idiot Repsac3's puerile gotcha imbecility. In response to my post on LBCC's communists, Repsac3's been trolling my comments, and left a link to the "One Minute for Peace" website; and clicking around there we find this:

One Minute for Peace is sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker "social justice" organization that has long been criticized for its communist affiliations and for abandoning its original religious principles. And it's simply breathtaking the gross deceit these groups are willing to perpetrate. They claim that their budget estimates are from "the proposed 2011 discretionary budget targeted for military spending."

But take a look at a pie chart, from U.S. Government Spending, showing the Fiscal Year 2011 budget. A full 56 percent of spending is designated for health, pensions, and welfare:

The facts of any budget analysis are that non-discretionary social welfare spending dwarfs all other items in the budget. See the Heritage Foundation, "Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased." As noted there:

The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2010 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2009 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2083. Projections utilizing OMB data are taken from the White House FY 2011 budget.

Also, folks can go to the Fiscal 2011 budget itself, "Budget of the U. S. Government: Fiscal Year 2011." And check for additional charts here, "SUMMARY TABLES." And for good measure, here's a chart from Wikipedia, with the source noted at bottom as "OMB - 2011 Budget - Summary Table s-3":

I rarely ban radical leftist commentators from American Power. Mostly, I'll moderate or disable comments if I don't feel like dealing with their stupidity (James B. Webb is a case in point). Mostly, I have fun with them for the sheer hilarity of it, and for the epistemological heuristic utility of obliterating the mindless left-wing/socialist ideological claptrap. And as we see time and again, leftists never seriously engage on point, but rather demonize, ridicule, and attack as racist as part of their ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism. I will continue to debunk and deflect all of this, since that's what I do. And I'll also continue the periodic back-and-forth blog wars as long as there's some fun or learning in it. But Repsac3's nothing more than the devil's frontman, and I've had enough. He's welcomed here no longer.

The 'Racist' Smear: A Case Study

From James Taranto, "The 'Racist' Smear: A Case Study MediaMutters.org suggests that black voters are 'just puppets'":

Our lead item Monday, "Why the Left Needs Racism," seems to have struck a chord. One hostile response is especially interesting because it illustrates our point so effectively. It comes from MediaMutters.org, a formally independent group that produces propaganda for the Democratic Party:

First and foremost, it's remarkably insulting. The implication of Taranto's theory is that African-Americans aren't sophisticated or observant or intelligent enough to know real racism when they see it, and are thus continuously duped en masse into voting for Democrats. It couldn't be the case that black voters actually care about issues and have real reasons for voting Democratic, they're just puppets who are motivated by racial sentiments that Democrats prey upon. Taranto and his pals at Fox & Friends might think they're attacking the Democrats, but they're actually demeaning black voters.

It is a commonplace that politicians frequently make appeals based on fear. It hardly seems controversial to assert that fear of racism is not uncommon among black Americans. It would be surprising if it were otherwise at a time when the regime of systematic subjugation known as Jim Crow is still a living memory. We argued that politicians appeal to a fear that is widespread among their constituents--which is to say, they behave in a way typical of politicians.

MediaMutters' suggestion that black voters are "just puppets" is racist and repugnant. In this day and age, one hesitates to dignify such a foul idea by rebutting it, but since MediaMutters raised it, here goes: Black voters are just like other voters. They make their decisions based on a combination of reason and emotion--and on elevated emotions as well as base ones. (The item MediaMutters is attacking attributed black support for President Obama in part to "pride in the first black president," which we called "a normal and wholesome attitude.")

The smear artists of MediaMutters have put forward a racist idea and falsely imputed it to us in an effort to defame us as racist because we criticized Democratic politicians. This is one of the clearest examples we've seen of how the appeal to fear works.

Change! Obamacrats Self-Destruct in New Partisan Identification Survey!

Sweet.

From Gallup, "Party Affiliation Gap in U.S. Narrowest Since 2005: Democratic advantage shrinks as more independents lean to the Republican Party":

The advantage in public support the Democratic Party built up during the latter part of the Bush administration and the early part of the Obama administration has all but disappeared. During the first quarter of 2010, 46% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 45% identified as or leaned Republican.

More at the link (via Memeorandum). See also, Ed Morrissey, "Gallup: Party affiliation gap narrows to one point."

The survey interviews date from January, where at that point the new administration had been in power for less than a year. This has to be some sort of record. President Obama's destroyed the brand and, amazingly, die-hard Obama Zombies are going down with the ship in massive numbers.

Liberals and the Violence Card

From Rush Limbaugh, at WSJ, "Liberals and the Violence Card":

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.

Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

RTWT.

Barrett 'Bodies' Brown Disses Him Some Social Conservatives!

In my in-box, from Barrett Brown:

I think that in person you are probably a decent fellow who cares for this country and who tries to do the right thing, but that in the realm of politics, your honor and integrity are non-existent. Clearly, your religious beliefs have not done anything to prompt you to act in accordance with basic ethical standards. And although I doubt it will play out this way, I sincerely invite you to ask yourself why you have chosen dishonesty and misinformation over a mere correction that would have taken you 30 seconds to write and which would have cost you nothing in terms of ideological point-scoring.

If I'm not mistaken, Barrett wants an update to this post on Wikileaks, where I note, "the video and illustrated photo are added just for idiot Barret Brown, who like all hardline leftists, denies truth for a manufactured reality." (Now updated.) Or it could be this post, where, after debunking Wikileaks' propaganda, I write, "Sorry, Barrett, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Better go back and visit Jawa a bit more." (Now updated.) The Jawa reference is to Rusty Shackleford, et al., who did the yeoman's work in debunking the lies of Julian Assange.

But what's particulary interesting is that, in fact, when first contacted by Barrett, I went to update my posts -- but I couldn't find Barrett's alleged correction. And readers can check for themselves. Below are the relevant headlines at Barrett's blog. Only the first post cited includes anything resembling normal blogospheric practice indicating revisions, such as "UPDATED", or "CORRECTION APPENDED", etc. Frankly, looking again, I'm just now finding what could be seen as a retraction, but the post is not marked in any highlighted fashion, or is the post appended to previous entries to reflect a major rethinking or recognition of others. Truth is, Barrett Brown lives in his own atheistic world of hate, but see the titles for yourself:

* "Wikileaks Press Conference; Mankind Decides His Future, One Eye Open; VIDEO, TRANSCRIPT NOW UP."

* "Fascist U.S. Bloggers Come Late to Game, Announce Score."

* "Wikileaks, the Reactive Media, and the Necessity of Project PM."

Here's where he corrects his mistakes, but there's no special mention at the post or anywhere else. And Barrett never sent me the link as a courtesy heads up:

* "WikiLeaks Editor Lies to Stephen Colbert, World; WikiLeaks Necessary Nonetheless."

And this is what I get instead:

* "Video: Why Project PM Will Not Include Social Conservatives."

Here's the vloggy edition:

Amazing resemblance to Johnny Rotten (social conservative). Anyone for some "Bodies"?

she was a girl from birmingham
she just had an abortion
she was a case of insanity
her name was pauline she lived in a tree
she was a no one who killed her baby
she sent her letters from the country
she was an animal she was a bloody disgrase
body i'm not an animal
body i'm not an animal
dragged on a table in a factory
illegitimate place to be
in a packet in a lavatory
die little baby screaming fucking bloody mess
it's not an animal it's an abortion
body i'm not animal
mummy i'm not an abortion
throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
i'm not an discharge, i'm not a loss in
protein, i'm not a throbbing squirm
fuck this and fuck that fuck it all and
fuck the fucking brat
she don't wanna baby that looks like that
i don't wanna baby that looks like that
body i'm not an animal
body i'm not an abortion
body i'm not an animal
an animal
i'm not an animal...
i'm not an abortion...
mummy! ugh!

RELATED: "Barrett Brown -- Another Progressive Bigot and Racist."

Democrats on the Edge

From Daniel Henninger, "Democrats at the Edge of the Cliff: Democrats are spending trillions at the worst possible moment, with a new poll showing public trust in government at a historic low of 22%":

The Democratic Party is on the edge of an electoral cliff with a long fall to the bottom. No wonder they're seeing a demon under every bed.

Image Credit: Bosch Fawstin.

The End of Pax Americana (Not)

Christopher Layne has been so consistently wrong about the "inevitability" of America's relative international decline that further iterations of his thesis are essentially humiliating episodes of self-flagellation. And the bonus in this case is that Layne's publishing at American Conservative, which by now is the laughingstock publication of contemporary (anti-American paleocon) ideology. See, "Graceful Decline":

The United States emerged from World War II in a position of global dominance. From this unparalleled military and economic power came a Pax Americana that has endured for more than six decades. It seemed the sun would never set on the U.S. empire.

But America is increasingly unable to play the hegemon’s assigned role. Militarily, a hegemon is responsible for stabilizing key regions and guarding the global commons. Economically, it offers public goods by opening its domestic market to other states, supplying liquidity for the world economy, and providing the reserve currency. A hegemon is supposed to solve international crises, not cause them. It is supposed to be the lender of last resort, not the biggest borrower. Faced with wars it cannot win or quit and an economy begging rescue, the United States no longer fits the part ....

That the United States needs a post-Pax Americana foreign policy should be obvious. But there is no guarantee that the U.S. will adjust to a transforming world. Even as the globe is being turned upside down by material factors, the foreign policies of individual states are shaped by the ideas leaders hold about their own nations’ identity and place in world politics. More than most, America’s foreign policy is the product of such ideas, and U.S. foreign-policy elites have constructed their own myths of empire to justify the United States’ hegemonic role. To move successfully to a post-Pax Americana foreign policy, Americans will need to move beyond these myths.

The foundational American myth of empire is exceptionalism, the belief, dating back to the Puritans, that the U.S. is different, better, and morally superior to the rest of the world. Americans have always looked at the outside world suspiciously and viewed it as a source of contagion: war, imperialism, militarism, religious intolerance, non-democratic forms of governance, and latterly totalitarianism, genocide, and terrorism. All these bad things, we believe, come from “over there.”

RTWT at the link.

GSGF posted on this today, and says it much better (more pithy) than I can: "Yawn. Must. Stay Awake."

I'll just add that as long as we've got folks like Angie Harmon unabashedly speaking up for American exceptionalism, I expect American Power to endure quite a while.

RELATED: Robert Leiber, "Falling Upwards: Declinism, The Box Set."

'South Park' Caves to Jihadi Intimidation

Check Boston Globe for a report, "'South Park' vs. Revolution Muslim."

And Ann Althouse, "Comedy Central cowers in the face of a murder threat/warning against "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker." (Via Memeorandum.) And at Gay Patriot:

Those in our media élites have been taught to see “the other” as the victim of Western cultural hegemony, hence they excuse the violent posturing (and actions) of those deemed spokesmen for (or representatives of) the Third World and/or the “oppressed.” By contrast, any attempt to stand up for the ideas which made this nation great are seen as retrograde, reversion to their perverted image of what our nation’s past was. (Perverted because they define our past by its worst aspects, oblivious to the fact that at least since Reagan, conservatives don’t want to turn back the clock.)

Plus, some video background:

D.C. Douglas, Voice Over Hate Guy, Fired by Geico

I just posted on Matt Kibbe yesterday (seems like a mellow dude, and JSF had kinds words for him). Well Kibbe's speaking out today against (yet) more leftist hatred, at Big Government, "Geico Cancels a Hater" (via Memeorandum):

We are a grassroots movement made up of people who believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. Racism and hate are inherently collectivist ideas. As individualists we judge people as individuals, based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I asked the activists that joined with 40,000 of their fellow Americans on the Mall in front of the Washington Monument on the evening of April 15th to police the crowd for any hate or racial slurs. If you see bad actors, ask them to leave. If they won’t leave, get a picture and we will out their bad behavior online in the light of day. I don’t care who you are: we will not tolerate haters or racists in our community.

So when the voice-over guy for Geico Insurance, D.C. Douglas, called and left us another hostile message, and left his phone number, we held him accountable too, posting his message where he calls all of us “mentally retarded,” and potential killers. Geico canceled his contract. He now says that we, “like Glenn Beck, are flirting heavily with sedition.” Strange accusation from an actor that talks for a living.” Americans covet our freedom of speech. We have a sacred right, enshrined in the Constitution, to show up, protest and challenge government policies that are bad for America. Freedom: it’s an insurance policy we should all buy.

This is the typical demonology you get from those sickended dead-souls on the left:

See also, "Geico voice actor fired after insulting tea parties."

Institutionalizing Blacks ... BLOOD OF MARTYRS UPDATE!!

Picking up from my post the other day, "Institutionalizing Blacks," recall The Blog Prof:

I have pointed this out many times before, but it's worth repeating yet again. One of my all-time favorite movies is The Shawshank Redemption. In it, Morgan Freeman, aka "Red", coined the term when prisoners become dependent on the prison system and can no longer survive without it - institutionalized. One of the older prisoners, Brooks, was willing to kill to stay in the system as he knew nothing else after so many years. Yet they let him out and he promptly hung himself. He was institutionalized. The Democrats have institutionalizing the black population in this country, no different than slave masters did many decades ago. The same party that fought for slavery, not against it, segregated schools and filibustered the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 now has shackled the black population to another form of slavery - slavery to the state. Stripped naked of their dignity, their hope and their self-reliance.

And don't forget the Democratic Party's "Blood of Martyrs" racial grievance shakedown strategy:

The "Blood of Martyrs" refers to the chokehold the far-left grievance masters have on the post-1960s Democratic Party. As told by Juan Williams, in Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America - and What We Can Do About It, the story goes back to Al Sharpton's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where Sharpton attacked President George W. Bush for taking the black vote for granted:

"Our vote is soaked in the blood of martyrs, the blood of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham, Alabama. This vote is sacred to us. This vote can't be bargained away...given away. Mr. President, in all due respect, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale!"

But as Williams asks, what record of achievement could the Democrats claim to justify continued black partisan support?

The answer: absolutely nothing. But by waving the red flag labeled "blood of martyrs," Sharpton diverted all attention from dealing with bad schools, persistent high rates of unemployment, and a range of issues that are crippling a generation of black youth. Somehow, "blood of martyrs" remains the anthem of black politics at the start of the twenty-first century. Black politics is still defined by events that took place forty years ago. Protest marches are reenacted again and again as symbolic exercises to the point that they have lost their power to achieve change. As a result, black politics is paralyzed, locked in a synchronized salute and tribute, by any mention of the martyrs, the civil rights workers who died violent deaths at the hands of racists. The major national black politicians invoke these icons and perform shallow reenactments of the powerful marches of the movement as hypnotic devices to control their audiences. And if people try to break the spell by suggesting we move beyond these ancient heroes and their tactics, they are put down with language that implicates them as tools of the white establishment, reactionaries who've "forgotten their roots." Race traitors.

And leftists will defend this bankrupt agenda to no end, despite contrary evidence from real folks on the ground:

RELATED: John Fund, "Why the Left Needs Racism."

Steve Benen Concern Trollery on Lindsey Graham Sexual Orientation

The post is really about delegitimizing the tea parties, and especially a recent South Carolina Tax Day Tea Party. As one website put it:

Tea party activists in South Carolina apparently didn’t receive the memo to tone down their incendiary rhetoric, in the wake of death threats and violent acts waged against U.S. lawmakers. A tea party rally held in Greenville over the weekend provided the few thousand in attendance a cornucopia of racism, hate, paranoia, seditious calls to take up arms against the government and anti-gay rhetoric. And the offensive remarks receiving the most attention were those made by the event’s keynote speaker, race-baiting nativist and former U.S. congressman Tom Tancredo. He took to the podium and whipped up the crowd with an anti-Obama racist birther rant: “If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?”

The rally was organized by the Upcountry Conservative Coalition. The group’s mission statement: “We the People…are coalescing to reclaim our God given rights by restoring our Constitutional Republic.”

But leftists have long attacked Senator Graham on his sexual orientation, often using crude homophobic stereotypes:

Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an unmarried/never married 52 year old with a funny, forced way of walking, has been far more fastidious with his homosexuality. Again, "everyone" knows-- except the voters in conservative South Carolina. Not that it doesn't come up from time to time; people talk. In fact, the head of the Democratic Party in South Carolina said something when the effeminate Lindsey decided to run for Thurmond's senate seat. "He's a little too light in the loafers" to succeed Strom Thurmond. Graham got into a really queenie tizzy fit and loudly threatened to sue-- although he didn't. (They never do.)

And thus notice Digby's total hypocrisy:

In light of the teabaggers' crude outing of Lindsay Graham, I took a little trip down memory lane and revisited the history of the right wing attacks on gays as threats to national security. I guess that Mad Men craze has unfortunately put McCarthyism back in vogue.

Yeah. Right.

No Oaksterdam: Most in U.S. Against Legalizing Marijuana

At LAT, "Poll: Majority oppose marijuana legalization, new nationwide poll finds -- but where do Californians stand?":

A new poll shows most Americans oppose legalizing marijuana, but as California voters are set to consider the always controversial topic in the fall, many readers are questioning the poll's validity.

In the Associated Press-CNBC poll, 33% of respondents favored legalization while 55% opposed it. The results showed a division in age as younger people were more likely to support legalization, while older people were more likely to oppose it. Women and Republicans also strongly opposed legalization.

California voters will consider the issue of pot legalization in November.

The California initiative would allow anyone 21 or older to possess, share and transport up to an ounce of weed for personal use and grow up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel. It would allow local governments, but not the state, to authorize the cultivation, transportation and sale of marijuana and to impose taxes in order to raise revenues.

Proponents of legalization cite the financial and social cost of enforcing pot prohibition and argue that marijuana isn't as dangerous and addictive as legal substances such as tobacco or alcohol. While opponents can argue rising teenage use and the harm that marijuana can cause smokers.

According to the AP, the poll conducted April 7-12 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Media involved telephone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.

Marijuana is always is a hot topic among our readers -- and some questioned the accuracy of the poll. Here is what they had to say about the results ....

If a driver under the influence of marijuana runs into my SUV...do I have the right to beat the living crap of the stoner? ....

Pot users will be more likely to be unemployed and more likely to need free public health care.

RTWT and check the links.

Taco Bell Blogging!

On break with my boys, Saturday. Hanging out at Taco Bell across the street from the dealership.

Also, cleaned up my post from this morning with the profanity. My apologies. That's not so much like me, and I haven't felt right most of the day. Frankly, I do it mostly to push the boundaries and confound the lefty freaks. But that needs to be way less frequent. I'm practically morphing into that which I reject (i.e., unwashed netroots atheist commies), and THAT bothers me.

Anyway, getting in bed ... I was up at 4:00am.

More later dear readers ...

White House Closets Media at DADT Protest‎‎: Rachel Maddow's 'Lafayette Tapes' Forthcoming!

I love Andrew's tweet:

And at Big Journalism, "Media Kept Well Away as Obama Clashes With Gays and Lesbians in Washington, L.A.":

The fact of the matter is that many Americans have soured on President Obama, including those who once were his passionate supporters – the left-wing gay community. I never quite understood their support, since Obama’s views on gay marriage (the Gay Left’s litmus test) are the same as former President Bush’s — and Bush was seen as the devil incarnate. But that being said, there are enough bodies under the Obama bus to have tipped off The Gays that they’d be next.

Looks like some gay Americans aren’t playing their part in the Obama script now. It is just sad that the White House increasingly looks like the Soviet-era Kremlin when it comes to tolerating different points of view.

More from Ben Smith via Memeorandum.

Tea Party Movement Stronger than Ever

Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, at PJTV, "Still Going: Matt Kibbe on Why the Tea Party Movement is Stronger than Ever":

Kibbe starts to talk like a third party leader, which bothers me. Good stuff other than that (and toward the end, Kibbe predicts for a landslide GOP takeover in November).

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Reading the Goldstone Report

From James Traub, "Fearful Asymmetry: Reading the Goldstone Report":

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, has asserted that the report “bestows virtual immunity on terrorists and ties the hands of any nation to protect itself.” The U.S.-led war on terror, with its vast tally of civilian deaths, Oren wrote, could never pass muster before such an inquiry. Ehud Barak, Israel’s minister of defense, declared that democracies “must not allow themselves to be handcuffed by the abusive application of lofty ideals.” What, after all, was Israel to do against an enemy that intentionally based its fighters and rockets in the midst of civilians, daring the IDF to produce the kind of collateral damage that would provoke international opprobrium? The argument comes down to this: If international humanitarian law really does criminalize Israel’s behavior in Gaza, then abiding by it is a suicide pact for countries, like Israel, confronted with terrorism. And if that’s the case, then states must choose either surrendering to their enemies or enduring global censure—or international humanitarian law must change.

RTWT.

Advances in Automobile Safety

Fascinating video, via Ruminating Out Loud: