Thor.

On May 3 an attorney for the Rutherford Institute, a Christian-based legal organization in Virginia, wrote to take issue with two sentences in the 3,900-word April 29 commentary by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, “ ‘Populist’ Outrage Over TSA Scanners Was Anti-Union PR Campaign,” which originally appeared on AlterNet. (continued)

Santorum has an interesting theory about the decline of great powers.

Heart-ache.

Adnan Shukrijumah has been a fugitive since 9/11, was rumored to have crossed the Mexican border, and was indicted last year in the NYC/Zazi bombing plot. Pakistan may be harboring him, as noted earlier this week.

And there is also — of all places — a Shukrijumah tie to Trinidad and Guyana.

An Al Qaeda fugitive with ties to Trinidad and Guyana may rise to the top post in the global terror network whose iconic leader Osama Bin Laden was killed Sunday.

Adnan Gulshair El Shukrijumah, who is known to have lived in and visited Trinidad, was last year elevated to head Al Qaeda’s external operations council—with a mission to recruit, plan and execute terrorist attacks against the United States and its western allies.

…Intelligence officials in the US report that El Shukrijumah, who studied computer science and chemistry in the US, came to Trinidad months before the September 11, 2001 terror attack that killed 3,000.

He is reported to have stayed on the compound of a Muslim organisation in Central Trinidad which some reports claimed was linked to a mosque in the US with ties to terrorism.

Despite a search by the FBI in Trinidad in 2003, with the assistance of local law enforcement, El Shukrijumah, 35, has not been found.

Head of the Islamic Missionaries Guild Imtiaz Mohammed said on Wednesday he and others were interviewed by the FBI who they believed knew Shukrijumah.

The FBI in 2004 set up a permanent office in Trinidad, to continue its counter terrorism operations.

Lesson: There is no respite from Muslim terrorists.

Erick Stakelbeck puts it all together in The Terrorist Next Door.

bin Laden is dead. Jihad lives.

***

Previous:

5/30/11 – Where is Adnan Shukrijumah? We’re looking at you, Pakistan.

6/30/10 –
The return of Adnan Shukrijumah

6/8/07 – Nothing to see here, move along

6/2/07 – Busted: NYC terror plot; Updated with criminal complaint

6/9/06 – 9/11-linked pilot on the loose

10/22/04 – THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION/TERRORIST CONNECTION, PART XXXLVIII

8/18/04 – WHERE IS ADNAN SHUKRIJUMAH?

Since the conflict in Libya really started to get messy, oil prices have risen steeply—from about $103 in mid-February to $123 a barrel last week. Given the country’s drop off in production (it represents about 2 percent of the world’s crude), the vote for separation of South Sudan (an oil producer) and the violence that has come from that, the continuing declines in oil production in Mexico and Venezuela, and the strikes and other problems in Gabon, Yemen, Oman, Ivory Coast, and Nigeria, the rise in price seems somewhat justified. What’s more, it’s not just actual events that affect oil prices, but potential events and senses of risk—and with all that’s been happening in the Middle East and elsewhere, oil markets are extremely jittery.

Less talked about, however, are the numerous factors that have been pushing oil prices down from what they otherwise might have been. The dampening of demand as a result of the multiple crisis in Japan, a sophisticated logistics chain that has allowed for the redirection of ships, and significant oil reserves in Europe have all conspired to offset the rising cost of crude. But, come summer, look for many of these mitigating factors to disappear and the crises in Libya and elsewhere to wreak their full effect on world oil markets.

Even as events in Libya and elsewhere put pressure on world oil prices, Japan’s deadly earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crises sent a big downward demand shock through the market. What’s more, the sophisticated logistics chains of the international oil industry performed admirably: Tankers and pipeline supplies were redirected to meet the shifting demands of the market. Some of the oil tankers heading to Japan, for example, were diverted to other places as Japan’s demand weakened.

In addition, significant oil reserves in countries that imported close to or above 20 percent of their oil from Libya—Italy, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, and France—helped buffer the initial shock. These reserves, thankfully, proved to be many times these countries’ daily imports from Libya, providing local markets and supply chains with ample leeway to adjust. In addition, oil markets were lucky because a number of refineries in the EU and the US happened to be in maintenance as the Libyan crisis unfolded and were demanding less oil as a result.

Finally, it’s a fair conjecture that if the global oil markets didn’t enjoy any excess capacity, the price of oil would have shot far higher. As it happened, however, oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia had plenty of capacity to spare, so the pressure on prices never got as bad as it could have been.

As summer approaches, however, look for many of these mitigating circumstances to melt away. European refineries will need to restock their supplies of crude and there will likely be an increase in demand for refined products like gasoline as summer vacations start. Japan’s demand for oil will also likely increase, and maybe rapidly, as the country begins the process of rebuilding and reconstruction. US refineries will also be ramping up from their maintenance period.

Finally, as the factors that mitigated the rise of prices after the Libyan crisis weaken, speculators will likely see chances for even greater profits. Their movements into the futures and other “paper” markets for crude will likely push the price up even further. And if the revolutions and rebellions move to Algeria or Iran—and especially if they move to Saudi Arabia—then all bets are off: $200-300 per barrel would not be out of range and the world economy would be hammered.

Of course, these expected increases in demand may drive producers to ramp up production, especially in the OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that have excess production capacity. But not only is there a question about how quickly they can ramp up production—it’s also unclear whether they will want to. Clearly OPEC does not wish to see the price of oil go up too high for too long. That would cut into demand and spur investments in alternative energy sources, especially for transport, which uses most of the oil in the world. But they also want to have the good times of high oil prices continue as long as possible.

Anyone for investing in electric bikes and cars? This could be the set of shocks that finally sets us on the course of more sustainable transport technologies. However, nothing is certain except that everything is uncertain. That sense of uncertainty will likely push the price of oil even further. Welcome to the future.

Paul Sullivan is a professor of economics at the National Defense University (NDU) and an Adjunct Professor of Security Studies and Science, Technology and International Affairs at Georgetown University.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

 

Unless you live under a rock, you know Donald Trump is thinking about running for president. His sensational public endeavors—pushing the White House to release President Obama’s long-form birth certificate and, most recently, questioning the authenticity of the president’s academic record—have met with astonishment, outrage, and dismay. A recent Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover featured a photo of Trump in mid-rant with the one-word headline, “Seriously?” Journalists, commentators, and even Jerry Seinfeld (who recently canceled an appearance at a Trump fundraiser) have taken to calling Trump a demagogue.

In recent decades, this powerful term, traditionally a scalpel for taking apart dangerous leaders, has become blunt and ineffectual through overuse. I’ve been thinking and writing about demagogues for a decade. I’ve been watching with a mix of bemusement and concern as Trump strains to elevate himself into an actual political figure, rather than the ego tornado he’s been for decades. But one of the lessons of history is that, while it’s easy to underestimate demagogues, it’s also easy to overestimate them. For the time being, I’ve concluded that Trump is not a demagogue. He lacks both the common connection and the lawlessness of classic demagogues, whether Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez today or, in the past, figures ranging from Benito Mussolini to George Wallace to Joseph McCarthy. Instead, call him a quasi-demagogue: a political figure with the desire, but not the chops, to manipulate the masses. 

 

Demagogues are part of the natural life cycle of democracy. So much so that the Founding Fathers designed our various checks and balances and circuit-breakers in part from their mortal terror that a predatory mass leader—a demagogue—would convert popular adulation into American tyranny. James Madison, for instance, explained that “provisions against the measures of an interested majority,”such as an independent judiciary, were required to control “the followers of different Demagogues.” This doesn’t mean, however, that demagogues haven’t popped up throughout the country’s history.

During my years studying and watching demagogues, the one lesson that has stuck with me is this: Many politicians could become demagogues if they wanted to. They could choose the gross emotional appeal, the naked ambition, and the cunning blend of vulgarity and artistry that is the true demagogue’s métier. They don’t because most of them are governed by an ethic of shame. Where others blush and quail, the demagogue happily blusters ahead—crossing boundaries, coloring outside lines, toppling walls. 

Demagogues often look most ridiculous to the people they’re most uninterested in impressing. When the colorful, autocratic Louisiana Governor Huey Long was sworn into the U.S. Senate in 1931, it was precisely his clownishness that gave him such political amplitude. He prompted a firestorm of controversy when he met a German naval commander paying an official call in a pair of green silk pajamas and a bathrobe. One scholar writes, “[T]he lesson he learned from the incident was less the importance of diplomatic niceties than the value of buffoonery in winning national publicity.” With these techniques, Long soon attracted more attention from the press than his 99 Senatorial colleagues combined. He would have challenged FDR for president in 1936, had he not been assassinated by the son of a political opponent in 1935.

You might think that Trump’s own clownishness puts him in the class of a Huey Long. But let’s take a closer look. As I argued in my book Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies, a true demagogue meets four tests. First, he presents himself as a man of the people, rather than the elites. Second, he strikes a very strong, even overpowering emotional connection with the people. Third, he uses this connection for his own political benefit. Fourth, he threatens or breaks established rules of governance. This fourth test is the most important, distinguishing a demagogue like Huey Long (who routinely used the National Guard to intimidate or brutalize political opponents, for instance) from populists like William Jennings Bryan (who, as rambunctious as he may have been, tended to play by the rules).

For Trump, let’s take the four tests in turn. With his Theater of the Absurd hairdo and his massively knotted silk ties, his Manhattan address and his glitzy brand, Trump is hardly a man of the people. True, he’s employing incautious bluster as a proxy for common appeal. “Authenticity” has become the coin of today’s reality-television realm, and there is a mass appeal to his straight-talkin’ persona—this is why his recent use of the “f bomb” plays to his curious political strengths, even while appalling elites. But for Trump to swap his fancy persona for that of a commoner would require him to blow up the brand he’s spent decades building, a task for which he is probably not constitutionally capable.

Second, Trump does not have the broad emotional appeal to the masses that marks the classic demagogue. Over the last decades, Trump has enjoyed billions of dollars of both paid and earned media exposure. He couldn’t be better-known by the American people. Yet he is consistently polling under 20 percent right now among Republicans and right-leaning independents (a recent CNN poll has him at only 14 percent), giving him a base of well under one in ten among the general voting population. The emotional surge for Trump among the very hard-core Tea Party right should certainly be noted. But it’s more likely this brushfire halts at a particular firebreak: the general American public’s hostility and suspicion to the Tea Partiers.

On the third test, it’s very unclear whether Trump is interested in actual political power, or just in increasing his personal brand and wealth. Even now, we can’t tell whether he will run—and keep running, after the glitz of the initial launch wears off—for president. Even if he gets into the race, will he slog through the hard work of an 18-month campaign, including getting on the ballot in all 50 states, participating in debates, developing policy positions? And, if he drops out, will he really have an interest in putting his shoulder to a real political end? Time will tell, but the initial signs are that this is mostly about Trumpery rather than government.

The most important test is the fourth—that demagogues, unlike populists, bend or break the rules. Trump clearly has no inhibition about lying for political benefit. But real demagogues go much further. Look at Joseph McCarthy, who used his selected issue of anti-communism to demolish people’s personal and professional lives. It’s hard to imagine that Trump really wants to encourage threatening behavior. But, if he ever started to ask his followers to test boundaries of lawfulness, to “challenge authority,” our hackles should quickly rise.

 

None of this means Trump isn’t worth taking seriously. To the contrary: Where Trump is succeeding in his demagogic appeals, he’s also illuminating shadowy corners of the American public. And we have to take a hard look at how this is happening. Demagogues, like nightshade, have always flourished in dark places of extreme economic or social distress. The 1920s were the last great era of American demagoguery, when Huey Long and the Detroit “radio priest” Father Coughlin rallied millions of terrified Americans against elites. It’s been no surprise that the 2010s, a time of similar distress, have fostered divisive figures from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Trump.

The lesson here is that today’s restless, upset public needs reassurance—and vigorous economic policy that addresses their concerns. But we also need the media to exercise some discretion. In today’s fragmented, 24-7 echo chamber, where 500,000 nightly viewers qualify you as a pundit and one persistent blogger can take over a news cycle, the media has more responsibility for steering the ship of state toward calmer waters. Trump—as quasi-demagogue—is a creation largely of the media. The real conspiracy isn’t Trump’s mania du jour; it’s hundreds of news editors, assignment editors, reporters, and bloggers who he’s playing like fiddles.

More broadly, though, history shows that the only real antidote to demagogues is an alert, vigilant civic culture. The ancient Athenians, exhausted by a series of vicious demagogues, passed a law exiling anyone who “proposed a measure contrary to democratic principles.” We probably don’t need to go so far, though some watching Trump today doubtless wouldn’t mind moving him to Canada. America, after all, is the land of the civic mores the visiting Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville chronicled and admired. And we almost always eventually turn on demagogues. The stars of Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and David Duke all rose for a time, but, when they fell, they crashed hard.

We can never be complacent about our constitutionalism, and the Trump phenomenon bears careful watching, lest the little fires he’s clearly capable of starting spread into a larger conflagration. But, in general, Americans have shown they’ve got what it takes to nip even quasi-demagogues in the bud. Take note of Palin and Beck’s recent fates: Under heavy fire from the public for their own excesses (a persecution complex in Palin’s case, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Beck’s), they both are retreating to the sidelines.

We’re early in Trump’s political career, so I offer these judgments cautiously, but my suspicion is that Trump, too, will burn out, like a hot fuse on a cold rocket. This may already have started. When President Obama took the stage last week in his stunner of a press conference to take on Trump’s birther attacks, he declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” A hilarious tweet I received shortly after said that carnival barkers were protesting that the comparison with Trump was giving them a bad name. And, of course, the president easily made Trump look both inane and irrelevant when the coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death interrupted “The Celebrity Apprentice.”

There’s also a final thing Trump himself should remember, before he goes farther down what is likely a dead-end road to demagoguery: History remembers Joseph Welch’s famous question to McCarthy—“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”—as well as it remembers McCarthy himself. Trump has shown he doesn’t take criticism well, sending an angry retort to Vanity Fair and appearing openly thin-skinned after jokes were made at his expense at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He will likely realize soon, if he hasn’t already, that his brand, not to mention his ego, will not sustain the sort of historical thrashing that will inevitably follow any further pf demagogic aspirations. Indeed, in the end, The Donald’s self-love might just be his own best friend.

Michael Signer is Managing Principal of Madison Law & Strategy Group, PLLC and an adjunct professor at Virginia Tech. He was a 2009 candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia and chairs the New Dominion Project, a Virginia political action committee.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

 

The Court stated in the decision, “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The author of the Citizens United decision, Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the Court, underscored the point: “The First Amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

At last, a venue for common ground! After all, even opponents of campaign reform had long emphasized their deep fealty to disclosure. In March of 2000, a Wall Street Journal editorial said, “Our view is that the Constitution allows consenting adults to give as much as they want to whomever they want, subject to disclosure on the Internet.” That same year, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell asked, “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?” As recently as 2007, John Boehner said on “Meet the Press,” “I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.” And the public resoundingly agrees: In an October 2010 CBS/New York Times poll, 92 percent of Americans said it is important for the law to require campaigns and outside spending groups to disclose how much money they have raised, where the money comes from, and how it was used.

Yet, since the Citizens United decision, the once-unifying disclosure issue has degenerated into another divisive set of battles, as long-time conservative proponents of disclosure have changed their positions so dramatically they could be treated for whiplash. Why has this happened—and can anything be done to fix it?

 

The 2010 mid-term elections showed clearly how legal loopholes involving non-profit groups called 501(c)4s, and the failure to adopt clear regulations surrounding campaigns, can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of spending to influence campaigns that masked the identity of huge donors. In response to these realities, the Federal Communications Commission is considering requiring robust disclosure by TV stations of the major donors of political ads; the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering requiring public corporations to disclose to stockholders their spending on politics, and the White House has drafted an executive order to require companies applying for federal contracts to disclose their spending on political campaigns. Given the strong position of the Supreme Court in Citizens United, the longtime consensus among political figures, and the overwhelming preference of voters, one might think that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would have moved to implement regulations to strengthen disclosure, and that politicians and others would applaud the recent moves by the government to strengthen disclosure through the administrative process. To the contrary, however, things have gone horribly wrong.

Last month, Mitch McConnell now says he views disclosure as “a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.” He savaged the White House for considering an executive order to require corporations getting federal contracts to disclose its corporate spending on campaigns, saying, “Now, under the guise of ‘transparency,’ the Obama administration apparently wants to know the political leanings of any company or small business, including those of its officers and directors, before the government decides if they’ll award them federal contracts.” What’s more, last fall, McConnell pulled out all the stops to prevent passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required all corporations and unions to disclose their campaign spending. McConnell managed to pressure every Republican from supporting cloture, leaving the legislation, which had passed the House, stuck at 59 votes in the Senate.

The Wall Street Journal’s full-throated support for transparency has disappeared as well; it blasted the FCC recently for considering requiring TV stations to put donors of campaign spots on the Internet, writing, “The goal here is to use ‘transparency’ to intimidate businesses out of making political donations. Disclosure sounds good, but liberals have begun to wield it as a weapon to vilify business donors.” Critically, the Journal’s editorial reflects a larger point: Opponents of any regulation of campaigns have not only abandoned their longstanding support for transparency, they are also trying to create a new attack line that identifies disclosure as a muzzle, a way to stifle speech.

The opponents of any regulation or restraint of any sort on campaign spending also include the three Republican commissioners of the FEC. Their leader, Donald S. McGahn, recently wrote self-righteously that he is free to ignore acts of Congress because, “As an FEC Commissioner, I am bound by my oath to follow controlling precedent of the Supreme Court.” But McGahn and his Stepford colleagues have consistently ignored the 8-1 precedent of the Court and moved to dilute or block any meaningful disclosure.

What to make of the turn away from support for disclosure? I can draw only one conclusion: The earlier support for disclosure was a façade. McConnell, McGahn, and the Journal, among others,don’t actually want transparency or any regulation. At base, they are for a wholly unregulated, Gilded Age-style campaign system where big and secret money rules.

The motives and potential actions of the FCC, SEC, and White House remain under intense assault. Republican Representative Greg Walden, chairman of the House Telecommunications subcommittee, threatened to “go nuclear” if the FCC even tried to implement disclosure of political ad sponsors by TV stations, and McConnell and his allies are talking lawsuits and retaliation if the White House moves on its executive order. On the flip side, however, there is momentum to keep the push for disclosure alive. Notably, Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen has sued the FEC to require disclosure of donors.

The key now is for theWhite House and the regulatory agencies to ignore the threats from Congress and elsewhere, and move ahead with their efforts. After all, the sentiments of the 92 percent of the public that favors transparency, and the eight justices on the Supreme Court that have endorsed it, should outweigh the objections of the reborn anti-disclosure cabal.

Norman Ornstein is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, in 2006, of The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track, with Thomas E. Mann. 

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

The march of time is putting out a collection of old newsreels, stock shots and many bridging reenactments that runs the length of a feature picture and tells all in the title: The Ramparts We Watch. It is history and also rub-a-dub-dub. There are indications in the early sections that under the corporalship of Mr. Luce time was marching two ways at once, and that there might possibly be two sides to how fast we tossed young fellers into the overseas furnace; but by the end the purpose is pretty well straightened out.

Whatever the purpose, the effect of a thing like this lies in how well it is done. There have been several collections of World War shots that reached a higher emotional rise and climax—back in the days when raising boys to be soldiers was not being done in the better magazines, remember? But its over-all coverage of how the country felt and how the Wilson Cabinet and New York streets and ladies’ hats and new Packards looked; what people were saying and singing and dancing to; what happened in church and in the schools and town meetings; who was being elected or run out of town—in this recreation of an era it is a handsome thing to see. In spite of the inevitable trace of stiltedness attaching to the people in documentaries who are set doing things as actors without really being actors, the little representative groups of students, gals, doctors, lawyers, politicians and journalists are put in motion with a nearer approach to things as they were than you find in memory. And the sound division has done a major job of recreation: you will hear every song of those days you can remember, and as many more you’ve forgotten. (But may I hope that some day some man who scores music will go listen to how a bugle call is played by a bugler, not a second desk trumpet brought up on the Egmont Overture? It's a lot to ask, but a hope worth hoping, for a good bugler is one of the joys of life and may not be copied.)

Very well, the job is well done. And it touches on the mighty theme of a nation coming to life and to arms. It is stirring. Very well, stirring to what?

Here is where the objections come in, and the question: even granting it is all truth, which it isn’t, how much of the whole truth is it? Was the war as easy as that? A few ships, a few shell-bursts, many men marching and some of them rather dirty? A German or two eased off a home-guard committee? Liberty Loans for liberty and not to buy up the bag Morgan and Company was holding? Khaki and shoes and guns turned out with a busy will for the boys over there and none of them paper, or backfiring? No disillusion but a few brave tears of a mother? American boys in France saying “Vive la France” and Frenchmen in cabarets saying “Vive Vilson” and nothing, absolutely nothing else to the AEF? Barracks and no slackers, no objectors? No beatings and witch hunts? Really?

The fever, the national will, the whoop and hoorah were all true at the time, no doubt. So was the world square once; so were the lives of men dependent on the will of the little people. Now we know otherwise—or we did yesterday. And to leave out what we have learned, to say for truth what we know was false, to pass over the misery, the stupidity, the greed, the waste and slaughter, is to blowup a great recruiting poster, an invitation to leave your head outside. We may be proud to be America. We may be ready to stand back of it. But these are just the times when we should turn away from any group of cheapjacks using such times and such high and noble emotions for nothing in the world but to sell their stinking little tent show. I’m afraid this film comes with very good timing, and I know it is done as smooth as oil. But we should have learned by now. If that’s what you want, America, take it away.

This article originally ran in the August 4, 1940, issue of the magazine.

Tire Inflation Monitoring System became noticed about the year 2003 and was engineered to easily inform drivers of their air pressures, alert them of a difficulty tire before the tire became flat. This state-of-the-art technology helped save us from a probable disaster while towing our sail boat behind our RV! Attaching Sensors to the tires [...]

The buzz today has been about Herman Cain’s stellar showing in the South Carolina Republican Debate last night. He dazzled and performed way the heck above expectations.

Tonight on the Erick Erickson show, Herman is going to join me at 7:05 p.m. ET and we’ll spend a good amount of time tonight breaking down last night’s debate performances.

You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

A few days ago, the New York Times made the following (somewhat bitter) comment, in the process of trying to pretend that we’re all racists over here on the Right:

[Obama's] administration took too long to find its footing on Egypt’s transition and in Libya, but it was not because, as the popular conservative blog RedState said, he is a “trainee president.”

(H/T: James Taranto)

A point of order, here: if you were to click on the link (post written by reader cmndr45*) then you will find that this was a diary, not a front page piece.  This is a common error made by Old Media types, particularly ones who have difficulty adapting to New Media paradigms; the concept that there can be controllable tiers of of information dissemination privileges can be surprisingly hard to understand by those with insufficient mental flexibility. I note all of this because Old Media entities already are notoriously bad at telling writers on group websites and blogs apart: it’s best that we not allow them to start failing to distinguish between various levels of permitted access.

Still, perish the thought that we should have to wait several decades for the Old Grey Lady to get around to a correction, so here goes: President Barack Obama is in point of fact a trainee President with virtually no practical life skills, woefully inadequate inexperience, precious little in the way of a proper aptitude for governance, and - most annoying - an inherent unwillingness to change any of the above, or in fact partake in any sort of internal program of either self-discovery, or self-improvement.  We have been saddled with him - at least until, God willing, January 2013 - largely because the news media (most assuredly including the New York Times) is largely composed of guilt-ridden liberals so desperate to conquer their own internal, racist demons that they jumped upon a cultist bandwagon that turned an inexperienced, frankly dull urban liberal academic into the understudy for the Messiah.  And now that President Obama has in fact landed his first real job since, I believe, his teenaged stint at Baskin-Robbins, we (meaning, ‘the rest of the country’) are now forced to somehow teach him enough to keep the United States of America - and, by extension, Western Civilization - from going belly-up before we can put in someone who is actually competent.

I hope that this clears up any confusion on the part of the New York Times.

Moe Lane
Contributor/Site Moderator
http://www.redstate.com

PS: The above statement represents my personal opinion and statements on the matter, and should not be taken as the official position of RedState.com.  Which you knew already, but the New York Times is confused enough as it is.

*Congratulations!

H/T to tim aka the godless heathen who found it at GatewayPundit....

(John)

For quite a few years, May Day was big among Communists. Every May 1, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Socialist Republics and some of his henchmen would be in Red Square, watching a procession of ICBMs and goose-stepping Red Army soldiers pass by. Those were the days! Communism collapsed, and for a while we would snicker at the few remaining countries that were benighted enough to cling to their socialist pasts--Cuba, North Korea, Albania. Now, even Albania is no longer Communist. So the glory days for Communist parades on May 1 are gone, right?

Not quite. Zombie documents an extraordinary May Day display in Los Angeles, where unions, most prominently the Service Employees International, teamed up with the Communist Party USA and other Commie groups. I love the "from Wisconsin to Libya" theme:

Note the innocuous-looking "PLP" on that poster. It stands for Progressive Labor Party. Quite a coincidence: I noted within the last day or two that long ago, I used to hang out in PLP circles. I had no idea the party still existed. In my day, it was known for believing that Mao's China wasn't radical enough.

Here is another PLP member; note the large SEIU banner just behind him:

As labor unions become increasingly marginalized, they have gotten radical to the point of parody. It seems like a good way to ensure their continuing irrelevance and likely extinction.

(John)

I had heard about the Keynes vs. Hayek video, but hadn't actually seen it until tonight. Produced by John Papola and Russ Roberts in association with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, it is astonishingly good. A half million people have viewed it so far, so we are not exactly getting in on the ground floor, but if you haven't watched it, you must. The video is clever and entertaining, and presents the views of the rival economists fairly:

Nicole Russell at the Spectator has more about the Keynes vs. Hayek video:

Roberts, who collaborated with Papola on the lyrics and the visual aspect of the movie (not the production -- that was solely Papola's undertaking), says he wanted to answer specific questions this time around: "Did the stimulus spending help or make things worst? That fundamental debate is important and still going on."

That's the spending side. Now, for taxes, is this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It explains seven reasons why increasing taxes is a bad idea. This video isn't as glitzy as Keynes vs. Hayek; on the other hand, the on-screen personality is much more attractive:

People living along the Mississippi River in Memphis, Tenn., are being asked to evacuate their homes after floodwater levels broke an 80-year record high earlier this week. Communities in several other states are also in danger. —ARK

BBC:

Fears are growing among US residents living along the Mississippi River as rising flood waters threaten communities in states from Illinois to Louisiana.

Police officers went door-to-door in Memphis, Tennessee urging residents to leave nearly 1,000 homes near the Mississippi River and its tributaries.

Sections of the Mississippi Delta also began to flood early on Friday.

Read more

Related Entries

• May 6, 2011 Tough Enough
• May 6, 2011 Obama Haters

In a decision that will not please the Roman Catholic Church, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples deserve the same legal rights that married heterosexuals receive. —ARK

BBC:

The ruling makes Brazil one of very few South American nations, after Argentina and Uruguay, to allow gay unions with benefits similar to those afforded a heterosexual married couple.

... From now on same sex couples will be able to register their civil partnerships with solicitors and public bodies, giving them proper inheritance and pension rights.

However, the landmark ruling stops short of recognising gay marriage, which could involve public or religious ceremonies.

Read more

Related Entries

• May 6, 2011 Tough Enough
• May 6, 2011 Obama Haters

The recent slaying of a popular poet’s son and the discovery of mass graves filled with hundreds of bodies have prompted a strong public outcry against Mexican President Felipe Calderon and what critics call his failed anti-drug policies. A massive demonstration is planned for Sunday in Mexico City. —ARK

Los Angeles Times:

Calderon, in a series of recent comments, has sought to steer blame toward the violent drug gangs, which at times act with the help of police under the control of local authorities. The president has accused detractors of political aims, and vowed to continue his 4 1/2-year-old crackdown on drug cartels.

... Outrage over the rising death toll, with more than 34,000 people killed since Calderon took office pledging to fight cartels, has already generated sporadic street protests.

... Big crowds are expected again in Mexico City’s main plaza Sunday to urge an end to the bloodshed. Hundreds of marchers set out Thursday from Cuernavaca, 60 miles south of the capital, and were expected to be joined by many more after reaching Mexico City.

Read more

Related Entries

• May 6, 2011 Tough Enough
• May 6, 2011 Obama Haters

By Joe Conason

The performance of the president and those around him should permanently dispel the perennial right-wing slur against Democratic leaders as deficient in the strength and courage to defend our security.

Related Entries

• May 6, 2011 Tough Enough
• May 6, 2011 Obama Haters

By David Sirota

Nations will inevitably be more willing to use warfare as a foreign policy tool if they possess instruments limiting the cost of waging war.

Related Entries

• May 6, 2011 Tough Enough
• May 6, 2011 Obama Haters

I can’t remember where I saw it earlier, but it was well-put: Iran’s politics aren’t like ours…. Close allies of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been accused of using supernatural powers to further his policies amid an increasingly bitter power struggle between him and the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Several people said to [...]

Birtherism dies a quick death--and with it the notion that Obama's opponents are motivated purely by race.

Ball spiked.

It's come to this.

Near miss.

Outrageous outrage.

"Lawrence, you have a bad habit with your guests."

Dude?

He jokingly warns GOP candidates "are going to come to this state and kiss every part of your body."

'I will sure think about it I want to see how it all develops," he says of a presidential run.

Move could cause a backup along the mighty river; Memphis police warn thousands of people to leave before they get swamped [Discuss] [Link]

Egyptian Ayman Al Zawahiri, who has been touted widely as the man who will succeed Bin Laden as the leader of Al Qaeda, turned his back on his terrorist leader following a prolonged power struggle, according to a Saudi newspaper. [Discuss] [Link]

Intelligence source cites `positive intelligence` on core leadership, race against the clock on some fluid leads Read more by Pat Milton on CBS News' World Watch. [Discuss] [Link]

Euro and crude oil continue tumbling [Discuss] [Link]

No summary available. [Discuss] [Link]

A mother has been arrested after allegedly pushing her baby in a stroller down a flight of stairs at the Lake Street light rail train station Tuesday evening. News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Minnesota [Discuss] [Link]

Minor delays on BART trains in Oakland Friday morning were apparently caused by an unruly passenger talking loudly about weapons of mass destruction, a passenger said on the microblogging website Twitter. News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF [Discuss] [Link]

A man has sued a Chicago funeral home and a cemetery over what he claims was the botched body preparation of his mother, and a humiliating burial experience. Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Chicago - CBS 2 TV | WBBM Newsradio 780 | 670 The Score [Discuss] [Link]

Less than a week after Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in a raid in Pakistan, U.S. drones have tried to killed radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, according to U.S. officials. [Discuss] [Link]

Pakistan's military paints a different picture than the United States of Osama bin Laden's final days: far from the terror mastermind still trying to strike America, he's seen as an aging terrorist hiding in barren rooms, short of money and struggling to maintain his grip on al-Qaida. [Discuss] [Link]

MSNBC’s smug, smarmy Lawrence O’Donnell thought he was going to make a fool of former Secretary of State Condi Rice. Didn’t work out that way. Not even close.

I’m not that thrilled about this birthday. Maybe because my doctor gave me the “menopause” talk. I never thought I’d miss getting my period; however, lately I’ve been tearing up, thinking about how it seems like only yesterday I was 13, and now I’m… not. I never wanted children, so it isn’t that. I’ll be [...]

I listened to about 5 minutes of Sean Hannity on the car radio today, and the subject just happened to be Ron Paul’s performance at the South Carolina Republican debate. A caller who identified herself as a Jewish American said that Ron was “great” when he said the U.S. government should end all foreign aid [...]

Bummer. The “holy water” sold in London shops from a well in Mecca is contaminated with arsenic. You can also buy holy Zam Zam Water online. London Net reported, via ROP: MUSLIM Holy water sold in London “is poisonous”, according … Continue reading →

Just when you thought you’d heard everything… Obama told us all week how he always promised to get Osama Bin Laden. …Except when he didn’t. This flip-flop came his first month in office. The Times reported, via Free Republic: Barack … Continue reading →

This ought to make you sick… Photos of dead US soldiers – Good. Photos of dead Osama Bin Laden – Bad. In February 2009, his second month in office, Barack Obama changed official policy to allow photos of dead US … Continue reading →

The American Prospect has provided us with an informative view of the left's perspective on recent battles in the the culture wars. Reading in between the lines of demonization of pro-lifers, it's...

Interviews aren't supposed to produce clear winners and losers. But this Lawrence O'Donnell interview of Condaleeza Rice did (skip to about 2:45 for the interview to pick up):

Yesterday President Obama announced his intention to nominate Loyola University in New Orleans law professor Stephen A. Higginson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Professor Higginson clerked for Justice Byron White and was an assistant U.S. Attorney in Louisiana.