Former Georgia Secretary of State and friend of RedState Karen Handel has resigned from the Komen foundation in the wake of the left-wing outcry over the future of the organization’s funding of Planned Parenthood. According to LifeNews, “Komen initially decided in December to revise its grant-making process to funds grants to agencies that provide direct health services for women — which would eliminate Planned Parenthood since it does not do mammograms. After Planned Parenthood, Democratic members of Congress and the media pounced on Komen for its decision, Komen clarified that Planned Parenthood would still be allowed to submit grant requests but they may or may not be funded.”

Handel’s letter of resignation is below.

February 7, 2012
The Honorable Nancy Brinker
CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure VIA EMAIL
5005 LBJ Freeway, Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75244

Dear Ambassador Brinker:

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been the recognized leader for more 30 years in the fight against breast cancer here in the US – and increasingly around the world.

As you know, I have always kept Komen’s mission and the women we serve as my highest priority – as they have been for the entire organization, the Komen Affiliates, our many supporters and donors, and the entire community of breast cancer survivors. I have carried out my responsibilities faithfully and in line with the Board’s objectives and the direction provided by you and Liz.

We can all agree that this is a challenging and deeply unsettling situation for all involved in the fight against breast cancer. However, Komen’s decision to change its granting strategy and exit the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and its grants was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization. At the November Board meeting, the Board received a detailed review of the new model and related criteria. As you will recall, the Board specifically discussed various issues, including the need to protect our mission by ensuring we were not distracted or negatively affected by any other organization’s real or perceived challenges. No objections were made to moving forward.

I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy. I believe that Komen, like any other nonprofit organization, has the right and the responsibility to set criteria and highest standards for how and to whom it grants.

What was a thoughtful and thoroughly reviewed decision – one that would have indeed enabled Komen to deliver even greater community impact – has unfortunately been turned into something about politics. This is entirely untrue. This development should sadden us all greatly.

Just as Komen’s best interests and the fight against breast cancer have always been foremost in every aspect of my work, so too are these my priorities in coming to the decision to resign effective immediately. While I appreciate your raising a possible severance package, I respectfully decline. It is my most sincere hope that Komen is allowed to now refocus its attention and energies on its mission.

Sincerely,
Karen Handel

I’ve been engaged in a twitter discussion with some good friends and acquaintances (and, being that it’s twitter, with some folks I don’t know from Adam) about the upcoming film Act of Valor. The film, for those who were comatose during the Super Bowl ad blitz, is a Navy recruiting video on major steroids that features several active duty SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewmen in uncredited roles. According to the Wikipedia entry:

Act of Valor began as a recruitment video for the U.S. military’s Naval Special Warfare Command. In 2007, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh of Bandito Brothers Production filmed a video for the Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen SWCC which led the Navy to allow them to use SEALs for Act of Valor. None of the SEALs’ names will appear in the credits of the film.

Relativity Media acquired the rights to the project on June 12, 2011 for $13 million and a $30 million in prints and advertising commitment. Deadline.com called it “the biggest money paid for a finished film with an unknown cast”. The production budget was estimated between $15 million and $18 million

The discussion surrounding the film has largely been whether it is, in the words of Air Force veteran @JimmySky, “exploitative” – and if so, why that is and who exactly it is that’s being exploited.

Read More →

…here are a couple gems from two of the campaign’s most fervent, credibility-contorting cheerleaders, the “detestable harpy“** and Jennifer Rubin.

As noted earlier today, the harpy decided to go Full Romney in her column yesterday.  Called “THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE!,” the harpy declared Romney’s signature – and most problematic – legislative achievement to have been a victory for the constitution and for conservatism.  As if that wasn’t enough on its own, Cold Warrior was kind enough to provide a link to the following video, which shows the “detestable harpy” at CPAC 2011 warning that a failure by Chris Christie to enter the presidential race would result in a Romney nomination and a GOP loss to President Obama in 2012:

Evidently Christie’s refusal to enter the race so traumatized the harpy that she not only fled straight into the arms of the man she warned just last year would be a sure loser in the 2012 election, but that she sacrificed any intellectual integrity or consistency in doing so. (Actually, this is an excellent object lesson in the fungibility of such arcane ideas as “principle” and “consistency” when fame and attention are at stake!)

Read More →

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post‘s resident Romney campaign mouthpiece, has been joined by another conservative pundit in the “I left my dignity at the altar of Mitt Romney” club. This time, as you may have heard, the offender is Ann Coulter, whose support for the former Massachusetts governor (and lack of publicity to date leading up to her CPAC appearance next week) has led her to offer – in print – a full-throated (albeit screechy) defense of the biggest piece of baggage Romney possesses: the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act of 2006, or ‘Romneycare.’

Coulter’s column, titled “THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE!” (yes, the title is all caps in the original), provides a defense of Romneycare that simply and completely ignores both conservative objections and the reasons why it has been a dismal failure as policy. For example, she drops the names of people and organizations that supported it at the time, despite the fact that such supporters were few and far between (opposition was much more commonplace), and that many of those supporters have since publicly changed their minds. An example of this is her declaration that “A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.” Fine – but what Coulter ignores is the fact that Heritage has since repudiated the idea of an individual mandate at any level, writing in an amicus brief (pdf) filed in a challenge to Obamacare that “since [the passage and implementation of Obamacare], a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option.”

Where she does acknowledge the obvious issues with Romneycare, Coulter simply throws mud at “Democrats” for ruining Romney’s beautiful program. She writes:

Read More →

Fresh off a dominant win in the Florida presidential primary, Mitt Romney managed to unload a clip of .45 ammunition in both feet on national television this morning. In an interview with Soledad O’Brien, Romney said the following (emphasis added):

Mitt Romney: “I’m not concerned about the very poor; we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

Soledad O’Brien: “I know I said last question. You said I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?”

Mitt Romney: “Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I’m not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Read More →

Last night, a joint force from America’s Tier One special operations command conducted a raid on a pirate camp in Somalia, freeing two hostages – an American and a Dane – and killing their captors before exfiltrating north to Djibouti via helicopter.

USA Today‘s lead paragraph captures the mission well, while also serving as the best recruiting pitch for the Navy’s Sea, Air, and Land teams that I’ve seen a newspaper run:

The same U.S. Navy SEAL unit that killed Osama bin Laden parachuted into Somalia under cover of darkness early Wednesday and crept up to an outdoor camp where an American woman and Danish man were being held hostage. Soon, nine kidnappers were dead and both hostages were freed.

The hostages, two aid workers who had been kidnapped three months earlier, were victims of an expanding land-based kidnapping enterprise engaged in by Somali pirates in response to the growing difficulty of hijacking ships in the Gulf of Aden.

“The same U.S. Navy SEAL unit that killed Osama bin Laden,” of course, refers to the Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), also known as SEAL Team Six, though as with all JSOC operations there were almost certainly representatives from other services involved as well (possibly Air Force aircraft, and certainly joint terminal attack controllers and pararescuemen from the Air Force special mission unit organic to JSOC).

As with the bin Laden raid, it is worth noting that what sets this mission apart from any other JSOC or DEVGRU operation is not the fact that it took place, but the publicity it is receiving. Hostage rescue is a core component of JSOC’s special mission units’ capabilities, as are counterterrorism, direct action, and strategic reconnaissance. Further, the operational tempo for special operations units as a whole – both “white” and “black” (with JSOC falling in the latter category) – continues to be incredibly high, making this highly publicized mission just another one of hundreds being carried out around the world every month (according to ISAF, for example, 1,879 special operations raids were carried out in Afghanistan alone in the first eight months of 2011).

Aside from results the raid itself – two hostages rescued unharmed, and nine heavily armed “tangoes” dead – part of the reason this mission is being so highly publicized is the high psychological importance of its success, a position which it holds for two main reasons.

Read More →

“U.S. Ponders Ways to Use Force on Iran”

“Here’s How the U.S. Could Invade Iran”

“U.S. Said Set to Attack Iran”

“Does [the U.S. President] Plan to Invade Iran?”

“Saudis Deny U.S. Planned to Attack Iranian Oilfields”

“U.S. May Attack Iran Missiles: White House Mulls Ways to Protect Gulf”

“[U.S.] Navy Denies Plan to Attack Iranian Ships in Persian Gulf”

“U.S., Allies Setting Stage to Attack Iran, Says Paper”

“Chavez Warns Against U.S. Attack on Iran”

“Iran’s Top Leader Warns of U.S. Attack”

“Iran: U.S. Attack May Mean ‘Slaughterhouse’”

“Sharon on the Warpath: Is Israel Planning to Attack Iran?”

“Israel Has Plans to Attack Iran, Says London Times”

“U.S. Planning Nuclear Strike on Iran”

“The Coming War with Iran”

“Report: Israel Asks for ‘Air Corridor’ to Attack Iran”

“News from Israel: [U.S. President] Wants to Attack Iran Soon”

“Iran in U.S. Crosshairs”

Do those headlines sound familiar? Judging by the recent deluge of print, web, television, and radio reports and discussions, America and Israel have responded to a growing “drumbeat for war,” as some have put it, and are on the brink of launching an overt military attack on Iran. As the real newspaper and web headlines cited above clearly show, the U.S. and its ally in the Levant have failed to learn the proverbial dangers of a land war in Asia, and are furiously building toward another engagement with another Islamic country.

But wait. The dates on those headlines are, respectively, November 1979, December 1979, August 1980, August 1980, June 1984, June 1987, March 1988, November 1992, November 1993, December 1996, June 1997, August 2004, March 2005, April 2006, July 2006, February 2007, May 2008, and February 2009.

That’s right: the claim that America or Israel is on the cusp of attacking Iran is as old as the Islamic Republic itself. Such assertions have peppered media reports, op-eds, and other commentary for three decades and change at this point – a fact which should give folks pause about taking such claims any more seriously now than at any point in recent history.

Yes, Iran is hostile to the U.S. and its interests, and yes, it is almost certainly working as quickly as it can on the development of a nuclear weapon. However, despite growing hysteria on the part of media and analysts, and despite public debates like that being hosted by Foreign Affairs (the best piece among which is this one by Colin Kahl, former head of Middle East policy at the Pentagon), a western-initiated war with Iran is little more likely now than at any point in the last three decades, if not altogether less so.

Read More →

TEN YEARS HAVE passed since terrorists hijacked airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  In that period, America has fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, carried out hundreds armed drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen (among other locations), and conducted covert operations around the world, all in the name of what President George W.  Bush termed the “Global War on Terror.”  Terror plots and attempted attacks have been foiled, terrorist leaders have been killed or captured in massive numbers – including the world’s most wanted terrorist himself, Osama bin Laden.  All of this has combined, in the words of President Barack Obama, to “put al Qaeda on the path to defeat.”

Given all this, is it possible that America is actually losing the war on terror? In Bin Laden’s Legacy: Why We’re Still Losing the War on Terror, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorist Radicalization at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues not only that we are losing, but that we as a nation still fail to understand what kind of a war we are fighting, and what our enemies’ actual goals are.  This is a powerful indictment, and Gartenstein-Ross painstakingly lays it out in a book that is both sharply analytical and accessible to any audience.

A KEY PROBLEM with America’s attempt to wage a War on Terror while safeguarding itself from future attack, Gartenstein-Ross writes, is that our ignorance of the enemy we are facing has allowed us to pursue both goals in a profligate fashion that plays right into the hands of an enemy that sees America’s economy as the long-term target.  To understand the reasoning behind this, we must look to the Soviet Union.  Though myriad factors contributed to the dissolution of the U.S.S.R., its collapse so shortly after its withdrawal from a decade-long quagmire in Afghanistan helped convince Osama bin Laden and other former mujahedeen that they had been the cause of its ultimate defeat.

Now, al Qaeda has taken this strategy of embroiling a much larger and wealthier enemy in a long and costly war of economic attrition and has aimed it at the United States, with no small measure of success gained over the last decade.  “Even though it has lost Osama bin Laden and its safe haven in Afghanistan,” the author writes, al Qaeda’s “fight against America is broader, and al Qaeda and its affiliates are key players in more regions than they were engaged in a decade ago…Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is shattered, it faces an almost unthinkable debt burden, and its policy makers have largely been consigned to arguing with each other on the sidelines while the country’s traditional allies…are overthrown or see their power erode” (p. 200).

Read More →

Despite strident opposition from supporters who maintain that Rick Santorum is a “true conservative” in the mold of – you guessed it – Ronald Reagan, the already huge mountain of evidence that he is, at heart, a ‘big-government conservative’ continues to grow. As Erick noted previously, in 2008 Santorum said:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

Now, consider these two quotes from Santorum’s 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, both of which are very telling:

What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.

-Preface, p. IX; audio here

And:

I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.

-Conclusion, p. 421; audio here

Read More →

WHAT ROLE DO culture myths – the stories civilizations tell about the beginning of law, medicine, arts and sciences, and civilization itself – have in defining a group’s legitimacy within society? In Founding Gods, Inventing Nations: Conquest and Culture Myths from Antiquity to Islam, Will McCants, a Middle East expert at CNA’s Center for Strategic Students and adjunct faculty at Johns Hopkins University, addresses this issue with an emphasis on explaining the unique development of Muslim cultural beliefs and traditions in the wake of the Arab conquest.

Rather than a dry, linear history, the author presents his study in a comparative format, contrasting the competition for social relevance through control of cultural heritage in three periods of Ancient Near Eastern history: the Hellenistic period following the Alexandrian conquest; the hegemony of imperial Rome; and, of course, the Arab conquest and subsequent Islamic period.

Read More →

The U.S. State Department takes a lot of heat from us on the right, most of which is well-deserved. However, when someone within America’s diplomatic apparatus does something that’s simply awesome, it’s important that we give them credit. The awesomeness in this case is courtesy of the American Embassy in Beijing, which used twitter to strong-arm the Chinese government into releasing accurate data on Beijing smog.

Residents of the Chinese capital have been demanding more accurate air quality readings provided by the local government. The need for improvement was obvious to the naked eye, as “days where buildings a few blocks away can’t be seen have often been described by Beijing officials as ‘light’ pollution” (in fact, only in recent weeks has Beijing begun to acknowledge that the city’s “fog” may actually be, you know, smog).

So what did the U.S. Embassy do to help make this happen? It set up a twitter feed – http://twitter.com/beijingair – that sends out hourly air quality readings taken from atop the embassy compound. Armed with actual accurate information, residents cranked up the volume on their demands for accountability and accuracy in published air quality information, and the local government caved, agreeing to begin publishing environmental information now that was not scheduled to be made public until 2016.

Well done, embassy staff.

Let me go ahead and stipulate that Mitt Romney has presidential height and hair, and appears to have presidential composure in debates and interviews (at least, when not being mauled by the Great Grizzly of Interviewers, the always fearsome Bret Baier). He also has a history of business success and has the longest private sector career of any participant in the GOP primary – though it’s obviously worth noting that his lengthy private sector career has largely been the result of his utter failure to enter and remain in the public sector, despite trying over and over and over and over again to do so.

However, leaving aside the fact that his positions on most issues have a history of being “multiple choice,” as Ted Kennedy once said, Mitt Romney has two major vulnerabilities to attack – and it just so happens that they are the top two issues of this entire election.

Read More →

President Obama, Secretary of Defense Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey gave a brief press conference this morning on America’s new defense strategy, crafted in the face of massive national debt and looming budget crises (actually, it would be more accurate to say that the latter two gave a press conference; the president gave a statement, and then departed without taking questions). Though the $487,000,000,000.00 in upcoming DoD budget cuts – which Panetta called “politically sensitive” – were repeatedly mentioned (particularly by Deputy SecDef Carter in the second part of the presser), the entire conference on America’s “strategic turning point” (a.k.a. America’s “historic shift to the future“) was an exercise in generalities, with Panetta continually referring reporters to Obama’s forthcoming budget for specifics. Whether he was asked about weapons systems or military health care, Panetta never strayed far from his standard line that “everything was on the table” and “the President’s budget will have more specifics.”

A key message that Panetta and Dempsey repeatedly hammered was that the overall force (particularly the Army and Marine Corps) would be undergoing a “resizing” that, while made necessary by budget imperatives, would ostensibly be prevented from leading to a reduction in overall capability by the accompanying defense strategy.  While the “unique global leadership role of the United States in today’s world” would continue to be recognized and acted on, Panetta said, a necessary part of this will be a stronger reliance on “alliances” and an effort to “find innovative ways to sustain US presence” abroad.  Given the resource problems that have been demonstrated by our effort to engage in combat and nation-building efforts in two countries at once over the last decade (not to mention the contingency operations being conducted in several other locations worldwide), it’s clear such deep cuts will have an effect on defense capability, even if America’s military is reorganized and its strategy rewritten with the new budgetary reality squarely in mind.

Given the cuts being made, the effectiveness, comprehensiveness, and workability of the new military strategy is of paramount importance.  President Obama seemed to acknowledge this with a statement that amounted basically to a perversion of an old Rumsfeldian maxim: We won’t go to war with the Army we have any longer, Obama seemed to say; instead, the Army we have will dictate the wars we choose to participate in.

Listeners to the press conference can be forgiven if they experienced a sense of deja vu upon hearing promises like, “The U.S. force will be smaller and leaner, but more agile, more flexible, ready to deploy more quickly, innovative, and technologically advanced.” As buzzwords like “smaller,” “leaner,” “agile,” “flexible,” and “creative” kept popping up, it was difficult to avoid recognizing the blueprint for this “new” force for what it clearly is: basically the same flexible, mobile, and quickly-reactive force that Donald Rumsfeld attempted to form early in the previous decade, when he was Secretary of Defense.
There’s no question that an agile, flexible, etc. military has its benefits, particularly in an age of widely-diffused, rapidly-emerging threats; however, just how that more agile military is designed and arrived at is an important issue, particularly in light of how stretched the total force has been over the last decade. Though long-term counterinsurgency operations will likely be avoided as much as possible in the near future (particularly by the current administration), and though unmanned ISR and offensive operations are being conducted with greater and greater frequency, there is clear danger in drawing down our nation’s force too far too fast, as well as in indiscriminately slashing defense funding.

Read More →

2011 may not have been the Year of the Infographic, but it was certainly a year that saw a significant increase in the proliferation of pint-sized but powerful visual aids, both on the web and in print. However, though infographics can convey a wealth of information in a compact, creative, and engaging format, the usual principle of caveat emptor applies. Yes, infographics can convey information with an efficacy that written text cannot, but they certainly don’t have a corner on the accuracy market. Rather, they’re merely data displays (albeit frequently engaging ones), so the principle of GIGO fully applies, as does the simple fact that they can be designed to demonstrate anything their authors wish.

The particularly well-done infographic will convey more information than its surface-level appearance suggests. One particular example of such a graphic comes to us courtesy of the good folks at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Displayed below, this graphic purports to break down the membership of the U.S. Congress according to population-wide income brackets. On the surface, it’s pretty straightforward, and accurately conveys the very high percentage of sitting Senators and Representatives who fall into the top 10% of the American population in terms of wealth. Now, it’s no secret that there are some pretty wealthy people in Congress, and this graphic clearly demonstrates that. However, it also suggests something else, which astute political observers can probably quickly figure out:

Read More →

The Fraser Institute has released their latest report on charitable giving in the U.S. and Canada, and once again North America’s leaders in charitable donations from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle reside overwhelmingly in red states. This has been the case for some time, and the reason for it almost certainly comes down to a difference in philosophy regarding charity and the role of private/public institutions in its application. It’s unsurprising that conservatives – who by and large believe in the sovereignty of the individual, particularly in terms of fiscal decision-making – choose to give of their own net incomes to charitable causes and organizations that they find worthwhile. It’s also unsurprising (and stereotypical) that liberals choose to give less of their own net income to charity, instead leaving that responsibility to the government, which replaces the individual as the evaluator and benefactor of charitable organizations and endeavors.  Based on that philosophy of charity and responsibility, it’s no surprise that some liberals have been calling on the government to reduce or eliminate the charitable giving tax deduction.

Based on 2009 data, the Fraser Institute found that the top ten states by percentage of aggregate income donated to charity are: (1) Utah, (2) Georgia, (3) Alabama, (4) Maryland, (5) South Carolina, (6) Idaho, (7) North Carolina, (8) Oklahoma, (9) Mississippi and New York.  The rest of the top half are below the fold:

Read More →

“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do.” This quote, from Massachusetts Democratic senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren, can be found in this otherwise unremarkable (and poorly written) article by Daily Beast writer Samuel Jacobs. It’s nice, in a way, that the true creator of the Occupy Wall Street movement has stepped forward to announce herself; after all, now we know who to credit for their motivation, goals, and actions.

Speaking of what the participants in Liz Warren’s brainchild are doing, let’s take a quick look at Occupy Wall Streeters around the country:

Rape Alleged At Occupy Cleveland (Mediaite)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault Of Teen At Occupy Dallas (CBS Dallas-Fort Worth)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Sex, drugs and hiding from the law at Wall Street protests (NY Post)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Occupy Wall Street Knows Not What It Does Hurting Local Jobs (Bloomberg)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Is Occupy Wall Street Contributing To Increase In Violent Crime? (Politicology)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

The battle of Wall Street: Violence erupts as police clash with protesters after they force Bloomberg to back down over ‘eviction’ (Daily Mail)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Occupy Boston Protesters Arrested For Selling Heroin (CBS Boston)

Elizabeth Warren: “I support what they do.”

Read More →

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty crunches some numbers in this post on the topic.

Via Adam Bitely, that direct quote can be seen in the video below:

For context, here’s Sen. Reid’s (D-NV) statement from the Senate floor today:

“The massive layoffs we’ve had in America today-of course they’re rooted in the last administration-and it’s very clear that private sector jobs are doing just fine. It’s the public sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation’s all about. And it’s unfortunate my friend the Republican Leader is complaining about that. I would also note that my friend said the House passed another bill. Well, they pass lots of bills, but they rarely go anyplace.”

Here’s a fact that Reid should look over before he opens his mouth again. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, government workers have the lowest unemployment rate of any industry or class recorded, at 4.7%, while the national unemployment rate is 9.1% – nearly twice that of public sector workers.

Read More →

Herman Cain is taking a beating – at least judging by my email inbox – over a line he uttered in the interview below with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier today:

The part that folks are taking serious issue with takes place between 0:48 and 1:09, and the transcript is as follows:

BLITZER: Imagine if you were President – we’re almost out of time – uh, and there were one American soldier who’d been held for years, and the demand was, al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, you– ya gotta free everybody at Guantanamo Bay– several hundred prisoners at Guantanam– could you see yourself as President authorizing that kind of transfer?

CAIN: I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer.

The synopses of this I’m seeing are some variation of “Cain said he’d release all Gitmo terrorists in exchange for one American P.O.W.” and “Cain would release all gitmo detainees for one soldier.” However, that’s not what happened at all – and I don’t share the outrage at this point that some of my very good friends and colleagues do over this statement. Here’s why.

Read More →

Five years, three months, two weeks, and three days ago, Hamas militants from Gaza tunneled under the sequestered Strip’s border with Israel and popped up near the Kerem Hashalom crossing, where they attacked an Israeli tank, killing two crewmembers and injuring five. The militants grabbed Corporal Gilad Schalit from the tank, and escaped back into the Gaza Strip with him.

He had been a captive of Hamas ever since, held in undisclosed locations and prevented by his captors from receiving the most basic internationally-recognized human rights, including visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross (whose requests for access were repeatedly rebuffed on the grounds that such access would betray the location where he was being held) and contact with his family, while Hamas demanded exorbitant prices for his return, including the release of 1,500 prisoners – among whom were several terrorists and murderers – from Israeli prison.

This week, a groundbreaking deal was announced between Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government and Hamas that will reportedly – finally – bring the French-Israeli citizen Schalit home.  The price is extremely high: over 1,000 prisoners, including many Hamas militants, will be returned to East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in two waves of repatriation.

While this deal weakens Israel’s defenses and emboldens Hamas, it also may have been a necessary move. Let’s look at why.

Read More →

AT A TIME when so many books on politics, religion, and world events are little more than puffed-up pamphlets which are simultaneously high on hyper-partisanship and low on facts, J. M. Berger‘s Jihad Joe, a treatment of the radicalization and actions of American Muslims who have dedicated themselves to “violent jihad” (the author’s chosen term), is a breath of fresh – and troubling – air.  Painstakingly researched and heavily footnoted (the author, an investigative journalist, consulted thousands of pages of court records and documents obtained through FOIA request, as well as source material from the making of multiple documentaries on jihadi activities in Bosnia and in the U.S.), Jihad Joe does not couch opinion as fact, but instead makes use of often disparate stories and information sources to weave together a factual account of radicalized American Muslims, from their diverse motivations and processed of radicalization to their actions.

The bulk of Jihad Joe is a lesson in recent history, recounting the motivations and activities of Americans who have “go[ne] to war in the name of Islam” from the siege of Mecca in 1979, where two Americans were involved, to the present.  It traces the heady days of the heavily-endorsed (by Islamic leaders and the U.S. alike) jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, when Muslims from America and around the world traveled to fight against the Russian invaders, to the founding of al Qaeda, where an American from Kansas City served as note-taker, through the Bosnian conflict, to the “war on America” that al Qaeda began in the 1990s (which included action in Somalia during the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident), and which is currently ongoing.  Among the major takeaways from this fast, engaging read (it can be comfortably read in a single weekend) is the realization that the radicalization of, and participation in what Berger refers to as “violent jihad” by, American Muslims is far from a new phenomenon.

Read More →