'This is Vintage Sanchez' — Rep. Loretta Sanchez Slurs Congressional Republicans as Dim-Witted Southern Hicks

At The Blaze, "‘Well Loretta It’s Unconstitutional’: CA Rep. Sanchez Mocks Congressional Tea Party Republicans as Slow for Caring About the Constitution (With Bigoted Southern Accent!)":

And according to the Latino Politics Blog: "This is vintage Sanchez — she loves to do voices." Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Republicans slurred Latino Members of Congress as illiterate immigrant day-laborers, we'd be having civil rights marches and demands for resignations.

WWII Bombers Over Arizona Landscape

Via Theo Spark:

Rule 5 Hilary Rhoda — Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2011

First, a shout out to Blazing Cat Fur.

Plus, American Perspectives has Lisa Rinna's lips, interestingly enough, although I'd prefer Carrie Underwood, at Maggie's Notebook: "Rule 5 Saturday Night: Oklahoma’s Carrie Underwood."

And of course, Linkmaster Smith for updates. .

Anyway, here's some link around action: Amusing Bunni's Musings, Astute Bloggers, Bob Belvedere, CSPT, Dan Collins, Eye of Polyphemus, Gator Doug, Irish Cicero, Left Coast Rebel, Mind-Numbed Robot, Legal Insurrection, Lonely Conservative, PA Pundits International, Pirate's Cove, Proof Positive, Saberpoint, Snooper, WyBlog, The Western Experience, Yankee Phil, and Zion's Trumpet.

Plus, top it off with Theo's Bedtime Totty.

More later, and drop me a comment if you're looking for some linkage.

Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way'

Well, staying with the pop culture blogging, both R.S. McCain and Dustbury got trippin' on Rihanna, so here's Lady Gaga to keep up the momentum:

FWIW, I like Britney better, so more on that later ...

Sarah Palin and the Birthers

From PACNW Righty, "Palin and the "Birther" Movement":

Palin did herself no favors by jumping on Trump’s bandwagon ...

RELATED: From Freedom's Lighthouse: "GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann: Every Candidate for President Should “Put their Birth Certificate on the Table”."

NewsBusted — 'If gas prices are too high, get a new car, says Obama'

Via Theo Spark:

George W. Bush Speaks at 4% Project on Driving Economic Growth

At LAT, "Bush defends taxpayer bailout of Wall Street":

Calling the TARP decision one of the biggest quandaries of his term, the former president says he has no regrets about it. Speaking at a Bush Institute conference in Dallas, he waves off speculation about his legacy.

And at Dallas Morning News, "George W. Bush calls for backing off government involvement in padding economy":

People can spend their money better than the government can, former President George W. Bush told a receptive audience at an economic conference hosted by his policy institute Tuesday.

“It's a cornerstone of a lot of debate that's going on in Washington,” Bush said, referring to the showdown between the White House and Congress over spending.

Bush made the remarks at the beginning of a two-day conference hosted by his policy institute at SMU.

“Some of the people here helped pass tax cuts. Some helped me form free trade agreements,” Bush said, adding that one of his toughest decisions was the move to bail out Wall Street.

Bush defended that decision but said government involvement should be unwound as quickly as possible.

The conference launched a three-year Bush Institute initiative called the “4 percent Project.’’ Institute officials say they will examine the public and private sector actions necessary to drive gross national product by 4 percent annually.

Institute officials acknowledged that goal may seem daunting in the current economic environment. “While 4 percent annualized GDP growth might seem a stretch, it can be achieved,’’ according to Bush Institute materials prepared for the conference.

“With modern information and industrial technologies, as well as deep capital investment in productivity tools across the economy in every industry, the United States can grow much faster than economists currently predict – as long as the best policies are in place,’’ the materials said.

Hamas' New Russian-Made, Laser-Guided Anti-Tank Missiles Shift Balance of Forces at Gaza-Israel Border

Seriously.

Do these people even want peace?

At Fox News, "Hamas' Powerful New Weapon Alters Strategic Calculations Along the Gaza Strip."

This is why Israel maintains the blockade. Last December reports indicated that Iran and Syria were sending in laser-guided missiles, and the Fox report says that Hamas militants are hardened for battle. See also The Australian, "School bus attack may spark Gaza war":

THE possibility of another Gaza war heightened yesterday after Hamas used an anti-tank missile to hit a school bus in Israel and fired a further 50 rockets.

What Debt Ceiling Fight Means For You

At ABC News, "Debt Ceiling Fight Takes Center Stage: What It Means For You: If U.S. Debt Limit Isn't Raised, Interest Rates Would Surge and Markets Would Crash."

Read it all at the link, but mostly sounds like doom and gloom to me. More on this later. Meanwhile, at Hot Air, this is good: "Two ObamaCare programs, four czars eliminated in budget cuts."

Mitt Romney's RomneyCare Albatross

I like Mitt Romney. I wouldn't be unhappy if he became the nominee. But he's got liabilities, especially his Massachusetts healthcare program that's being dissed as "RomneyCare" (an allusion to "ObamaCare").

Sean Hannity read Holly Robichaud's brutal Boston Herald essay on air the other night, "Just one more reminder that Mitt Romney can’t win." And here comes Michael Graham with another slam on Romney at the Herald, "Romneycare a big bust." What remains to be seen is how this plays out. In 2004 Democrats nominated John Kerry so they'd have a candidate with both veteran and antiwar creds to challenge a sitting war president. Problem was that Kerry couldn't get any traction on the war, since he wasn't going change much of the Bush policy on Iraq: "Why change horses in midstream"?

Will the same thing happen to Romney? Healthcare should be Obama's albatross, and it is, except if Romney's the nominee he'll have to try to differentiate what he did in Massachusetts with what Obama's done with the Affordable Care monstrosity. But it wont' work. Michael Graham's essay above says that ObamaCare and RomneyCare are joined at the hip in the public's mind, so Romney --- and Republicans --- are screwed on that issue. Maybe the Ann Coulter scenario would be better, to have Chris Christie throw his hat in the ring, but who knows at this point? Romney could be dead in the water? But Christie ain't running? And Sarah Palin could be hangin' loose until 2016? Hey, I'll take Michele Bachmann! We need a woman president!

Ann Coulter on Donald Trump's Birtherism

It's pretty big news, although I think the most interesting thing Coulter says is how big donors are holding back to see if Chris Christie enters the race. If it ain't him it'll be Romney, who'll win the nomination and lose to Obama. Daily Caller indicates that Coulter's throwing water on Trump, but she's actually digging it:

Equal Pay Day — Oops, There Goes the Feminist Narrative!

From Carrie Lucas, at Wall Street Journal, "There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap":

Feminist hand-wringing about the wage gap relies on the assumption that the differences in average earnings stem from discrimination. Thus the mantra that women make only 77% of what men earn for equal work. But even a cursory review of the data proves this assumption false.

The Department of Labor's Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.

Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.

Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.

Hmm. I doubt Amanda Marcotte's going to be pleased, and don't even get me started about Sady Doyle!

'Internationalism Run Amok'

From Gov. Jan Brewer's statement denouncing the 9th Circuit's ruling yesterday. And here's some internationalism run amok:

Rihanna S&M

Allan Bloom warned that rock and roll --- and the Walkman and MTV commercial culture within which it was embedded by the 1980s --- was "life made into a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy." Well, I doubt he would have anticipated the cultural fantasies of today, which with Rihanna, for example, is masturbational fantasies on exponential steroids:

She looked lovely on the cover of the latest Rolling Stone, in any case, "Rihanna Opens Up Like Never Before in Rolling Stone Cover Story."

This might be too hot for Rule 5, so I'll do something for a roundup later.

More Neoconservative Backlash

I don't know if Dan Riehl was as big a Bush-backer on Iraq as was David Horowitz, but Dan's written another interesting repudiation of neoconservatism. See, "Why Neo-Conservativism May Represent a Serious Concern For Israel":

Old line Reagan conservatives have always been something of a firewall for neo-conservatives, siding with them over more isolationist factions within the GOP. The thanks we most often got for that was either to have been ignored, or taken for granted - and now, it seems, even marginalized, as Jennifer Rubin is doing.

I'm not suggesting traditional conservatives will abandon Israel, or one of the three legs of Reagan Conservatism - national defense, most particularly. However, it is going to have to re-assess its positioning as regards neo-conservatism and the more isolationist elements of the GOP cited above. Unfortunately, they are not always a best friend to Israel.

As a result, what the aforementioned third leg of conservatism might look like given some new alignment, or dynamic, within the conservative movement is hard to predict. But with mounting debt and three wars going on, it's most likely to not be a very adventurous one, however hawk-ish it might remain in theory.

That, in the end, could prove to be a serious concern for Israel, one coming at the same time the Middle-east is unraveling thanks to Obama - a time when it can least aford any new concern. Yet, ultimately, neither they, nor anyone else, would have anyone to blame but neo-conservatism. Thanks to their policies, combined with a lack of respect and regard for traditional Reagan conservatives over a decade, or more, neo-conservatives may be bringing about the very thing they most oppose: a more isolationist grassroots conservative movement rising to take control of the Republican Party.

They may even have to revert to being Democrats before long. And one can only imagine the reception they'd get there. Given budget constraints and Obama's own current international adventurism, it's quite possible that neo-conservatism as a driving ideology won't even have a place in any next Republican administration. And that may happen, even if they are successful in helping to elect the next establishment Republican they are bound to find themselves endorsing in 2012 and, or 2016.

That's a block quote from the second half of the essay, so readers need to RTWT for the full argument. I'm not sure if it's just Jennifer Rubin that's the most painful thorn here, or something larger. If you check the links you'll see that Dan's fuming mad at Rubin's hoity-toity dismissal of grassroots conservative concerns on the budget deal. Rubin comes off as a beltway moderate completely out of touch with the ideological currents of limited-government conservatism. And I write this as a fan of Jennifer Rubin. But Dan's got a good point. The tricky thing here is not to throw all the "neocons" in one basket when hammering Rubin. I don't read her as much as I'd like, but she was at Commentary for a while, and she's about as aggressively Zionist imaginable. Perhaps Dan will want to flesh out his argument further in an additional essay. If by "Neo-Conservatives" he means William Kristol and perhaps Charles Krauthammer ... well, they're as beltway as you can get, and with Kristol, sometimes his fervent advocacy of the freedom agenda seems to overtake his better judgment. He's consistent, so give him that. But folks who might otherwise be attacked as "neocons" have been very cautious on change in the Middle East and the effects on Israel's interests. David Horowitz most obviously comes to mind, with his highly publicized renunciation of the democracy promotion agenda in Egypt and so forth. But Victor Davis Hanson personified neoconservative foreign policy on the Iraq war, and he had an inside line to the White House back in 2003, but he's now one of the biggest skeptics on the Obama administration's foreign policy, calling for a degree of realist restraint that's the antithesis of the the neoconservative paradigm.

And that's to say nothing of the domestic neoconservative agenda, especially on social policy going back to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the folks at Public Interest under Irving Kristol. And the Reagan years are probably a little more of a complicated comparison in any case, considering President Reagan's appointment of Jeanne Kirkpatrick to the U.N. after her breakout article on dictatorships in foreign policy at (the neoconservative policy journal) Commentary.

Anyway, my money is on the neocons remaining a key force on conservative policy circles well into the future. On Israel and isolationism alone, the paleocons will be out to pasture. The real debates will be more on whether we'll see ideological purists within the conservative movement prevail over the moderate progressive-appeasers in the GOP. I'm thinking Newt Gingrich on latter, despite his otherwise grand vision for the Republican Party. No more Dede Scozzafavas, thank you.

Anyway, Dan might head over to Cato Institute to read the batch of essay at the series, "The Rise and Fall of Neoconservatism." And I'd also recommend going easy on Jennifer Rubin for a while. Check her out again after the budget battle dies down a bit. She's a good lady. A lot of us, like myself, were previously on the left, hence "neoconservative," but we're among the most passionate defenders of the Reaganite vision in conservative circles today.

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Arizona's SB 1070

The main story's at WaPo, "Court upholds block on parts of Arizona immigration law" (via Memeorandum). Also, William Jacobson has the court's ruling: "9th Circuit Upholds Injunction Against Arizona Immigration Law."

But see Andrew Malcolmn, "Next move in the Arizona illegal immigration law fight: An immediate Supreme Court petition?"

One next move might be to get back out to Phoenix for some protests. Those were the days:

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

Rock Bottom

Read Neptunus Lex, "The Elephant in the Room" (via Dan Collins). Say a prayer and count your blessings as well.

Not 'The Largest Annual Spending Cut in Our History'

I read Spree's post earlier, "Note To The Far Right : CUT. IT. OUT... Pretty Please." She's arguing for pragmatism regarding the GOP's compromise on the Obama budget, but she's got another post where I'm linked and I'm reminded that I promised to fact-check Barack Pinocchio's claim that the deal included the "largest annual spending cut in our history." I didn't believe when I heard it, and turns out I'm not the only one. See David Boaz, "Not the Biggest Cut in History. Not by a Long Shot" (via Instapundit):

The president might be technically correct in this sense: In none of those years did federal spending fall by as much as $38 billion in nominal dollars. But any real comparison would use inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of the budget, and by those standards there are no “big, big cuts” here. (Boehner specifically called it the “largest real [that is, inflation-adjusted] dollar spending cut in American history,” which is so clearly wrong that it must surely have been a misstatement.)

The fundamental point here is that federal spending rose by more than a trillion dollars during Bush’s first seven years, and then by almost another trillion in barely three fiscal years. And then we had a titanic battle over whether to trim $38 billion.

The idea that the Democrats “have shown that they heard the message that government spends too much” or that the Republicans—the party that increased federal spending by a trillion dollars while nobody was looking during the Bush years—have “imposed a small-government agenda on Washington” is ludicrous. After these meager cuts, the federal government will spend more than twice as much as it did when Bill Clinton left the White House.

See? Obama's a liar. But progressives are liars, so it shouldn't be surprising. What is surprising is that Speaker Boehner was going along with the lie, as Boaz points out. Progressives are calling him a "hostage taker" and a "street hoodlum" who will "kill your kid." These are hardly the kind of folks to whom you want to give in.

So, I'm disagreeing with Spree a little bit here. These aren't big cuts and conservatives shouldn't go too easy on the GOP leadership. The tea party scored a victory, but it's just a start. Backing off now with breed complacency. Keep the pressue on.

France's Burka Ban Takes Effect

At New York Times, "France Enforces Ban on Full-Face Veils in Public." And from Telegraph UK, "France’s burka ban is a victory for tolerance":

Despite some high-profile protests, France’s banning of the burka is enormously popular with the public. Unfortunately, as in Britain, almost anything politicians do that the voters approve of tends to be denounced as populisme – a particularly dread charge among the over-earnest French political class – and instead of enjoying the deserved benefits, President Nicolas Sarkozy has found himself on the defensive.

Sarko’s modest measure (the burka is forbidden only in public places, the fines are piffling and the enforcement procedures incomprehensible) has led to much talk of sledgehammers and nuts, warnings of an apocalyptic Muslim backlash and claims that the Republican tradition of liberté is being compromised in a seedy ploy to combat the resurgence of the hard-Right Front National under its new leader Marine Le Pen.

Almost anything, in fact, than an acknowledgement that the public overwhelmingly sees the ban as right for France, beneficial to its Muslim communities and justified – if on no other grounds – as a statement in support of liberalism against darkness. Approval runs right across the spectrum, with Fadela Amara, the Algerian-born former housing minister in Sarkozy’s government, calling the burka “a kind of tomb, a horror for those trapped within it”, and André Gerin, the Communist MP who headed the commission investigating the grounds for a ban, describing it as “the tip of an iceberg of oppression”.

Mme Amara is Fadela Amara, "the Algerian-born former housing minister in Sarkozy’s government ..."

That part about Muslim women not having a choice isn't something that progressive leftists want to talk about. Frankly, the burka ban is apparently evidence of French "discrimination."

The Birther Bandwagon! Palin Backs Trump on Obama Birth Certificate

The story's at National Journal, "Palin on Trump's Birtherism: 'More Power to Him!'." And Freedom's Lighthouse has the video.

And here's Trump on Fox & Friends responding to David Plouffe:

More later ...

Go Ahead, Make a Voluntary Donation to Reduce the National Debt

I like this one, a lot:

Imagination Land

From Andrew Klavan, on the culture:

'Most feminists are feminists because they are marginalized from society to begin with by virtue of being women who aren't attractive'

I've been away from the gender wars for some time, but this shouldn't be missed: "FemCunts."

Jill Filipovic (woman-lawyer hot, manhattanite, woman-lawyer) who blogs for Feministe followed a pingback to my boyfriend’s blog post “Feminism is a Crazy Girlfriend” and tweeted it in mock disbelief. Kate Harding*, a fellow feminist writer who focuses on fat and body issues re-tweeted it [and then] a throng of manginas and single, cat women flocked to the post. I find it amusing that of the three that commented, one is a bearded, beta-male mangina posing with a natural, floral backdrop and the other calls herself “vegina” – a vegan, feminist, academic activist. Fuck.

Man, I'm off my game! This stuff is gold. I'm forwarding to Robert Stacy McCain, who also needs to brush up on his repertoire!

RTWT for the background to the quote at the title. There's something to this attraction hypothesis, but I'd like to see the hard data.

Americans Abandon the Heartland

Something that's always fascinating to me, at WSJ, "Population Leaves Heartland Behind: Census Shows Growth Fueled by Increasingly Diverse Metro Areas; in Kansas, a Small Town Tears Down Empty Homes":

Americans continued to abandon the nation's heartland over the past decade, moving into metropolitan areas that have grown less white and less segregated, the 2010 Census showed.

The U.S. population grew by 27 million over the decade, to 308 million. But growth was unevenly distributed. Metropolitan areas, defined as the collection of small cities and suburbs that surround an urban core with at least 50,000 people, accounted for most of the gain, growing 10.8% over the decade to 257.7 million people.

Rural areas, meanwhile, grew just 4.5% to 51 million. Many regions—from the Great Plains to the Mississippi Delta to rural New England—saw population declines. About 46% of rural counties lost population in the decade, including almost 60% of rural counties that aren't adjacent to a metro area, according to an analysis of Census data by Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire.

Keep reading at the link above.

Small-town life is the repository of traditional values, so it's sometimes sad to see the rural towns declining. I developed a feel for the rural life living in Fresno, and I've noted a couple of times at the blog that I've thought about relocating. It won't be anytime soon, since I'm not near retirement, but I think about it. I know my wife would consider rural Central California north of Fresno, but I'm thinking we might like it out of state. I'll think more about this. Some readers have warned me that I'll get tired of small-town life in no time ...

As More Americans Have Become Dependent on Federal Programs, Republicans Have Struggled to Uphold the Animating Principles of the Party

For some reason, progressives see the budget deal as a win for Republicans, and a few conservatives have as well. But we're going to need $100s of billions in reduced spending before we can really claim to be shrinking the public sector and restoring both fiscal sanity and limited government. And of course those on the left don't care about balancing the budget, since government expansion has been put in overdrive since Obama took office. But folks who do care should get a load of James Capretta's piece in the Winter 2011 issue of National Affairs, "Priorities for a New Congress."

In 2009, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion, or 10% of the nation's gross domestic product. That was followed by a deficit of $1.3 trillion in 2010, or 8.9% of GDP. The 2011 deficit is expected to reach about 10% of GDP again. While revenues have declined because of the recession, this massive increase in deficits has been driven mostly by enormous growth in spending: Between 1990 and 2008, annual federal outlays averaged 20% of GDP, but in 2010 spending reached 23.8% of GDP — a difference of about half a trillion dollars per year. To see where such reckless imbalances lead, consider that, at the end of 2008, federal debt stood at $5.8 trillion; on its present course, it will be $20 trillion by 2020.

To make matters worse, these frightening figures do not even fully reflect the cost of paying out entitlement benefits to the retiring Baby Boom generation. Between 2010 and 2030, the number of Americans age 65 and older will increase from 41 million to 71 million. The Congressional Budget Office projects that spending on the nation's largest entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — reached 10.3% of GDP in 2010, up from 5.4% in 1975. By 2030, the combined costs of these programs (including the provisions of the new health-care law, if it is fully implemented) will have risen to 14.7% of GDP, or nearly $3 trillion. In other words, over the next two decades, the federal budget is scheduled to absorb new entitlement-spending commitments that are roughly the size of the entire Social Security program today.

The only real options for closing the budget gap are to lower spending, increase revenues, or pursue some combination of both. Republicans won the 2010 election in large part because most Americans do not trust the Democrats to solve this problem: They believe that unified Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches will mean a heavy tilt toward tax increases to reduce deficits and borrowing. Americans would prefer their elected leaders to come at the deficit problem from the other side, cutting government spending so that it does not exceed available revenue.

It's a great piece, so check out the rest at the link above.

Obama Plans National Budget Address for Wednesday: Tax Hikes On the Agenda

At Lonely Conservative, "Obama Suddenly Interested in Deficit Reduction, Will Propose Tax." And also Wall Street Journal, "Obama Puts Taxes on Table":

President Barack Obama will lay out his plan for reducing the nation's deficit Wednesday, belatedly entering a fight over the nation's long-term financial future. But in addition to suggesting cuts—the current focus of debate—the White House looks set to aim its firepower on a more divisive topic: taxes.

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

More at the link above.

Democrats just don't believe increased taxes on the productive sectors of the economy will harm growth prospects. But the Bush tax cuts had reduced deficits by 2007, as GDP growth accelerated and unemployment declined. The far left-leaning New York Times reported in 2006, "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit":

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

See also Michael Medved's piece on this from a couple of weeks ago, "Don't Blame Tax Cuts for Catastrophic Deficits."

We need to reduce spending not raise taxes. Both parties are guilty on the spending side, but only the Democrats insist in raising taxes on "high income" earners (people making not much more than my wife and I, and we're by no means "rich"). But when you have an ever-increasing government, with entitlement programs impervious to reform, the inevitable result is uncontrolled demand for new revenues. It's obscene, frankly. But progressives are obscene, not to mention their RINO enablers.

'Atlas Shrugged': New Film Takes Sorta Randian Road to Big Screen

I'm surprised.

A decent and fair report on the front page of today's Los Angeles Times, "'Atlas Shrugged' finally comes to the screen, albeit in chunks."

It has taken businessman John Aglialoro nearly 20 years to realize his ambition of making a movie out of "Atlas Shrugged," the 1957 novel by Ayn Rand that has sold more than 7 million copies and has as passionate a following among many political conservatives and libertarians as "Twilight" has among teen girls.

But the version of the book coming to theaters Friday is decidedly independent, low-cost and even makeshift. Shot for a modest $10 million by a first-time director with a cast of little-known actors, "Atlas Shrugged: Part I," the first in an expected trilogy, will play on about 300 screens in 80 markets. It's being marketed with the help of conservative media and "tea party" organizing groups and put into theaters by a small, Salt Lake City-based booking service.

The fact that one of the 20th century's most influential books is coming to movie screens in such a fashion is — depending on whom you ask — a reflection of liberal Hollywood's aversion to Rand's ideas, a symptom of Aglialoro's rigid adherence to them, or a testament to the challenges inherent in adapting the complex tome.

Aglialoro ultimately made a movie that hews more to Rand's ideology than the conventions of cinematic storytelling, at the risk that far fewer people will see it. Taking a page from the independent blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ," however, he is paying for his own theater bookings and marketing his film to an audience Hollywood often overlooks.

Keep reading at the link. The piece notes that the producers "showed footage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington..." Also mentioned there is Freedomworks, where bloggers at the CPAC blog-bash saw a preview screening of the film's trailers.

The movie comes out next Friday, April 15th. There's a couple of local tea parties that day, so I might see it on Saturday --- and then I'll update with my own review.

On Budget Issues, Paul Ryan is ' Vastly More Experienced' Than President Obama

Says George Will on today's "This Week":

Plus, "Obama Advisor David Plouffe: Budget Cuts Both 'Draconian' and 'Historic'" (via Memeorandum).

Also, at LAT, "Budget deal foreshadows larger fight ahead." And ABC News, "Debt Ceiling Crisis Looms After Budget Deal: Congress Now Has a New Hurdle to Overcome in Passing an Increase on the Federal Debt Limit."

State Troopers Haul Protesters Out of Washington State Capitol Building

Gee, Toto, I guess we're not in Madison anymore ...

Video at KIRO-TV Seattle, "Protesters Hauled Out Of State Capitol Building." See also, "Third day of 'sleep-in' at Washington state capitol." (At Memeorandum and Crooks and Liars.)

And thank goodness for the police. Looks like union thugs were taking over, threatening violence against state officials. At The Blaze, "Manufactured Madison Moments: SEIU Storms WA Capitol And Invades The Governors Office":

Israel Defense Forces On the Recent Escalation in Southern Israel and the Gaza Strip

From the IDF YouTube channel at top, and at bottom a clip of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system at work (c/o Norman Gersman):

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer: 'The Ground Zero Mosque - The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks', Calvary Chapel, Mission Viejo, April 9, 2011

Okay, the pictures below are from last night's screening and presentation of Pamela and Robert's film, "The Ground Zero Mosque - The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks." The crowd in attendance was mostly baby-boomers and retirees. But folks were passionate and very receptive of the program. This was the first time I'd seen the whole thing through. (I saw the first 10 minutes of the movie at CPAC.) It's an excellent documentary which deserves a wide screening. And during the Q & A, Pamela and Robert again developed their theme of combating the lamestream media's enabling of sharia at home. Of course Pamela's talk was outstanding as usual. She reminded the audience that if we want to preserve our country and our security, we have to do it ourselves. "When you wake up in the morning, after rubbing the sleep from your eyes, ask yourself what are you going to do today to save the republic?" She got lots of applause. And for good reason. It's shocking sometimes to see things in their totality, but the movie does that, illustrating what's essentially media malpractice --- and then Pamela and Robert bring it all home at the wrap-up discussion. Now, while Pamela was pleased to report that so far not a brick has been laid at the Cordoba Mosque, er, Park51 initiative, the battle is far from over. And another protest is planned for Ground Zero on September 11th. We're going to need it. See, for example, the lastest whitewash on the Hamas-backing Ground Zero developer Sharif El-Gamal at the April 5th Los Angeles Times, "The Man Behind the Manhattan Mosque."

More later ...

Victor Davis Hanson at West Coast Retreat — President Obama's Postmodern Middle East Policy

Victor Davis Hanson gave the breakfast keynote address at the West Coast Retreat on Saturday, April 2nd. And out of a long day of many outstanding presentations, this one was truly special. I think Hanson's talk provided the weekend's biggest "Ah-Ha! Factor." That's the moment when all the pieces of the intellectual puzzle snap together and you say to yourself, "Ah-Ha!" It's a gleeful flash of recognition. The loose ends have been wrapped up and you really see things in a new light.

Continue reading at NewsReal Blog: "President Obama’s Postmodern Middle East Policy — Victor Davis Hanson Provides the “Ah-Ha! Factor” at West Coast Retreat."

I'm heading out right now to meet Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They're giving a screening of their movie, "The Ground Zero Mosque - The Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks," at the Calvary Chapel in Mission Viejo (on Chrisanta Drive off La Paz). Doors open at 6:00pm. Hope to see you there!

'The Biggest Annual Spending Cut in History'? — President Obama on Budget Compromise

I'll try to do a fact-check later, but the biggest annual spending cut in real terms, as a percent of the deficit, as a percent of GDP, or what? I don't trust Obama. He lies. So I'll update with more on this later.

Meanwhile, Ace of Spades has been hawkish on the budget, so scroll down there for some good stuff. And Pat in Shreveport has some pros and cons, "Slaying the Budget Beast."

RELATED: The Other McCain has a big roundup from last night, "REPORT: Deal Struck, Averts Shutdown (Insert ’30 Pieces of Silver’ Joke Here)." And this sounds about right, at Washington Post, "Budget fight shows Washington still broken" (via Memeorandum).

The Berkowitz and Bell Statements on the Goldstone Report

From Rick Richman, at Current Jewish Issues, "The Berkowitz and Bell Statements on the Goldstone Report -- What Justice Goldstone Heard at Stanford on March 28":

The March 28 debate on the Goldstone Report at Stanford University Law School may have had a significance beyond the substantive discussion, because Justice Richard Goldstone was in attendance and, three days after the debate, published his now-famous recantation in the Washington Post.

Set forth below, with permission, are the Opening Statements made at the debate by Peter Berkowitz and Avi Bell, followed by the Rebuttal prepared by Berkowitz with respect to the speakers who spoke in favor of the Report. The yellow highlighting is mine.

The Berkowitz and Bell statements are worth reading not only for their devastating analysis but also, given the time and place in which they were made, for the fact that some believe that they may have impacted Goldstone’s subsequent action.

RTWT at the link.

I read about this earlier, particularly Avi Bell's comments at Jerusalem Post, "Richard Goldston's Legacy."

Last Monday, I debated with Richard Goldstone about the controversial Goldstone Report at Stanford Law School. Three days later, Justice Goldstone finally admitted, in The Washington Post, that, contrary to the report’s assertions, Israel did not intentionally target civilians. A Palestinian outfit called the International Middle East Media Center carried a story this weekend lamenting that two “racist Zionists” at the debate – Peter Berkowitz and I – were responsible for convincing Goldstone of the error of his ways. Sadly, this is, at best, only partly true.

The debate at Stanford was not designed for enlightenment. Besides the moderator, there were five of us debating under a format that let Goldstone avoid responding directly. The debate had too many participants, too large a topic and too crimped a format to allow a serious probing of the report’s defects. The International Law Society, which organized the debate, tipped its hand by inviting an organization called “Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel” to cosponsor the event.

Even with the friendly format, Richard Goldstone cannot have enjoyed the criticism. As I watched him sitting through the debate stone-faced, his wife sitting next to him, and as I thought back on his lengthy resumé, I recognized the enormous tragedy of a man, once lauded as a champion of human rights, becoming a shill for a terrorist organization.

Also RTWT.

Bell thinks Goldstone's contrition insufficient, and others have called for an official apology to Israel.

Added: See also Stanley Kurtz at National Review, "Did Peter Berkowitz Change Goldstone’s Mind?"

Susannah Breslin on Blog Marketing and Hustle

At Forbes (via Instapundit):

These days, it’s not enough to be a good writer online. You have to be a smart marketer, your own content factory, your own publicist. If you can do it all, you are golden. If you cannot, you are screwed.

Breslin's using her own experience moving from True/Slant to Forbes as a case study, but the quote cited is applicable to anyone who's writing online nowadays. When I was away at the Horowitz West Coast Retreat last weekend I didn't bother with my blog. I think I put up just one post on Saturday, and maybe three on Sunday. And of course there was no promotion, through cross-posting, Facebook, Twitter, etc. My traffic numbers were already down for March but I think I had just over 1300 hits last Saturday, which is way down. I've been writing less frequently all around, in any case. Partly because of burnout, but not entirely. I've been reading, spending time with my wife and sons, going to the movies and bookstores, and out to eat! And then of course there's my work, which has been pretty interesting of late, especially with the panel on Egypt the other day, which had me preparing in advance for most of the week.

Anyway, this reminds me that Doug Ross had my blog ranked 100 out of the top 150 conservative websites --- which was surprising, since I don't do that well on the Alexa rankings. And besides that, my Wikio numbers have been eroding over the last year. I thought I was going to be bumped from the top 100 at Wikio but I've dropped down to 93 for the March rankings. I'd by lying if I said I didn't care. When you blog full-time --- as a second but very low-paying job --- the rankings provide a little recognition. That's why William Jacobson's always joking about how he doesn't pay attention to his top blog ranking for both legal and political blogs, precisely while he's writing another post on his top blog rankings for both legal and political blogs! William cites Technorati's rankings, and checking over there my blog is currently #65 for political blogs and #61 for U.S. political blogs --- so I guess that's not too bad. I'm surprised it's that good, since as noted I've been worrying a lot less about promotion. It's time consuming and takes a helluva lot of work. But I keep plugging away -- at blogging, promotion, and original reporting --- since this seems to be what gives me the most intellectual enrichment right now, and that's to say nothing of my addiction!

More later ...

CNN Ratings Fall as Breaking News Fades

At New York Times.

Fox News is dominating the cable networks, but I thought for a moment that television all around was losing the breaking news market to the Internet. That is happening, since more and more people look online for news, although in this case it's just a discussion of the ratings war. Fox's success reminds us again just how out of touch the lamestream media really is.

At 150th Anniversary, Civil War is Still Relevant to Most Americans

A new poll, from Pew Research, "Civil War at 150: Still Relevant, Still Divisive":

As the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War approaches, most Americans say the war between the North and South is still relevant to American politics and public life today.

More than half of Americans (56%) say the Civil War is still relevant, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 30-April 3 among 1,507 adults. Nearly four-in-ten (39%) say the Civil War is important historically but has little current relevance.

In a nation that has long endured deep racial divisions, the history of that era still elicits some strong reactions. Nearly half of the public (46%) says it is inappropriate for today's public officials to praise the leaders of the Confederate states during the war; 36% say such statements are appropriate.

Nonetheless, a majority (58%) say they have no particular reaction to the Confederate flag, the symbol of the South. Among those who have a reaction to the flag, more than three times as many say they have a negative reaction as a positive reaction (30% to 9%).

More at the link above. An interesting correlation would be to cross-tabulate opinion on the Civil War with party identfication. The Pew results find 37 percent independent, 32 Democrat, and 25 Republican. No doubt Democrats are most likely to have negative reaction to the Confederate Flag. Which reminds me, the attacks on people as racist who show any pride in Southern heritage are pretty pathetic. Yeah, Charles Johnson, Scott Lemieux and a few other progressive losers, I'm talkin' to you.

Wasted: Manny Ramirez Walks Away From Baseball After Second Drug-Related Offense

Former Cleveland and Boston slugger Manny Ramirez will retire. See LAT, "Manny Ramirez tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug":

Ramirez struggled with injuries but still hit .298 with nine homers and 42 runs batted in in 90 games for the Dodgers and White Sox last season. He's a career .312 hitter with 555 home runs in 18-plus seasons, including some of his best with the Cleveland Indians and Boston Red Sox.

It was after signing with the Dodgers, though, that his reputation was sullied.

The erratic Ramirez performed well on the field and became a fan favorite, with “Mannywood” signs popping up around town, and wound up signing a $45-million, two-year contract to remain with the Dodgers. But in May 2009, he was suspended for testing positive for human chorionic gonadotropin, a banned female fertility drug that is often used to help mask steroid use.

“I'm shocked,” said Colorado's Jason Giambi, who has acknowledged taking steroids during his own career. “He always kind of portrayed that he was out there, but he knew how to hit, man. He was unbelievable when it came to hitting.”

Texas Rangers Manager Ron Washington was more somber in his assessment of Ramirez's career.

“Until the past couple of years, I thought he was on his way to the Hall of Fame,” Washington said. “I don't think many guys got as many big hits in their careers as he has. There weren't many guys who had as big an effect on a game as he had. You hate to see greatness all of a sudden just fade.”

It's just a waste, plain and simple. I always enjoyed watching Ramirez play, especially when he was with Boston. Drugs are a waste.

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton: 'If these Republicans insist ... then we have got to make them pay the price'

That's right after she said "It’s time that the District of Columbia told the Congress to go straight to hell."

That's belligerent and threatening, more of the new tone progressives keep talking about, or something.

At Fox News, "D.C. Delegate Tells Congress to Go 'Straight to Hell' Over Budget Battle." And MyFox DC, "Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton Upset Over Treatment of DC During Shutdown Resolution Talks":

Ezra Klein Shills for Planned Parenthood Abortion Industry

I never cease to be amazed, but Boy Wonder Ezra is up to his progressive tricks again, "What Planned Parenthood Actually Does" (via Memeorandum).

... As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities.

Check the post for the chart he's talking about, but no matter. The "3 percent" figure is a blatant lie, and the rest of Ezra's post is questionable on the facts, and a diversion from the real issue in any case. Here's Live Action on the numbers, "38.4% of Planned Parenthood’s 2009 “Health Center Income” is from Abortion":

THE TRUTH

• Annual abortions performed at Planned Parenthood: 332,278 Source: Planned Parenthood 2009 services fact sheet


• Average cost of abortion: $468 Source: Guttmacher Institute estimate


• Total income from abortions: $155,506,104


• Total health center income: $404,900,000 Source: Planned Parenthood 2009 annual report

This means that fully 38.4% of Planned Parenthood health center income comes directly from aborting unborn children.

So, only "3 percent of activities"? I guess for Ezra abortion services are kinda like the Constitution --- too hard to understand.

Rep. Michele Bachmann: 'This is the “small ball” battle that House leadership has chosen to engage'

Representative Bachmann, at Red State, "Not a Big Enough Fight."

She's a little upset that House Republicans aren't staying focused on the big picture, especially the priority of ObamaCare repeal:

Don’t get me wrong, cuts in spending are a move in the right direction. House Republicans have brought about a change from the spending binge of the last two years. But it’s time to face the facts. This is the “small ball” battle that House leadership has chosen to engage. The current battle has devolved to an agenda that is almost too limited to warrant the kind of fighting that we’re now seeing in Washington.

Democrats only want to cut $33 billion of spending, while some reports say Republicans might settle for $40 billion. Either way, it’s not enough. We should be playing “big ball.” We should be fighting over trillions, not billions. We should be defunding ObamaCare, but we’re not.

I made a commitment to vote “no” on any Continuing Resolution that does not defund ObamaCare. That pledge to the American people remains unchanged. I believe that’s a battle we cannot walk away from. But, it’s not been an option in the recent government funding bills that House leaders have put up for a vote.

I am ready for a big fight, the kind that will change the arc of history. And, I’m hoping that when it comes to issues like the debt ceiling, ObamaCare, and the 2012 budget, House Republicans will take the lead, draw a line in the sand and not back down from the fight.

And here's Bachmann last night on Greta's:

I'll update on this. Social conservatives are loving the firm stand against Planned Parenthood, so there's special significance to this "small ball" battle after all.

GOP Threatens Shutdown Over Planned Parenthood

And I'm glad.

The New York Times is spinning the debate as a "non-budget" issue, but $75 million or $75 billion, it's public funding and more power to the Republicans calling out Dems on government-sponsored death to the unborn. And quoted there is former welfare recipient Patty Murray:

“I am really stunned, and I am angry as a woman,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, “that we have come to this after weeks of negotiating on numbers, where we have in principle an agreement on numbers, that there are those in the Republican Party in the House who are willing to shut down the government, take people’s paychecks away from them, because they want to deny women access to health care in this country.”

"Health care."

That's a nice rhetorical trick. Planned Parenthood is a death mill. Ground zero for the enormity of progressive pro-abortion evil. And leftists are manning (or womanning) the barricades on this one, since they know that abortion is to social policy as unions are to economics: Lose there and the Democrat-socialist-anti-life-coalition takes a knockout blow, with repercussions all the way up the electoral ladder (think President Barack "Infanticide" Obama).

Also, at Wall Street Journal, "Abortion Returns to Center Stage."

ANSWER Coalition's Brian Becker: 'Violence Sometimes Is Necessary’

It's not that this stuff is surprising, but that the media is so ridiculously biased when it comes to reporting violent rhetoric.

The clip below is from The Blaze, "Dark Rhetoric: Nonviolence Is Not Always the Answer; American Socialist Leader Calling for Revolution Says ‘We Are Not Pacifists, Violence Sometimes Is Necessary’":

And check out this piece at New York Review, "We Don’t Know the Language We Don’t Know." It's a report on the March 19th White House protest against the wars. All the usual suspects were on hand, including Code Pink Obama money-bundler Jodi Evans. The "language" reference is to Daniel Ellsburg, who argues that Americans don't know Pashto, so we'll lose in Afghanistan. It's more complicated, but we'll hold off on that for another time. Anyway, ANSWER's Brian Becker was there, talking up a revolution right here at home:

Then Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition, a socialist group that sponsored some of the biggest peace demonstrations before the Iraq war, tore into the Libyan intervention, which had begun with the launch of a hundred cruise missiles that morning. “We have to learn the lessons that are so crystal clear, as Obama and the Pentagon and France and Britain prepare in the next few hours to start dropping bombs on the people of Libya in the name of democracy,” Becker said. “Let’s know this: Libya is the largest oil producer in Africa, and there’s no possible way that if the US goes into Libya that it’s ever going to come out.” Libya must be the masters of their own destiny, he continued. “We ourselves reject the idea, fed to us once again, that US imperialism, with all of its guns and bombs and missiles, is going to help an oppressed people. The only help we can give to the people of Libya and Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen is to make our own revolution right here!” (Whooping and cheering.)

White House and Congress Seek to Avoid Shutdown

The report's at Chicago Tribune, "Budget deal elusive as negotiators scramble." Also at Hot Air and Memeorandum.

Please Help Find Marizela

Michelle Malkin's cousin Marizela Perez was last seen March 5th. The Find Marizela website is here. And here's Michelle with Megyn Kelly earlier today:

The Cars Reunion Tour 2011!

Trippy.

It's almost new wave retro, except The Cars aren't retro!

At RTTNews, "The Cars Announce Spring Tour Dates":

THE CARS - 2011 TOUR DATES:

5/10 in Seattle, WA @ Showbox @SODO

5/12 in Los Angeles, CA @ The Hollywood Palladium

5/13 in Oakland, CA @ Fox Theatre

5/15 in Denver, CO @ The Fillmore

5/17 in Minneapolis, MN @ First Avenue

5/18 in Chicago, IL @ The Riviera Theatre

5/20 in Toronto, ON @ The Sound Academy

5/23 in Washington, DC @ 9:30 Club

5/25 in New York City, NY @ Roseland

5/26 in Boston, MA @ The House of Blues

HAT TIP: The Sound LA.

RELATED: The new album available May 10: "Move Like This."

Prosser Picks Up Waukesha County With 7,500 Votes!

Hmm, now it's a rout!

At Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Prosser gains 7,500 votes in Waukesha County" (at Memeorandum).

Now this is the best! Ann Althouse has a post on Richard Hasen's commentary at Politico, "Wis. court election courts disaster." See, "Don't talk about fraud! Fraud?! There is no fraud! Pay no attention to those... those... those... frauders!":

Don't dare say fraud!

While the fraud allegations [in various recent elections] remain stuck in the public’s mind, no proof of any systemic fraud has been unearthed. Instead, close examination of elections show, time and again, that our election systems are not perfect – but this is due to human error and not fraud.... [I]f the Wisconsin Supreme Court race goes into extra innings, I expect things to become especially contentious and partisan.

To become contentious and partisan? It's been ridiculously contentious and partisan here in Wisconsin since mid-February. It's hard to understand why the Republicans should stand down now. Prosser was way ahead and would have easily won if Democrats hadn't turned what was supposed to be a nonpartisan election into a referendum on the Republican governor they hate. It took Prosser a long time to realize he had to fight like a politician and not just sit quietly modeling traditional judicial demeanor. Outrageous, dirty politics was played against the old jurist, and he had little idea what to do about it. Now, his advocates are supposed to play nice so things won't get ugly? We've been in uglyville since February.

Word.

The Political Carnival's already suspicious, and at Firedoglake: "Now this could approach scandal territory. Let’s see where it goes."

Right. Scandal.

More at POWIP: "Prosser Takes the Lead by . . . 7500 Votes?"

Facebook Revolution: The Democratization of Egypt and Changes in the Middle East

A panel discussion at my college today:

The college may upload the talk to YouTube, and if so I'll post it here.

John Yoo at David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat, April 3, 2011

I have a new essay at NewsReal Blog, "John Yoo at West Coast Retreat: Obama Has Made Us Less Safe."

Professor Yoo hammered the Obama administration’s foreign policy. President Obama has, he said, in attempting to dismantle the legal framework of the Bush administration’s anti-terror program, made Americans less safe. Not only did Obama attempt to shutter Guantanamo, but under his watch more than a quarter of the enemy combatants released from detention have returned to the field of battle. Professor Yoo indicated that the nature of the war on terror has changed significantly since the first few years after September 11. Al Qaeda has become increasingly decentralized as a terrorist organization, and transnational recruitment in the U.S. and Europe is a growing source of combatants for the next wave of operations. There are less likely to be large-scale attacks along the lines of 9/11, and more like that of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner two Christmases ago.

More later ...

Obama Says Shutdown Would be 'Inexcusable'

The Washington Post has the story. And here's the key quote:

“I remain confident that, if we are serious about getting something done, we should be able to complete a deal and get it passed and avert a shutdown,” Obama said. “But it’s going to require a sufficient sense of urgency from all parties involved.”

He also sounded a stern note about the consequences. “It would be inexcusable, given the relatively narrow differences when it comes to numbers between the two parties, that we can’t get this done,” Obama said. “There’s no reason why we should have a government shutdown unless we’ve made a decision that politics is more important.”

I haven't been following the negotiations, but it's mostly theater, IMHO. Shutting down government is ridiculous, frankly. Americans want a deal, as Gallup reported earlier. And I doubt either party can expect a political upside to this, especially with unemployment as high as it is. And the actual effects of a shutdown would be deeply regrettable. See LAT, "Contingency plan for possible government shutdown packs a mean punch."

RELATED: Check this awesome commentary from Daniel Henniger, "A Ronald Reagan Budget: Paul Ryan's budget offers much more than deficit-reduction brimstone."