Obama's Energy Lies: President Spews on American Energy at Prince George's Community College in Largo, Maryland, March 15, 2012

I watched the president's speech.

It's offensive. Indeed, it's offensive on so many levels my first thought was the proverbial, "Where to begin"?

Well, the easy answer is to start off with Obama's epic gaffe on Rutherford B. Hayes. Obama didn't simply botch a quote; he attempted to revise history. Folks are all over this at Memeorandum, for example, at Washington Free Beacon: "Obama on Pres. Hayes, 'Flat Earthers,' and the History of Science." It turns out that President Hayes never criticized the invention of the telephone with the comment that "It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?" Actually, upon first listening to the telephone, a blown away President Hayes said "That is wonderful."

But listen at the clip, starting around 22 minutes. Obama attacks unnamed "politicians" as members of a "flat earth society," and he doesn't stop there:

Now, all of that would be one thing. We can expect hard hitting partisan speeches from here on out until November. Indeed, today basically kicked off the Obama campaign's reelection drive, with Vice President Biden giving a speech earlier in Toledo, Ohio. But listening to Obama you'd think he was campaigning as Homeboy-in-Chief, trying to nail down the bandanas and grillz constituency. Obama's down with the misogynist hip-hop demographic, but this was a community college in suburban Maryland with the state's governor and members of Congress in attendance. You'd think one of the White House advisors would have suggested that O' save the swagga for the basketball court, yo.

Obama's continued insinuations of Republicans as backwater yokels are particular abrasive. This is a president who's giving a speech with manufactured history looking to smack down GOP "politicians" as anti-science nitwits and technological Luddites? Obama went on and on about how "drilling won't solve high gas prices," blah, blah, rehashing stump-speech remarks going back to 2008. His classic statistic is 2 percent. America's proven reserves amount to just "2 percent of world oil reserves." Frankly, all that talk is a bunch of bull, as Investor's Business Daily pointed on this morning, "Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims":

... the figure Obama uses — proved oil reserves — vastly undercounts how much oil the U.S. actually contains. In fact, far from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities — enough to meet all the country's oil needs for hundreds of years.

The U.S. has 22.3 billion barrels of proved reserves, a little less than 2% of the entire world's proved reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration. But as the EIA explains, proved reserves "are a small subset of recoverable resources," because they only count oil that companies are currently drilling for in existing fields.

When you look at the whole picture, it turns out that there are vast supplies of oil in the U.S., according to various government reports. Among them:

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.

Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska's North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.

Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.

As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Then, there's the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it's heated.

Continue reading at the link.

Obama doesn't mention any of those statistics. Instead, he portrays his political opponents as reactionary and un-American. This coming from an administration which has long touted its agenda to drive the coal industry out of business --- and now the Energy Secretary is walking back earlier comments calling for $8.00 gas prices like those in Europe.

The president wrapped up his speech with an attack on "Big Oil," claiming that the petroleum industry didn't need the "subsidies" since it was raking in windfall profits. The Wall Street Journal anticipated the president's attack on the oil companies, and noted with respect to subsidies:

As for the “subsidies” that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren’t direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They’re deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

But listen at the clip. The president's obviously desperate to change the narrative after recent polls have revealed a growing public backlash on gas prices. But to hear the president, it's not the White House that's behind the curve but the "anti-science" Republicans looking to turn back the clock. Meanwhile, with all those proven reserves sitting untapped around the country, folks have been thinking more and more about bringing that oil to market. While Obama whines about how out of touch those "politicians" are about the technologies of the future, the Los Angeles Times reports, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight":

Nationwide, fracking is driving an oil and natural gas boom. Energy companies are using the procedure to extract previously unreachable fossil fuels locked within deep rock. The industry is touting the potential of fracking in California to tap the largest oil shale formation in the continental United States, containing 64% of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.

State regulators said fracking here is "radically different" from drilling in the Rocky Mountain West, Mid-Atlantic region and Northeast, where operators inject millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand to break apart rock and release natural gas. In California, the process has long been performed for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.

"We believe it is a safe practice," said Tupper Hull, a spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Assn. "It is not a new technology. It is a tested, proven technology."

The report stresses the environmental side of the debate actually; but clearly, we have the technology to achieve energy independence, and industry experts affirm the safety and effectiveness of the procedure. In contrast, President Obama is spewing lies and distortions on America's energy capabilities, and attempting to paint political opponents as medieval.

The president's agenda is anti-American and anti-progress. It's driven by a statist ideology. Frankly, the country's not likely to expand domestic supply and reduce foreign dependence while the Democrats are in power. The only alternative is to throw the bums out.

Americans have long championed our rugged individualism and can-do spirit of self-sufficiency. The polls show a public longing for a renewed effort at energy independence using U.S. resources and home-grown ingenuity. It's time for an energy policy grounded in pragmatism and reality. A pro-market agenda can reduce gas prices now and secure energy independence long into the future. It's time for a change.

Left-Wing Hate Speech: Vet the President, Hollywood, and the Media

This is getting good!

Michelle notes so righteously:

"When you vet the President, you don't just vet the President, you're vetting Hollywood, and you're vetting the media, and they don't like it one bit!"

From the Marines: Toward the Sounds of Chaos

Via Theo Spark:

Obama Must Return Foul-Mouthed Comic's Million Bucks or Be Tainted By His Misogyny

At IBD, "Obama Obliged to Return Hate Speech Comic's Million":

Misogyny and hate-mongering are not things President Obama wants his re-election campaign tainted by. There's no avoiding getting his Super-PAC to return sleaze merchant Bill Maher's million dollars.

Just when you thought there couldn't be any worse double standards, a sewer-mouthed "comedian" gives a million smackers to help re-elect President Obama, yet the major media and leading Democrats think it's fine.

The same Democrats and media organizations blew a socket when Rush Limbaugh used "slut" to describe a feminist activist who wants taxpayers to finance her efforts at avoiding pregnancy. But consider how Bill Maher has treated Sarah Palin.

Not only has he called her the c-word in his act, and another four-letter obscenity with the same meaning; he compared Palin to a "pimp" and called her family — which includes a son with Down Syndrome — "inbred."

Maher also lumped former presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and Palin together using an obscene four-letter acronym little known outside pornographic chat rooms.

Turn the tables and imagine Mitt Romney, say, taking money from a comic whose routine included using the c-word to describe Hillary Clinton. Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be calling it a GOP war on women, and it would dominate prime time news coverage for weeks.

More at the link.

Tamara Holder: 'I Think MILF Is a Compliment of Sorts'

Actually, I had a student in class defend Maher (and by implication President Obama, whose PAC is taking that million bucks) by saying that he didn't have a problem with women being called sluts: "I don't have a problem with it."

Double standards really make progressive say and do awful things.

See Gateway Pundit, "Pathetic… Lib Pundit Defends Bill Maher: I Think MILF Is a Compliment of Sorts."

MILF is not a compliment. It's a slur that says you don't take a woman seriously, but only as a piece of meat. And for a progressive women to say this is really a compliment is patently brainless, to say nothing of tasteless. Andrea Tantaros' response is perfect, really. Tamara Holder is unbelievable.

Southern Wins Propel Rick Santorum Forward

An analysis at RCP.

And see Robert Stacy McCain, "A Santorum Miracle? ‘So Be It,’ Says Mitt."

Boeing's Dreamliner Jet Gets Big Rollout in Long Beach

This is interesting.

At Los Angeles Times, "Dreamliner gets a big rollout in Long Beach."

Just read it all at the link. The piece mentions the possible winding-down of production at the Long Beach C-17 plant, which I toured previously.

Goldman Sachs Executive Makes Huge Public Spectacle in High-Profile Resignation

Greg Smith, who worked at Goldman for 12 years, has this commentary in yesterday's New York Times, "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" (via Memeorandum).

And check this companion piece, "Public Exit From Goldman Raises Doubt Over a New Ethic."

I'm actually skeptical of this guy Greg Smith. It just sounds too pat. Securities firms aren't benevolent societies. "Greed is good" is more than a motto --- it's do or die. So, I'm betting the guy burned some bridges --- or just burned some people and decided to go out with a flourish, settling some scores in the process. Again, it's just too pat. Tyler Cowen concurs, "In any case, I am suspicious of his impulse to blame it all on a sudden shift in the moral propensities of the people he was working with." Right. And see Dan Drezner as well, "If you're going to be a whistle-blower, you need to acknowledge upfront your complicity in any malfeasance, be it legal or ethical. Smith's op-ed doesn't come close to doing this."

Santa Monica College to Launch Two-Tiered Pricing for Classes

Well, once you get your foot in the door it's hard to close.

Perhaps we'll see more of this, which will bring some demand-side accountability and competition to the colleges. The best teachers and the best classes could be put up for the higher fee structures, and the also-rans would fall by the wayside. Wait, that kind of sounds like merit-based instruction --- and the unions won't go for that. What am I thinking?!!

See Los Angeles Times, "Santa Monica College to offer two-tier course pricing":

Faced with deep funding cuts and strong student demand, Santa Monica College is pursuing a plan to offer a selection of higher-cost classes to students who need them, provoking protests from some who question the fairness of such a two-tiered education system.

Under the plan, approved by the governing board and believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, the two-year college would create a nonprofit foundation to offer such in-demand classes as English and math at a cost of about $200 per unit. Currently, fees are $36 per unit, set by the Legislature for California community college students. That fee will rise to $46 this summer.

The classes would be offered as soon as the upcoming summer and winter sessions; and, if successful, the program could expand to the entire academic year. The mechanics of the program are still being worked out, but generally the higher-cost classes would become available after state-funded classes fill up. The winter session may offer only the higher-cost classes, officials said.

Students who qualify would be able to use financial aid such as Cal Grants for the classes, college officials said, but they are also seeking private funds to establish scholarships for needy students.

The 34,000-student Santa Monica campus has one of the highest transfer rates to four-year universities in the state and a reputation for innovative programs that are a model for other community colleges. But some say higher-priced classes are tantamount to privatizing the public institution.

It's not privatizing. It's rationalizing, and we could use a whole lot more of that in this state.

Oil Industry Pays More Federal Taxes Than Any Other Business

More on oil politics, from the Wall Street Journal, "Big Oil, Bigger Taxes":

President Obama says he wants to end subsidies for what he calls "the fuel of the past," but lucky for him oil and gas will be the fuels of the future too. His budget-deficit blowout would be so much worse without Big Oil, because the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.

Much, much worse, actually. The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending—and it would cover a lot of Solyndras. That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business.

Not paying their "fair share"? Here's a staggering fact: The Tax Foundation estimates that, between 1981 and 2008, oil and gas companies sent more dollars to Washington and the state capitols than they earned in profits for shareholders.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil and gas company, says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon's 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's 2013 budget—like its 2012, 2011 and 2010 vintages—includes a dozen-odd tax increases that would raise the industry's liability by $44 billion over the next decade, according to the White House, and by $85 billion, according to the trade group the American Petroleum Institute (API). At any rate, the President's economists ought to be weeping for joy for the revenue windfall from an industry that grew 4.5% in 2011, compared to overall GDP growth of 1.7%...

As for the "subsidies" that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren't direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They're deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

Why he would still want to do this amid the political panic over $4 per gallon gasoline is a mystery. Even Mr. Obama now claims to want lower gas prices, commenting recently that "Do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher?" Too bad his every policy choice, and especially his tax agenda, would lead to higher prices.

PREVIOUSLY: "'Silver Bullet' for High Gas Prices: Drilling, Exploration."

'Toothless Tuesday'

See The Rhetorican, "Doubling down: Maher Insults Alabama and Mississippi Voters with ‘Toothless Tuesday”."

And at Twitchy, "Bigot Bill Maher dubs Deep South primary “Toothless Tuesday”; update: another vile tweet targets Newt, Santo."

And that CNN clip closes with the comment that for the right it's Bill Maher and for the left it's Rush Limbaugh, which of course assumes a level mass-media playing field that doesn't exist --- and that's not to mention that progressives are defending Maher, not hounding him off the air.

But the hits are building. See Jake Tapper, "Axelrod Cancels on Bill Maher — For Now."

Possibility of Brokered Convention Seems Less Remote After Santorum's Southern Sweep

I would personally love for this to go to Tampa, but I'm not banking on it yet.

But see National Journal, "After Alabama and Mississippi: Will the GOP Convention Be a Battleground?":

Is it time to take the Republican convention seriously as a potential battleground?

Republicans should know better by now. Their still-putative nominee, Mitt Romney, lacks the conservative support to capture the kind of expectations-exceeding primary win necessary to capsize underfunded but motivated rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
Romney didn’t do it in South Carolina, Colorado, or Tennessee. He proved unable once again on Tuesday to claim victory in a state, Mississippi, that seemed tantalizingly within reach.

The months-long trend makes it clear that Romney will have to win the GOP nomination with math, not acclamation, steadily accumulating enough delegates in friendly contests until he reaches the nomination-clinching number of 1,144. But that path is fraught with risk. There is always the chance that he’ll fall just short of the magic number, which raises the possibility of a contested August convention in Tampa.

Many mocked the notion a month ago, but it now seems increasingly likely. “After last night, you have to start think it’s possible,'” said political consultant Curt Anderson, a former political director of the Republican National Committee who advised Rick Perry before he quit the race. “It seems more possible than before, that’s for sure.”

Okay, continue reading.

National Journal mentions the Santorum memo released last weekend: "Santorum Path to Delegate Victory." The memo argues that Santorum's share of delegates is being underestimated. Iowa's actual convention delegates have yet to be allocated and Santorum will pick up more than currently projected, for example. And the memo indicates that the long proportional delegate selection process for 2012 will work to the advantage of the more conservative candidate over time.

Personally, my sense is that the proof is in the pudding. If Santorum can beat Romney in some upcoming winner-take-all states --- thus really banking the delegates, while further demonstrating widespread appeal across the GOP primary electorate --- I'll be more likely to consider the idea of a brokered convention. Especially important will be the Maryland and Wisconsin primaries on April 3. Wisconsin looks particularly crucial, as the winner there will (again, after Ohio) secure bragging rights as the candidate best situated to beat President Obama in November. In late February, the Marquette University Law School Poll had Santorum leading the GOP field in the Badger State with 34 percent. Romney was trailing Santorum at 18 percent, Ron Paul with 17, and Newt Gingrich at 12 percent. And a survey out March 1 from Public Policy Polling has Santorum at 43 percent, with Romney following at 27 percent, Gingrich at 10 percent and Paul taking 8 percent. No doubt those numbers will tighten up over the next couple of weeks, but it's the Santorum campaign that's got the big momentum at this point. Romney's campaign has been floundering, frankly, and the best argument he can make for his nomination is that he's got the most delegates --- he can't claim he's capturing the excitement of the Republican base. That said, political scientist Josh Putnam says the math is extremely prohibitive for Santorum, as does --- wait for it! --- Jennifer Rubin.

I'll have more on this later. Until then, let's hear it from Santorum himself:

More from Reuters, "Santorum to Puerto Rico: Speak English if you want statehood" (via Memeorandum).

And once more, Robert Stacy McCain, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Mathematical Impossibilities Happen."

Pressure Increasing for Newt Gingrich to Step Aside in GOP Race

At the clip is Rick Santorum campaign advisor John Brabender urging conservatives to unite behind one conservative candidate to deny Mitt Romney the nomination.

And here's this, at Telegraph UK, "US election 2012: Newt Gingrich under renewed pressure to drop out":

Newt Gingrich was under renewed pressure to drop out and back Rick Santorum for the US presidency, after the former Pennsylvania senator claimed a double victory in the Deep South.

The former House Speaker was urged to encourage Right-wing Republicans to unite behind Mr Santorum, who won Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday night, and halt the slow march to victory by Mitt Romney, the relative moderate ex-Massachusetts governor, in the race to be Barack Obama's opponent in November's election.

"The time is now for conservatives to pull together," Mr Santorum told jubilant supporters at a rally in Louisiana. He later told an interviewer that Mr Gingrich – who knocked Mr Romney into third place in both southern primaries – was no longer "in the mix for getting the nomination".

Party strategists said the time had come to allow Mr Santorum to take on Mr Romney alone. "Gingrich's final act could be king maker by getting out and endorsing," Erick Erickson, a leading Republican commentator, said on his blog.

Polls indicate that Mr Santorum, an evangelical Catholic and former senator for Pennsylvania, would collect a majority of Mr Gingrich's supporters, many of whom dislike Mr Romney for his past stances on abortion and gay rights in liberal-leaning Massachusetts.

"Newt had a great run but Santorum has earned a one-on-one shot with Romney," Keith Appell, a veteran Republican operative, told The Daily Telegraph. "Santorum so exceeded expectations in the South that his campaign will now be energised with money and enthusiasm".

If you're interested, Erickson's got a thread at Memeorandum: "Not Closing the Deal."

But don't miss Robert Stacy McCain either way, "Memo From the National Affairs Desk: Mathematical Impossibilities Happen."

BONUS: From Chris Cillizza, "5 lessons learned from the Alabama and Mississippi primaries":

Regardless of whether Newt knows it or not, his chances of remaining a major player in this race effectively ended with his second place finishes in Mississippi and Alabama. Prominent conservatives have already begun to go public urging him to leave the race and that drumbeat will only grow louder if he refuses.

U.S. Marines in Afghanistan Disarmed During Speech by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

At New York Daily News, "Leon Panetta visits Afghanistan: Hundreds of U.S. Marines unusually asked to disarm before he speaks." And at ABC News, "Security Scare During Defense Secretary's Afghan Visit."

It's a dangerous deterioration of security. See Los Angeles Times, "Roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan kills 8 as Panetta visits."

And at Althouse, "Did a suicide bomber in Afghanistan almost kill Secretary of State Leon Panetta?"

Americans Have Mixed Feelings on Afghanistan

Here's the latest from USA Today, "Poll: Half of Americans back faster pullout from Afghanistan."

And one of the more conflictual findings there:

Nearly six in 10 say they're worried that withdrawing U.S. troops too quickly will make Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists plotting attacks against the United States.

But RTWT.

Sandra Fluke Won't Be Silenced

It's amazing how this issue has gripped the nation, and also amazing how people seem to talk right past each other.

Gateway Pundit has Sandra Fluke's commentary piece from CNN yesterday, "Lib Hero Sandra Fluke: Free Birth Control Is a Natural Human Right – I Won’t Be Silenced."

And at The Blaze, "The Blaze's Will Cain Confronts Sandra Fluke and Her 'Logic' on CNN."

BONUS: From Doctor Zero at Human Events, "Obama craters in polls, loses support among women: Another media fairy tale bites the dust."

Laura Ingraham Slams the 'So-Called War On Women'

An excellent clip.

Ingraham hammers leftist Jennifer Brandt.

Soledad O'Brien Gets Schooled by Conservatives

Well, it must be rough for a progressive inflicted with ideological (cognitive) dissonance, and it's especially bad for CNN's Soledad O'Brien. She got everything wrong about Derrick's Bell racist theory, and it's coming back to bite her hard.

See Michelle's column out today, "What's the matter with Soledad O’Brien?"

And at Big Journalism, "Wikipedia Freezes Critical Race Theory Entry After Soledad Implosion."

Added: Michelle tweets Adams Baldwin: "Critical Journalism Theory!"

Kim Kardashian and Sisters Khloe and Kourtney Promote Their Kardashian Kollection

Whoa.

This is why these ladies are big --- and I mean big!! --- celebrities.

At London's Daily Mail, "In the bedroom with Kim Kardashian! The world's most famous siblings strip off to launch their new Intimates range."

'Silver Bullet' for High Gas Prices: Drilling, Exploration

One of the most pernicious memes we're hearing right now amid surge in gas prices is that "there’s little a president can do to affect the day-to-day price of fuel in a global market." That's not quite accurate, actually, and in fact to hear progressives you'd think that the administration should be completely absolved of the country's energy crisis.

In fact, Americans think that a whole lot could be done to revive U.S. energy production, and thus bring down prices at the pump. See IBD, "Poll: Public Anger Over Gasoline Prices Hurting Obama." And see also IBD's editorial, "Obama's Limits On Oil Output Cause Higher Gas Prices":

President Obama says Newt Gingrich "isn't telling the truth" when he claims he could cut the price of gas to $2.50 a gallon if elected. Well, the price of gas when Obama took office was $1.83 a gallon. Was that a lie?

'There's no silver bullet" for high gas prices, the president said Monday. This is utterly false. The "silver bullet" for anything in short supply is to make more of it, which lowers the price — something Obama steadfastly refuses to do with oil.

When Obama entered office in January 2009, a gallon of unleaded gasoline went for about $1.83. Today, that same gas goes for $3.53 — a 93% increase. Some of it, of course, is the Iran crisis. But, as the American Petroleum Institute (API) notes, that's not the main problem. Obama's policies are.

"Gasoline prices are higher today at least in part because government has neglected to pay sufficient attention to the importance of producing more of our own oil and natural gas," said API Director Erik Milito.

President Obama likes to brag that oil and gas output has risen during his term. True, but he had absolutely nothing to do with it. Output, according to a new API study, "increased in 2011 over 2009 only as a result of growing production on state and private lands — up almost 29% for oil and 22% for natural gas."

By comparison, on federal lands, which Obama's administration controls, production fell 7.9% for oil and 6.8% for natural gas over the same period.

Surprised? Don't be. President Obama's Energy Secretary Stephen Chu in 2008 said, "Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." That's above $8 a gallon.

Also in 2008, then-candidate Obama likewise said he wanted prices to rise. So he can't feign surprise as his policies inevitably lead to less oil and higher prices.

Obama killed the Keystone XL pipeline, which alone would have brought in 800,000 barrels of oil a day. He has shut off huge swaths of our offshore to further oil development, and slowed permitting in the Gulf of Mexico. He keeps our shale-oil reserves under lock and key.

All told, the U.S. has as much as two trillion barrels of oil equivalents trapped in the ground and offshore — about eight times the reserves Saudi Arabia has. Yet, Obama doesn't want us to get it. Less supply, higher prices, by design. Call it the Obama Gasoline Tax.

Ending Obama's energy policies would be a "silver bullet" for gas prices.

And still more at IBD, "IBD/TIPP Poll: Gas Turns Americans Dimmer On Economy."

Pamela Geller: New York Times Won't Run Counter-Jihad Facts

This is an amazing report, at Atlas Shrugs: "REJECTED! What the NY Times WON'T Run: Counter-Jihad Facts; What the NY Times Will Run: Anti-Catholic Smear Ads."

More at Memeorandum.

EARTH-SHATTERING BREAKING NEWS!!! Progressives Less Tolerant Online, Pew Research Center Finds

Well, who woulda thunk it!

Here's the report from Pew: "Social Networking Sites and Politics."

And Andrew Malcolm comments at IBD: "Online, Liberals Far Less Tolerant Than Normal People." (Via Memeorandum.)

And here's genetic mutant and trig truther Thers responding to the news:

Fuck you die now.

FUCK FUCK FUCKITTY FUCK FUCK BLOW ME WITH A BLOWFUCK FUCK, AND FUCK YOUUUUU, FUCK OFF, FUCKGOOBER FUCKBANANA FUCKOFFS, YOU STUPID FUCKNOSED FUCKNOBBLER FUCKSHIT FUCKS.

Oh, wait!

Wrong post. I found that at Thers' tag: "Motherfucking Civility."

Also available at that tag: "The National Institute for Civil Discourse." (Recall that progressives established that place after they blood libeled Sarah Palin for the Tuscon shootings, although nobody mentions it anymore, the mofos.)

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's the genetic mutant's response: "I Can't Imagine Why Anyone Would Ever Try to Avoid You, Mr. Sunshine."

Andrew Malcolm explains that according to Top-flight Scientifical Research, Conservatives are much more open to Civil Discourse and Reasonable Debate than are Liberals. Conservatives, Malcolm explains, are big-hearted and unfailingly polite, unlike Liberals, who are always sneering at people who disagree with them, the dirty little un-American shits...

Exactly.

MAS. From Ed Morrissey:

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you?

Of course!

Take that, Thers! You mofo mutant freak!

Rick Santorum Sweeps Southern Primaries (VIDEO)

Well, here's Rick Santorum's speech tonight following the supposedly "desperate end" to his campaign:

And see Los Angeles Times, "Southern sweep: Rick Santorum takes Mississippi and Alabama."And at New York Times, "Santorum Wins Alabama and Mississippi Primaries" (via Memeorandum).

Also at The Other McCain, "FREAKIN' HUGE! — GOP PRIMARY RESULTS HQ: SANTORUM WINS ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI: ‘WE DID IT AGAIN’."

BONUS: From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

Romney already knows he’s locked in a long, hard slog to get to the nomination even if the delegate math indicates that he will prevail in the end. But the longer he must keep fighting and fending off bitter attacks on his credibility, the harder it will be for him to unite his party behind his candidacy once the dust settles.

Well, actually, listen to Santorum at the clip. That "delegate math" doesn't seem to be discouraging him one bit. This campaign is going all the way to the convention --- and then who knows what's going to happen?!! The Big Mo's with Santorum.

Rick Santorum Wins Alabama Primary

And Mitt Romney was arguing that today's primaries were the "desperate end" of Santorum?

Man, no wonder the former Massachusetts Governor's not expected to make a speech tonight. Talk about eating crow.

And at CNN, "BREAKING: CNN projects Santorum to win Alabama primary."

Obama Approval Numbers Crash Amid Surge in Gas Prices

Well, finally, something in the news not rolling in favor of the Obama-commies in Washington.

At WaPo, "Gas prices sink Obama’s ratings on economy, bring parity to race for White House":

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Increasingly pessimistic views of Obama’s performance on the economy — and on the federal budget deficit — come despite a steadily brightening employment picture and other signs of economic improvement, and they highlight the political sensitivity of rising gas prices.

The potential political con­sequences are clear, with the ­rising public disapproval reversing some of the gains the president had made in hypothetical general-election matchups against possible Republican rivals for the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) now both run about evenly with Obama. The findings come just five weeks after Obama appeared to be getting a boost from the improving economy.

Gas prices are a main culprit: Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard. Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll. Most Americans say higher prices are already taking a toll on family finances, and nearly half say they think that prices will continue to rise, and stay high.

Sixty-five percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy at the Washington Post poll, and there's more bad news at the New York Times, "Obama’s Rating Falls as Poll Reflects Volatility." (Via Memeorandum.)

BONUS: At Doug Ross, "'Are We Better Off Than We Were 4 Years Ago? Uh, No'."

Pathetic: Obama Campaign Pushes Fundraising Drive in New Ad Attacking Sarah Palin and 'The Far Right'

At Big Government, "Obama Targets Breitbart, Palin, Hannity With Heavily-Edited Ad."

Notice what Obama’s team left on the cutting room floor: the vast bulk of the interview about Bell and Maher. This is a selective editing hit-job designed to make Palin look like a racist. That’s how Obama’s team is fighting back. And that’s why we must not be afraid to vet this president. The dangerous rhetoric here isn’t Palin’s – it’s the rhetoric and philosophy that infused this president with his views on race relations. That must be exposed, despite all the bully tactics of the Obama left.

Freakin' progressive asshats.

California Needs Massive Reforms to Reverse Its Economic Decline

Well, this is exactly what I argued yesterday in my post on the fiscal crises of state and local governments.

See Michael Boskin and John Cogan, at Wall Street Journal, "California's Greek Tragedy":

Long a harbinger of national trends and an incubator of innovation, cash-strapped California eagerly awaits a temporary revenue surge from Facebook IPO stock options and capital gains. Meanwhile, Stockton may soon become the state's largest city to go bust. Call it the agony and ecstasy of contemporary California.

California's rising standards of living and outstanding public schools and universities once attracted millions seeking upward economic mobility. But then something went radically wrong as California legislatures and governors built a welfare state on high tax rates, liberal entitlement benefits, and excessive regulation. The results, though predictable, are nonetheless striking. From the mid-1980s to 2005, California's population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.

California's economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms. The unemployment rate, at 10.9%, is higher than every other state except Nevada and Rhode Island. With 12% of America's population, California has one third of the nation's welfare recipients.

Partly due to generous union wages and benefits, inflexible work rules and lobbying for more spending, many state programs and institutions spend too much and achieve too little. For example, annual spending on each California prison inmate is equal to an entire middle-income family's after-tax income. Many of California's K-12 public schools rank poorly on standardized tests. The unfunded pension and retiree health-care liabilities of workers in the state-run Calpers system, which includes teachers and university personnel, totals around $250 billion.

Meanwhile, the state lurches from fiscal tragedy to fiscal farce, running deficits in good times as well as bad. The general fund's spending exceeded its tax revenues in nine of the last 10 years (the only exceptions being 2005 at the height of the housing bubble), abetted by creative accounting and temporary IOUs.

Now, the bill is coming due. After running a $5 billion deficit last year and another likely deficit this year, Gov. Jerry Brown's budget increases spending next year by $7 billion and finances the higher spending with income and sales-tax hikes. Specifically, he's proposing a November ballot initiative raising the state's top income tax rate to 12.3%, making it the nation's highest, and raising the basic state sales tax rate, already the nation's highest, to 7.75% from 7.25%.

Continue reading.

Also, at Lonely Conservative, "Blue State Blues – Public Employee Pensions Bleeding NY Cities and Counties Dry."

'Harden My Heart'

Enjoy Quarterflash:

Kim Kardashian Steps Out in Revealing Low-Cut Ensemble After Church

It's the "after church" part that doesn't sound quite right.

Boy, no doubt some of the parishioners were having a hard time following along with the sermon.

At London's Daily Mail, "Forgive me father! Kim Kardashian shrugs off Kris Humphries divorce drama as she steps out in revealing ensemble after church."

Israel, Gaza Terrorists Agree to Cease Fire

At Jerusalem Post, "Egypt: Israel, Gaza terror groups agree to cease-fire." And at Ynet, "Report: Gaza truce reached."

However, other reports indicate the possible resumption of hostilities. At Jerusalem Post, "PRC, Islamic Jihad vow to continue fighting."

And at Business Week, "Netanyahu Says Israel May Broaden Gaza Military Operation Amid Rocket Fire," and Haaretz, "Netanyahu: Israel is prepared to step up fighting against Gaza if rockets continue."

Internet Company BBH Labs Under Fire for Exploiting Homeless as Mobile WiFi Hotspots

Actually, if the company had actually paid the homeless people some good money, I doubt it'd be a big deal. But $20 a day? That's less than minimum wage.

Talk about exploiting the vulnerable. Sheesh.

See New York Times, "Homeless People as Internet Hot Spots Backfires on a Marketer":

AUSTIN, Tex. — Which product at this year’s South by Southwest technology conference received more attention than perhaps any other?

Homeless people as wireless transmitters.

A marketing agency touched off a wave of criticism and debate when it hired members of the local homeless population to walk around carrying mobile Wi-Fi devices, offering conferencegoers Internet access in exchange for donations.

BBH Labs, the innovation unit of the international marketing agency BBH, outfitted 13 volunteers from a homeless shelter with the devices, business cards and T-shirts bearing their names: “I’m Clarence, a 4G Hotspot.” They were told to go to the most densely packed areas of the conference, which has become a magnet for those who want to chase the latest in technology trends.

The smartphone-toting, social-networking crowds often overwhelm cellular networks in the area, creating a market that BBH Labs hoped to serve with the “Homeless Hotspots” project, which it called a “charitable experiment.” It paid each participant $20 a day, and they were also able to keep whatever customers donated in exchange for the wireless service.

But as word of the project spread on the ground and online, it hit a nerve among many who said that turning down-and-out people into wireless towers was exploitative and discomfiting.

Tim Carmody, a blogger at Wired, described the project as “completely problematic” and sounding like “something out of a darkly satirical science-fiction dystopia.”

A commenter on the BBH Labs blog offered mock praise for the project, then complained that “my homeless hotspot keeps wandering out of range, and it’s ruining all my day trades!”

On Monday, the project’s scheduled last day, BBH Labs was scrambling to explain itself.

Again, it's the pathetic remuneration that's the real problem. No one forced these people to pose as mobile towers. Indeed, one of the dudes, Clarence Jones, responds, "“Everyone thinks I’m getting the rough end of the stick, but I don’t feel that,” Mr. Jones said. “I love talking to people and it’s a job. An honest day of work and pay”."

Also at Wired, "The Damning Backstory Behind ‘Homeless Hotspots’ at SXSW."

The Los Angeles Times indicates that these folks were also getting commissions off sales, so who knows? See: "Austin SXSW homeless hot spots stir debate."

Feminist Progress

That's Oklahoma State Senator Judy Eason McIntyre at the picture below. She was protesting pro-life legislation at the state capitol last week. Notice her sign: "If I wanted the government in my womb I’d fuck a senator."

Stay classy, Democrats.

Sister Toldjah has more: "Idiotic #WarOnWomen sign of the day: “Vaginas Vote!”"

#stoptweetingSoledad!

A great piece at Twitchy, "Top 20 #stoptweetingSoledad tweets."

And see: "CNN's O'Brien Begs Viewers to Stop Tweeting Her About Critical Race Theory."

Israel Responds to Rocket Attacks From Gaza

At Wall Street Journal, "Missile Defenses Give Israel Measure of Calm in Conflict."

BEERSHEBA, Israel—Facing the worst barrage of rockets from Palestinian militants since 2009, Israel is getting a boost from a new interceptor system that destroys missiles in midair before they fall on population centers.

The "Iron Dome" missile system has provided an added layer of security for Israel's homeland by downing dozens of rockets in the past four days, buying more time for the country's leaders to confront militants with less citizen pressure to stem hostilities.

The system underlines Israel's shifting doctrine of emphasizing defense capabilities in addition to its offensive firepower, and offers a preview of how Israel will handle any retaliatory missile threat posed by Iran in the event of a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities.

"It hasn't been easy to put into the public and military consciousness the need to learn defense and not only attack,'' Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor told Israel Army Radio on Sunday. "The Israeli character is aggressive."

Iron Dome is one four missile-defense systems used by Israel that are designed to block rockets with different ranges held in the arsenals of Iran and its allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iron Dome, manufactured by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is designed to stop short-range missiles.

Boeing Co.'s Arrow II missile system—developed with Israel after the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraq hit Tel Aviv with Scud missiles—was designed to intercept Iran's long-range Shihab missiles.

Also, from the IDF, "Israel Under Fire: More Than 200 Rockets Fired From Gaza."

And more at Memeorandum.

Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars

From Neil deGrasse Tyson, at Foreign Affairs, "The Case for Space":

In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama articulated his vision for the future of American space exploration, which included an eventual manned mission to Mars. Such an endeavor would surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- maybe even $1 trillion. Whatever the amount, it would be an expensive undertaking. In the past, only three motivations have led societies to spend that kind of capital on ambitious, speculative projects: the celebration of a divine or royal power, the search for profit, and war. Examples of praising power at great expense include the pyramids in Egypt, the vast terra-cotta army buried along with the first emperor of China, and the Taj Mahal in India. Seeking riches in the New World, the monarchs of Iberia funded the great voyages of Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan. And military incentives spurred the building of the Great Wall of China, which helped keep the Mongols at bay, and the Manhattan Project, whose scientists conceived, designed, and built the first atomic bomb.

In 1957, the Soviet launch of the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, spooked the United States into the space race. A year later, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was born amid an atmosphere defined by Cold War fears. But for years to come, the Soviet Union would continue to best the United States in practically every important measure of space achievement, including the first space walk, the longest space walk, the first woman in space, the first space station, and the longest time logged in space. But by defining the Cold War contest as a race to the moon and nothing else, the United States gave itself permission to ignore the milestones it missed along the way.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress in May 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the Apollo program, famously declaring, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” These were powerful words, and they galvanized the nation. But a more revealing passage came earlier in the speech, when Kennedy reflected on the challenge presented by the Soviets’ space program: “If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take.”

Kennedy’s speech was not simply a call for advancement or achievement; it was a battle cry against communism. He might have simply said, “Let’s go to the moon: what a marvelous place to explore!” But no one would have written the check. And at some point, somebody has got to write the check.

If the United States commits to the goal of reaching Mars, it will almost certainly do so in reaction to the progress of other nations -- as was the case with NASA, the Apollo program, and the project that became the International Space Station. For the past decade, I have joked with colleagues that the United States would land astronauts on Mars in a year or two if only the Chinese would leak a memo that revealed plans to build military bases there.

The joke does not seem quite so funny anymore. Last December, China released an official strategy paper describing an ambitious five-year plan to advance its space capabilities. According to the paper, China intends to “launch space laboratories, manned spaceship and space freighters; make breakthroughs in and master space station key technologies, including astronauts’ medium-term stay, regenerative life support and propellant refueling; conduct space applications to a certain extent and make technological preparations for the construction of space stations.” A front-page headline in The New York Times captured the underlying message: “Space Plan From China Broadens Challenge to U.S.”

When it comes to its space programs, China is not in the habit of proffering grand but empty visions. Far from it: the country has an excellent track record of matching promises with achievements. During a 2002 visit to China as part of my service on a White House commission, I listened to Chinese officials speak of putting a man into space in the near future. Perhaps I was afflicted by a case of American hubris, but it was easy to think that “near future” meant decades. Yet 18 months later, in the fall of 2003, Yang Liwei became the first Chinese taikonaut, executing 14 orbits of Earth. Five years after that, Zhai Zhigang took the first Chinese space walk. Meanwhile, in January 2007, when China wanted to dispose of a nonfunctioning weather satellite, the People’s Liberation Army conducted the country’s first surface-to-orbit “kinetic kill,” destroying the satellite with a high-speed missile -- the first such action by any country since the 1980s. With each such achievement, China moves one step closer to becoming an autonomous space power, reaching the level of (and perhaps even outdistancing) the European Union, Russia, and the United States, in terms of its commitment and resources.

China’s latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another “Sputnik moment” for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts. But in addition to the country’s morbid fiscal state, a new obstacle might stand in the way of a reaction as fervent and productive as that in Kennedy’s era: the partisanship that now clouds space exploration.

Video c/o Theo Spark.

Local Governments Face Fiscal Desperation Amid Soaring Pension and Retiree Health Costs

I've got two related pieces that were front-page news stories yesterday at the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, respectively.

First, at LAT, "Stockton residents watch their port city slip away."

Read it all at that link. Stockton's on the verge of declaring bankruptcy and the city government is in mediation over its debt obligations:

Within the next three months, Stockton could become the nation's largest city to file for protection from creditors under U.S. bankruptcy code. Using a new California law, the City Council is trying to slow or stop the bust by entering mediation with creditors, including public employee unions. In the meantime, the Central Valley port city of 300,000 has suspended several bond payments and will not cash out vacation or sick time for employees who leave.

And also at NYT, "Deficits Push N.Y. Cities and Counties to Desperation":

Even as there are glimmers of a national economic recovery, cities and counties increasingly find themselves in the middle of a financial crisis. The problems are spreading as municipalities face a toxic mix of stresses that has been brewing for years, including soaring pension, Medicaid and retiree health care costs. And many have exhausted creative accounting maneuvers and one-time spending cuts or revenue-raisers to bail themselves out.

The problem has national echoes: Stockton, Calif., a city of almost 300,000, is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Jefferson County, Ala., made the biggest Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing in history in November and stopped paying its bondholders. In Rhode Island, the city of Central Falls declared bankruptcy last year, and the mayor of Providence, the state capital, has said his city is at risk as its money runs out.

New York City’s annual pension contributions have increased to $8 billion from $1.5 billion over the past decade.

“We really are up against it,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said during a recent trip to Albany, urging the state to reduce pension benefits for future public employees. In a radio interview on Friday, Mr. Bloomberg noted the spreading financial woes of local governments, saying, “Towns and counties across the state are starting to have to make the real choices — fewer cops, fewer firefighters, slower ambulance response, less teachers in front of the classroom.”

And Thomas S. Richards, the mayor of Rochester, recently described a grim situation facing New York’s cities in testimony to the State Legislature, saying, “I fear that Rochester and other upstate cities are approaching the point of financial failure and an inevitable financial control board — as is the case in Buffalo — unless something is done now.”

This is the big shakeout.

And to fix things will require massive reform --- and changes in expectations for the pay and benefits for public workers. I'm hearing dire chatter about the expected fiscal situation in California over the next year, and the dreaded notion of "reductions in force" (layoffs) is being mentioned a bit more often. In the end it will be a Schumpeterian period of creative destruction, where the market forces major changes on the public sector. It's basically like a payback after years of essentially socialization of the economy. And while this process is going to take a while, it'll be a good thing. It's a rationalizing process, one that's completely foreign to the public sector consciousness.

Amazing, isn't it?

Israel Defense Forces Celebrate International Women's Day

Well, this is nice, from the IDF:

RELATED: At First Street Journal, "Rule 5 Blogging: IDF Edition."

German Tabloid Bild Quits Daily Nude 'Page One Girl'

Well, it's rough out there for Rule 5!

At Der Spiegel, "Ta Ta! German Tabloid Strips Front Page of Daily Nude."

The Mystery of 18 Twitching Teenagers in Le Roy

From the New York Times Magazine, "What Happened to the Girls in Le Roy":

Before the media vans took over Main Street, before the environmental testers came to dig at the soil, before the doctor came to take blood, before strangers started knocking on doors and asking question after question, Katie Krautwurst, a high-school cheerleader from Le Roy, N.Y., woke up from a nap. Instantly, she knew something was wrong. Her chin was jutting forward uncontrollably and her face was contracting into spasms. She was still twitching a few weeks later when her best friend, Thera Sanchez, captain of one of the school’s cheerleading squads, awoke from a nap stuttering and then later started twitching, her arms flailing and head jerking. Two weeks after that, Lydia Parker, also a senior, erupted in tics and arm swings and hums. Then word got around that Chelsey Dumars, another cheerleader, who recently moved to town, was making the same strange noises, the same strange movements, leaving school early on the days she could make it to class at all. The numbers grew — 12, then 16, then 18, in a school of 600 — and as they swelled, the ranks of the sufferers came to include a wider swath of the Le Roy high-school hierarchy: girls who weren’t cheerleaders, girls who kept to themselves and had studs in their lips. There was even one boy and an older woman, age 36. Parents wept as their daughters stuttered at the dinner table. Teachers shut their classroom doors when they heard a din of outbursts, one cry triggering another, sending the increasingly familiar sounds ricocheting through the halls. Within a few months, as the camera crews continued to descend, the community barely seemed to recognize itself. One expert after another arrived to pontificate about what was wrong in Le Roy, a town of 7,500 in Western New York that had long prided itself on the things it got right. The kids here were wholesome and happy, their parents insisted — “cheerleaders and honor students,” as one father said — products of a place that, while not perfect, was made up more of what was good about small-town America than what was bad. Now, though, the girls’ writhing and stuttering suggested something troubling, either arising from within the community or being perpetrated on it, a mystery that proved irresistible for onlookers, whose attention would soon become part of the story itself.

Keep reading.

And here's a clue:

Where there were once single-family homes owned by their residents, there is a higher than average number of rental properties, meaning a more transient population. And the town’s changes in family structure follow a trend that is particularly pronounced in working-class communities — more divorce, more single mothers. In 1980, Le Roy had fewer single mothers living there than in most of the country; now that number, too, is higher than the national average. Economically, “you see a decline in Le Roy, relative to the rest of the country,”said Andrew Beveridge, a sociology professor at Queens College and a consultant in census statistics for The New York Times. “The change in household structure — that’s quite stark.”

Minnesota Girl Sues Minnewaska Area Middle School in Facebook Case Alleging Invasion of Privacy

This sucks.

At Telegraph UK, "12-year-old US girl suing school over Facebook comments row":

A 12-year-old girl is suing her school in Minnesota after being forced to hand over her Facebook password and punished for posts she made on the social networking site.

The case has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and comes amid growing concern in the United States about individuals' ability to keep their email and other online accounts secret from their school, employer and government authorities.

A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs.

In the Minnesota case, the 12-year-old girl, known only as RS, is said to have been punished by teachers at Minnewaska Area Middle School for things she wrote on Facebook while at home, and using her own computer.

The ACLU is arguing that her First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech and freedom from illegal searches respectively, were violated.

She is said to have been punished with detention after using Facebook to criticise a school hall monitor, and again after a fellow student told teachers that she had discussed sex online.

Another case of public school system totalitarianism.

Ban Jane Fonda Not Rush Limbaugh

See Dan Riehl at Big Journalism.

And more background at iOWNTHEWORLD: "This Reads Like Political Parody."

RELATED: From Andrew Bolt, "The Rise of the Totalitarians" (via Glenn Reynolds).

Rick Santorum on 'Meet the Press' — 'I'd Like Everybody to Get Out' (VIDEO)

National Journal has a report, "Santorum: 'I'd Like Everybody to Get Out'" (via Memeorandum).

Santorum sounds pretty confident about things. And I love that map David Gregory puts up at about 4:00 minutes, where he says to Santorum, "You're winning kind of the heartland of the country right now ... it's almost like a presidential red, uh, blue map ... you've got Governor Romney winning the coasts, New England, and he's winning the West with the help of Mormons voters." And I love Santorum's response. But listen at the clip.

Also, at Robert Stacy McCain's, "Rick Santorum’s Daughter Elizabeth Will Campaign for Her Father in Hawaii."

PREVIOUSLY: "Rick Santorum Leads President Obama 46% to 45% in Latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll."

Washington Post-ABC News Poll: 60 Percent in U.S. Say Afghanistan War Not Worth It

Afghanistan is in the news big time today, with the reports that an American soldier has killed at least 16 civilians in Kandahar province. And in response, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has called for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In contrast, Senator John McCain, appearing on Fox News Sunday just after Gingrich spoke, argued that:

“It is one of those things that you cannot explain except to extend your deepest sympathy to those victims and see that justice is done” ... He warned against allowing incidents such as the shooting to undermine the nation’s resolve in Afghanistan.

McCain's is the minority opinion, as measured by a new poll out from the Washington Post, "Poll: Few in U.S. sense Afghan support for war":

Few Americans sense widespread Afghan support for what the United States is trying to do in that country, a perception that bolsters public backing of a troop withdrawal, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall views of the war in Afghanistan are in the pits: 60 percent of Americans see the war as not worth its costs, nearly double the 35 percent saying the decade-long effort has warranted the expense and lost lives. There has been consistent majority opposition to the war for nearly two years....

Overall, 54 percent of all Americans want to pull out U.S. troops from Afghanistan even if the Afghan army is not adequately trained to carry on the fight. About six in 10 Democrats and independents back this position, but the number slides to just under four in 10 among Republicans.

As the report indicates, public sentiment on the war has been deteriorating for some time. And the increasing number of incidents, such as the attacks on American forces by Afghan police, etc., has added to the drumbeat for withdrawal. I've been personally torn on this for some time, but my gut reaction is to stay the course. Things may not get better soon, but they could get a whole lot worse in a hurry. And frankly, I hate the idea of losing a war --- which is exactly the line that progressives will spin out over and over again when U.S. vital interests are threatened in the future.

The Washington Post had an outstanding editorial on this a few weeks back, which summarizes my thoughts pretty well, "Despite the deepening crisis, the Afghan strategy is worth saving":

THE LATEST CRISIS in Afghanistan strikes at the heart of the U.S. strategy for preventing the country from reverting to Taliban rule or becoming a base for al-Qaeda. If those goals are to be achieved, the Afghan security forces that have been recruited, trained and equipped at enormous cost over the past several years must be sustained — something that will require continued training and advising by NATO, and heavy outside funding, for many years to come. That prospect seemed to be endangered last week when four U.S. soldiers were killed by Afghans in uniform. After an attack inside the Interior Ministry in Kabul, U.S. and NATO advisers were withdrawn from all ministries.

Fortunately, Pentagon and White House officials are describing the move as temporary and have said that the Obama administration and NATO remain committed to the underlying strategy. Yet the episode seems likely to strengthen those in and outside the administration who seek to accelerate the drawdown of U.S. troops next year and slash funding for Afghan forces. While perhaps appealing to voters in an election year, those steps would only compound the challenges facing the Afghan mission....

The popular backlash in Afghanistan nevertheless reflects deeper problems. There is understandable weariness with foreign troops after more than a decade of inconclusive war; resentment at the death of civilians in NATO operations; and frustration with the corruption and fecklessness of a U.S.-backed government. The Obama administration’s poor handling of Mr. Karzai has magnified these problems, while its setting of politically motivated timetables for troop withdrawals and aggressive pursuit of negotiations with the Taliban has convinced many Afghans that the United States is preparing to abandon the country.

The only secure and honorable means of exit is to finish the work of creating an Afghan army and police force capable of defending the country from the Taliban and other extremists, with backup from U.S. special forces and air power. Achieving that goal by the end of 2014, the current NATO timetable, will be hard enough, as the events of the past week vividly show. If the Obama administration chooses to accelerate the timetable or significantly reduce the funding — and thus the size — of Afghan forces, it will become nearly impossible.

More later...

Sunday Cartoons

Well, a little late getting this up, but you know the old saying...

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."

Also at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's Sunday Funnies," and Theo Spark, "Cartoon Round Up..."

BONUS: From Jill Stanek, "Stanek Sunday funnies: “Hypocritical Liberal Misogynist Pigs” edition."

Obama's Favorite Professor at Harvard Was America-Hating Marxist

At IBD, "Derrick Bell: The Jeremiah Wright of Harvard":

Presidential Vetting: Obama's days at Harvard have been shrouded in secrecy. But a new video lifts a corner of the veil, revealing his creepy embrace of the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

It turns out his favorite law professor was the late Derrick Bell, a black radical who taught classes trashing the Constitution as racist.

He liked Bell so much he led a law school "strike" in support of him in 1991, when the professor went on unpaid leave to protest the lack of affirmative-action hiring on campus.

A video clip posted by Breitbart.com captures Obama praising Bell for "speaking the truth" and hugging him.

Not long before this show of affection, Bell had been called into the university president's office to explain why he had sent him a letter filled with violent fantasies — including their own death from a bomb planted in his office by white racists. Bell explained that such extremism is what it would take to get the administration to agree to grant more affirmative-action programs.

Harvard's honcho wasn't amused. Bell groused he just didn't get it. But who would? Apparently his star pupil. And that's what's so unsettling.

Bell's nutty ideas — including that America is a "racist nation" carrying out a "quasi-genocide in the inner cities" — were well known to Obama. Bell came highly recommended by Obama's America-hating preacher Rev. Wright. He and Bell were pals. In fact, Obama just traded Wright's pews for Bell's desks.

At the pro-Bell rally, Obama took to the mike as if he were his spokesman. He commended Bell's "excellence in scholarship," adding that he "changed the standards of what legal writing is about."

More at the link.

And previously: "Breitbart's Bombshell: Obama Harvard Protest Tapes (VIDEO)."

The reason progressives have attempted so aggressively to minimize the Bell video is because it hits so close to home. Soledad O'Brien chortled repeatedly, "Where's the bombshell? Is this the bombshell?" It's a sick kind of postmodern denialism that posits a different standard of truth and decency. Progressives deny Derrick Bell is radical because they're radical, and they claim their ideology is mainstream when it's in fact the diametric opposite. It's the same progressive secular moral relativism that dismisses Bill Maher's misogyny as "comedy" while demanding that Rush Limbaugh be taken off the air. And it's this kind of hypocrisy that Andrew Breitbart exposed over and over again. And that's why with Andrew gone, it's more incumbent on all of us to #BeBreitbart and never let progressives live down how f-king sick they are and how badly their programs are destroying the county.

When An Intruder Invades Your Classroom

You have to start from the beginning on this one, but the interesting thing is the author, Alexandrea Ravenelle, teaches at community college, and frankly, in my experience, you're likely to have more of an urban (and perhaps socially distressed) demographic at such institutions.

See "Each Teacher Wonders, Is This the One?":

Every time I hear about a school shooting — whether in a college, like the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007; a public high school, like last month’s attack; or a private academy, like the one in Jacksonville, Fla., where, on Tuesday, a fired teacher killed an administrator and himself — I say a silent prayer for the students and teachers who were injured or died. I think about their families and those who watched their peers mowed down, about the warning signs that may or may not have been there. And I wonder if it could happen to me.

For nearly a decade, I’ve served as an adjunct sociology instructor at various colleges in New York City, from Yeshiva University to Hostos Community College in the Bronx. I’ve taught in schools with high-tech smart boards and integrated audio systems and in schools that reeked of roach poison and featured electric rat traps in the faculty lounge. I’ve lectured in classrooms at the Fashion Institute of Technology, where clusters of headless mannequins offered a silent rebuke for bad jokes.

I like and admire my pupils; many of them are juggling work and families along with school. And most of the time I think they like me too. Students send me post-term thank-you notes, and to my delight a few have even told me they became sociology majors thanks to my class.

But students have also gotten angry at me and blown up. I’m used to people crying when they don’t get the grades they think they deserve. A woman once threw an umbrella across the length of the classroom because I marked her late. When I told another student that he had been dropped from the class for nonattendance, he recorded the exchange and threatened to report me to my supervisor. Two years ago one student, angry about his D, sued me three times. I was interviewed by a high-priced law partner in a Midtown skyscraper and spent hours sitting in plastic chairs in courthouse holding rooms, the air heavy with annoyance and anxiety, before the cases were dismissed.

I know I’m not the only teacher who, facing down an angry student, worries that he could come back firing off more than snide comments.

The levels of trust and openness that are necessary for teaching are diminished every time someone opens fire in a classroom. Idle comments become vaguely menacing threats. Classrooms are no longer just about learning but also about observing — watching to see who seems upset, uninvolved, angry.

I've had so many classroom incidents of various degrees of danger that at this point nothing surprises me. The only thing that is truly surprising is the fake urgency that such threats are met with by college administration. And to be clear, folks in law enforcement who work with the college, and the front-line supervisors who deal with faculty concerns, are indeed responsive to the seriousness of the kind of disruptions and dangers that are part and parcel to the teaching experience nowadays. It's the higher ups in administration who either do not care enough to fully support faculty in their battles against dangers and disciplinary issues in the classrooms or who will side with disruptive students over teachers (especially if a student claims "civil rights" violations) as part of a totalitarian consolidation of power. I hate to say this, but folks going into public teaching nowadays should be prepared to lower their expectations a bit. What I do is I really cherish the moments when it all goes well and college is working like we idealize it. The rest of the time I throw up my hands and remind myself that retirement isn't that far around the corner.

When Even Casual Sex Requires a State Welfare Program, You're Pretty Much Done For

From Mark Steyn, at O.C. Register, "Miss Fluke Goes to Washington" (via Blazing Cat Fur):

I'm writing this from Australia, so, if I'm not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me – the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law and recently testified before Congress.

Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn't a congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of "Miss Fluke Goes To Washington," with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, "Anyone for bull****?"

Oh, and the "young coed" turns out to be 30, which is what less-evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity.

She's had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who've booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing "Sarah Palin is a c***" routine ...)

Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-age schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.

Continue reading.

Steyn's hilarious, and completely right on.

Pot Backers' Ballot Effort in Disarray in California

Well, no surprise there.

Roll one, smoke one, bro.

At Los Angeles Times, "Effort to put marijuana legalization measure on ballot is in disarray":

Just weeks before the deadline for state ballot initiatives, the effort to put a marijuana legalization measure before voters in the general election is in disarray as the federal government cracks down on medical cannabis and activists are divided on their goals.

After Proposition 19 received 46% of the vote in 2010, proponents took heart at the near-miss. They held meetings in Berkeley and Los Angeles and vowed to put a well-funded measure to fully legalize marijuana on the 2012 ballot, when the presidential election would presumably draw more young voters.

Instead, five different camps filed paperwork in Sacramento for five separate initiatives. One has given up already and the other four are teetering, vying for last-minute funding from a handful of potential donors.

Backers need more than $2 million to hire professional petitioners to get the 700,000-plus signatures they say they need by April 20 to qualify for the ballot. But they are getting little financial support from medical marijuana dispensaries that have profited from laws that pot activists brought forth in earlier years.

Certainly, some dispensaries cannot help because they are paying large legal bills to fend off the federal government. But like growers, dispensary operators know that broader legalization could lower prices and bring more competitors into their business.

Of the four possible initiatives, the one apparently with the most vocal support within the movement is the Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act, written by defense attorneys who specialize in marijuana cases. The measure would repeal state criminal statutes on marijuana possession, except those for driving while impaired or selling to minors. The state Department of Health would have 180 days to enact regulations before commercial sales became legal.

Amazing.

Pot dispensaries don't want to legalize it, since they've got the monopoly on the wild and free demographic. Hey man, be cool, ya'll.

The Resilience of the U.S. Private Economy

I mentioned this in my earlier report: "Unemployment Rate Holds at 8.3 Percent in Longest Jobs Slump Since Great Depression."

See the comments at Wall Street Journal, "The Jobs Rally":

Sometimes you simply have to marvel at the resilience of the private economy in America, and yesterday's upbeat jobs report was one of those moments. Employers shook off the dysfunction in Washington and added 227,000 new workers in February.

The December and January jobs numbers were also revised upward by 61,000 hires. Almost every part of the economy is healing, with job gains recorded in manufacturing (31,000), business services (82,000), leisure and hospitality (44,000) and health care (61,000). Only construction (-13,000) is still limping, as the housing depression lingers. The all-important labor force participation rate—the share of employable adults working—ticked up to 63.9%, though it is still near a 20-year low....

There are a few troubling signs worth keeping an eye on. The unemployment rate for Hispanics (10.7%) and for blacks (14.1%) rose in February. The black unemployment rate is now almost twice the rate for whites, and those without a college degree are still more than twice as likely to be unemployed than those with a diploma. The recovery may be bypassing part of President Obama's voting base: minorities and those with low skills.

The unemployment rate of 8.3% is still historically very high. The long-term unemployed—those without jobs for six months or more—is still over five million, which is 42.6% of all jobless workers. If we hadn't seen about three million people drop out of the job market since 2008, the reported unemployment rate would be closer to 10.8%. And hourly earnings growth over the last year of 1.9% is running a full point below inflation, a cost-of-living squeeze that is getting tighter with higher gas prices.

The U.S. will need to sustain this pace of job growth for at least two more years to get unemployment below 7% and to recover the five million net loss of jobs since 2007. ObamaCare's mandates on businesses, the $1 trillion annual federal deficit forecasts and the huge tax hikes coming on January 1, 2013 are a few of the governmental impediments to job growth that lie ahead. The challenge for the economy now will be whether employers continue to hire in the face of those headwinds.

Hypocrisy on Tape: Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Jan Schakowsky Refuse to Condemn Bill Maher's Misogyny

Via Tina Korbe at Hot Air, "Video: Female Democratic lawmakers refuse to speak out against Bill Maher’s misogynism."

The World's Greatest Snowboarding Opossum

Well, that's what they say.

HAT TIP: Breitbart.

Interviews From Breitbart Memorial Service in Washington, D.C.

Good stuff.

It's not just Robert Stacy McCain, but he's at the freeze-frame at the YouTube, and the video's posted at The Other McCain. See: "Breitbart DC: Instapundit Interviews."

Rick Santorum Leads President Obama 46% to 45% in Latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll

Both Mitt Romney and Santorum lead Obama nationally, while Romney leads Santorum nationally for the GOP nomination. The poll also shows high unfavorables for the president's handling of the economy.

See, "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll":

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends).

Looking at Tuesday's upcoming primaries, the GOP race in Alabama is essentially a three-way tie, while Mitt Romney leads by eight in Mississippi.   Nationally, Romney now leads Rick Santorum by 12 points.  Regardless of who they want to win, 80% of Republican Primary Voters nationwide believe Romney will be the party's nominee.

With the perception growing that he will be the GOP nominee, Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Today's numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 43%. That’s Romney’s largest lead since December. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 46% to 45%. This is the second time since polling began in 2011 that Santorum has had a slight lead over Obama. Romney is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

Although 80 percent expect Romney to win the nomination, he's no shoo-in, and continued victories for Santorum could work to deny Romney the necessary delegates he needs to secure the party's not by the end of the primaries in June. See this video report at ABC News, "Kansas Caucus 2012: Rick Santorum Claims New Victory."

Angelina Jolie: 'I don't know anyone who doesn't hate Joseph Kony'

Well, look out if Angelina starts talkin'!

Well, actually, star power won't be enough to capture Kony. See Robert Stacy McCain, "#Kony2012 Video Prompts Uganda to Vow ‘Dead or Alive’ Manhunt for Terrorist," and Michael Wilkerson, at Foreign Policy, "Joseph Kony is not in Uganda (and other complicated things)."

Rick Santorum Wins Kansas Republican Caucuses

Actually, I hadn't even been following along with the primaries this weekend.

Interesting.

At National Journal, "Santorum Wins Kansas."

And at Los Angeles Times, "Rick Santorum wins Kansas caucuses."

ADDED: At The Other McCain, "SANTORUM SCORES ‘DECISIVE’ WIN IN KANSAS REPUBLICAN CAUCUSES."