Snark of the Day: Don Surber

Of course, physics do not work that way. God does not roll dice with the universe, not does He do public opinion polling.

Don Surber.

From Erick, Red State:

Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance have not invited Ron Paul to their candidate debate on June 30th. Thank God!

Mr. Cindy Sheehan a/k/a Lew Rockwell is upset.

Oh happy Day!  Maybe Ron can get Micheal Bloomberg to host a private two moonbat debate?

Of late, I have been reading Bernie Goldberg’s books so I was pleasantly surprised to see he’s got a new one out, and even more pleasantly surprised to see John Hawkins interviewing him on it.  

• I see where Ron Paul is being excluded from the Iowa boredom festival. I don’t know.  Perhaps they figure they didn’t need the comedy relief. Look, let’s call this what it is, OK? Ron Paul is to sanity, what a fish is to track and field events. And with that statement, perhaps we’ve identified why he so popular amongst the denizens of the left, of late. But I certainly don’t consider him a libertarian, in any event.
• I make no secret of the fact that I am a Fred Thompson supporter.  Not only do I think he would make an excellent president, I think in fact he would make the best president of any of the current crop.  One thing I have not heard him speak and, yet, is energy.  Specifically, gasoline.  What I hear a politician talking about cutting through the red tape to get increased refining capacity on line as quickly as possible, thereby lowering the price of the fuel, he, she, or it, will have my unvarnished support.
• On the point of presidential campaign support, I’ve been working on an extended writeup, examining all of the various players and almost players in the upcoming election.  Without getting into any great detail, I will tell you that any of the republican candidates, with all of their flaws, any one of them would make a better candidate than any of the democratic party candidates.  The best qualified democratic candidate at this point is probably John Edwards.  Which, since I consider John Edwards to be a bad joke in terms of his presidential capacity, will give you a general idea of where I’ll be going with this.  I’ll post the extended writeup when the time comes.. as in… whenever I get it done.
• I see where the prosecution of the Marines at Haditha, is falling apart, once exposed to the facts. despite having been convicted in the press, it turns out that the prosecution’s case is not being supported by the forensic evidence nor is it being supported by any of the other evidence being presented.  John Murtha has not commented on all of this. He’s been strangely silent, in fact. Power line has been following this one.  So have Forum, Gateway Pundit and Let Freedom Ring.
• The space Shuttle, Atlantis is on it’s way back to earth.  I can remember watching , along with a couple hundred other school kids, Gemini seven lifting off, on a black and white TV that just barely held the TV signal in. I remember the tremendous national excitement over the event.  These days, such an event hardly causes a blip on the national radar.  And I am concerned.  I suppose it is the way of improving technology, that lifting off from the face of the earth and going out into outer space has become nearly as commonplace as running down the corner store for gallon of milk.  Still, I worry for what has been lost; That sense of wonder. I’m beginning to suspect, my friends, that the sense of wonder itself, in the end, is a far greater importance than the events we wonder about.
• I was rather nonplused when Michael Bloomberg jumped ship from the Democratic party, some time ago.  True, I was glad to see the democrats losing whatever degree of force he represented, but it seemed to me at the time somewhat opportunistic. That is particularly true, given that his underlying stance on the issues they haven’t changed all that much.  Once coming over to the Republican Party, he started making different noises, but not by much.  There was something always disquieting about his reluctance.Now that he’s succeeded in doing this again, this time jumping ship from the Republican party, Mr. Bloomberg appears to be even more opportunistic.Make no mistake; Mr. Bloomberg is a good politician.  But one really must wonder what his basic values are?  Or, if indeed, he has any at all, past getting himself elected. He seems to be trying for the middle.  The trouble is, he has succeeded in labeling the Republican party and the Democratic party as the ends of the spectrum.  Which, I suppose, might make sense to some, until they considered how far left the Republican party has been leaning of late.There is, admittedly, part of me that would like to think that Mr. Bloomberg was taking the moral high road, because both parties have leaned so far to the left.  But the logical mind says that what’s really going on here is the Bloomberg is cynically attempting to do what Dick Morris counseled the Clintons to do a decade gone, now: Triangulation.I could be wrong, (Lord knows, it’s happened before ) but it’s my take that the center is like a played out mine… there’s not enough gold left in it to make it a viable enterprise.  On that basis, and assuming that Mr. Bloomberg decides to use some of his vast personal funding to launch an independent campaign for president, it will succeed in freeing up a conservative candidate and a liberal candidate to play more to their base in the general election.  The center, what there is left of it after Bush Clinton, and Bush, will be off the table, and yet not large enough to win an election. In the end, Bloomberg running as an independent might be just the thing to help put someone like Fred Thompson in the White House.
• As a casual observation, the domination of right wing talk radio is not because of any background deals, it’s not because left wing voices are being silenced (witness Err America) it’s because the American people simply don’t want to listen to it.  they don’t buy what the leftists are selling.  It’s really just that simple.  All the “reports” in the world are not going to change that one fact.  And let’s get one thing straight: the supposed “Center for American Progress” is a far left organization. Believe me when I tell you that American progress is the last thing on their minds.  The likelihood of them actually issuing a fair report on the subject, is about on par with the likelihood of a Toyota salesman telling you what a good car the Ford is. But then again, they do have polyps like Trent Lott in their corner , don’t they?
• I would say, Billy, that perhaps we do owe each other something, but I would hasten to add as a prerequisite for taking any action, the government is not the one to be making that decision… And for the very reasons that you listed.  Government, by stepping in, has precluded any realistic action toward those who need it.

If Glenn Greenwald had but one problem, that problem is that Greenwald is either unable or unwilling to distinguish between those who trying to kill us, the jihadists, and those who are not.

In Greenwald’s bllind state, he attempts to take Fred Thompson and George W. Bush to task:

Just yesterday, in London, Fred Thompson gave a speech defending America’s right to act unilaterally in the world, including military invasions of other countries, based on this claim:

We understand that the Western world is in an international struggle with jihadists who see this struggle as part of a conflict that has gone on for centuries, and who won’t give up until Western countries are brought to their knees.

In virtually every speech and interview he has given, George Bush has made the same argument — that we are in an epic battle in defense of Good against Evil and therefore must take every step possible to triumph. In large part, that is the mentality that has led to the excesses and abuses of the last six years.

It not necessary, as Greenwald both suggests and seems to believe to see the world in black and white, good and evil.  It only necessary to distinguish between those who are trying to kill us and those who are not.   Is is not the the Islamofascists are bad per se, but rather it is that they trying to kill us.   I can’t make any simplier than that, but alas the concept is too much for Greenwald to grasp.

In 1964, we here in the US passed a far-reaching civil rights act, which reaffirmed that all men are
created equal, and are to be treated as such, regardless of the individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It made such discrimination unlawful. Period. The new law made racism unlawful regardless of the effect of such race weighting, be it detrimental OR beneficial.Court rulings since have repeatedly and wisely noted that this act was directly in line with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Emphasis is mine)

So, along comes two recent court rulings which I’ve spent the last several nights going over, You should as well. The result of these two rulings, at least in combination is confusion. In the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruling point blank that the practice of adding 20 points to the possible 150 points in the admissions system for simply being a favored minority, is unconstitutional Good so far.

Then comes the confusion:

The court’s ruling Grutter v. Bollinger, basically re-affirms the Bakke ruling, which essentially is that race SHOULD be a factor when dealing with admissions. The ruling does go on to state that yes, the policy does, in fact “reaffirm the Law School’s longstanding commitment to one particular type of diversity,” That is to say, it engages in racial bias. Not only that, but racial bias that is subjective, arbitrary, and subject to the bias of those running the program. (I would defy anyone to tell me that this description doesn’t capture the situation in Alabama back in the 50’s…. )

So much for Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream that we will “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This ruiling cuts that idea off at the knees.

So much for Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson saying “The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color.”

So much for the Civil rights act of 1964.

And, for that matter, so much for the 14th amendment.

Worse, it appears that the Court’s defacto overturning of these ideals was intended to fix a problem that did not exist… There has never been documented discrimination that has ever surfaced at the University of Michigan as regards admissions. Not one. As a matter of fact, because of the policy that was being defended by the school, Black students were 170 times more likely than whites to be admitted to the Ann Arbor school. The Court however, ignored this point, and claimed
it’s ruling to be acting on the basis of the “compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”

Well, I have two arguments against this as a basis.

*Such an interest is by no means a constitutional argument, but rather, a political argument… and a short-term political argument at that. Even the key vote in this case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s declares, “…we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

One presumes that at such a point, the court will again be asked to rule, and will reverse its decision. For the sake of discussion, and examination, let’s assume the constitution remains fairly well static between now and then, as it has for much of it’s 200 plus years of life. If the need, much less the remedy, is a constitutional issue, how could such measures EVER NOT be needed?  Unless the constitution itself changes, something doesn’t change status from constitutional to
unconstitutional and back again. These race-based initiatives are both illegal and unconstitutional. So to effect this ruling, we must ignore the Constitution.

So, the court figures maybe in 25 years (…. Or, maybe not… Justice Ginsburg reminds us we can’t accept a guarantee of the timing, here…) these measures won’t be needed anymore. Did we simply put the Constitution on “hold” for 25 years or more, until someone decides to start enforcing the Constitution? If so, what’s to guarantee we won’t disregard it again, at some need or other, and for less popular reasons?

Despite even that concern, this nonsense might be a little easier to accept if I thought for one hot second that in 25 years, or 2500 years, for that matter, that given this ruling, and these guidelines, racism would magically disappear altogether. I could even see an argument that it might be worth the sacrifice… if it showed any hope whatever of working as advertised. It doesn’t. This ruling is counter productive to that goal, and will not have that effect, which leads me to my second point:

**There is a major difference between mandating what we’ll call “RACIAL Diversity” and encouraging “TRUE Diversity”. “Racial diversity” simply means we have a lot of different races represented in a given sector of society. “True diversity” means that we have a lot of different styles of thinking, points of view, politics, ideation, etc. regardless of the race of each individual involved.

As such, I submit there is no compelling state or societal interest in mandating Racial Diversity per se’, in a racially neutral society, which we are supposedly striving to be.

Make no mistake from my comments; Diversity of thought… of ideas, or opinions is a fine goal… to be lauded and it constitutes the largest interest of the state. It should be pursued. Apparently that’s the goal being sought by the Court, when it seeks to force diversity by forcing racial diversity. I must give the court credit for keeping that goal in mind.

However, can the pursuit of that goal get tangled when we try to get there through mandated racial diversity? Can it get wrapped up in stereotypical nonsense? It appears so. Consider the comments of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in his dissent, cited the testimony of a former director of admissions at the UM Law School that when the question came up about whether Cubans should be counted as Hispanics, one professor objected on the grounds that Cubans were Republicans. Do you think Racial Equality was foremost on THAT gent’s mind, or was it pure, liberal-biased, stereotyping politics, base on race alone?

The Court in Bollinger seems to be working under the idea that they’ll get us to True Diversity, through mandating Racial Diversity. This is a flawed, possibly fatal path to the stated goals of True Diversity and our being a racially neutral society. Following this path in fact will reverse much of the good work done already toward the essential goal of making us a less race conscious, and more race-neutral nation, as the Constitution demands. Even the court itself, in Justice O’Conner’s writings, tacitly admits this.

This court-directed pursuit of True Diversity by means of counting the color of each nose going by the admissions gate in our schools, (and one presumes, other sectors of our society, as well) is based on the revolting assumption that a person’s race is in total control of their thought processes, opinions, and their ideas. Not only will I point out that such stereotyping is in fact racism, I say it is racism of a most ugly kind. It is one that should not be tolerated under ANY condition, least of which under the guise of ‘diversity’.

We fought a rather vicious war, about half a century back, against a group of people called Nazis, led by an idiot with a weird mustache who operated under that same racist idea, that race is at the center of one’s being, that ones thoughts, actions and ideas are all dependant on their race, and it’s purity. Re-applied here in the US, as the court seems to be allowing, here, this idea will at least lead down the road of racial stereotyping and increased racial consciousness.

The Law school ruling is particularly troubling in it’s inconsistency with the writings this week of the ruling’s principle author, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote on Thursday in Georgia vs. Ashcroft, that ” the court should be working to “…encourage the transition to a society where race no longer matters: a society where integration and color-blindness are not just qualities to be proud of, but are simple facts of life.”

Nice words, and commendable, and quite correct. Thing is, that stated goal is 180 degrees out of phase with the Bollinger ruling. Possibly it’s more accurate to suggest that the Bollinger ruling was off kilter with everything else.

One more point not too many people like talking about was brought forward by Justice Thomas, who cited Morehouse College, where lass than 1% of the student body was white, or Hispanic. “Do we have any sense”, Thomas argues, “that the traditionally black colleges will now start admitting more whites for the sake of diversity? ”

Thomas of course is correct. How, if at all, will this ruling change the racial balance situations in those places? Isn’t diversity equally valuable in those places? Rather makes one wonder about the value some place on this mandate of racial diversity.

Do not mistake my comments. I do not question the members of the court on their desire to get our society to a situation where racism doesn’t exist. Nor do I suggest that this is not a valid and worthy, and indeed, a vital goal. I do question, however using racism as a tool to fight racism, on logical, moral, AND constitutional grounds. I say again: Diversity of race for it’s own sake is racism, plain and simple.

Thurgood Marshall warned us about such things in Brown:

“Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.”

It angers me that this court has ignored that admonition. What angers me more is that also they ignored the advise of someone closer to the hearts of most Americans than Marshall… Namely, Frederick Douglass, a fellow Rochesterian, who addressed this point as well as any I can think of, even though the haze that 150 years of language difference can and does bring:

“What I ask for the Negro, is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice . . .. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!….. ..our interference is doing him positive injury.”

The court has once again, disregarded these pleas. All that’s left behind is more confusion, and more of the legal racism we’ve been trying to rid ourselves from since the middle 1800’s..

The court took these Michigan cases, supposedly to end the argument about the constitutionality of racial bias being applied to try and solve racial bias. (Irony abounds)

The answer to this issue was obvious, and the court missed it, trying to find shades of grey where they simply do not exist. Racism is, ironically, a black and white issue, as are most things, in the end. It’s either there, or it’s not. It’s either legal, or it’s not. We either support racism in our system of laws, or we don’t. A clear-cut ruling, reaffirming the dreams of Dr King, the pleas from Mr. Douglass, the advise of Justice Marshall, Justice Harlan, and the
law of the land in the form of the 14th amendment was what was needed. Instead, what we got flew in the face of all of that wisdom.

Americans of all races will suffer for that error.

Each week, the the gang on the Watcher’s Council puts up one of their posts for voting consideration and one non-council post, plus the Watcher submits two non-council posts if available. Here are this week’s entries.

Council links:

1. Don’t Throw the Chinese Baby Out With the Contaminated Bath Water
   The Glittering Eye
2. A Tragic Case
   Done With Mirrors
3. The Resilience of Olmert and Kadima
   Soccer Dad
4. “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” Review
   The Colossus of Rhodey
5. Happy Father’s Day To the “Dragon Slayer”
   ‘Okie’ on the Lam
6. The New York Times Spins Away
   Bookworm Room
7. Muslim And Christian? In One Body?
   Cheat Seeking Missiles
8. Yon On Baqouba
   Big Lizards
9. Gaza Becomes Hamastan, Part 2 — Clarity and an Opportunity
   Joshuapundit
10. Overstating a Problem
    Rhymes With Right
11. The Wanker of the Day: Principal Crackjob
    The Education Wonks
12. A Conversation With My Dead Father
    Right Wing Nut House

Non-council links:

1. Beware: Misleading Income Statistics Are Coming Your Way
   Back Talk
2. The American Left’s Silly Victim Complex
   Adbusters
3. Stacking the Deck Against Justice Thomas
   Pillage Idiot
4. But Sir, Which of the Candidates Actually Makes Sense?
   Kavips
5. Antisemitism and Anti-Americanism at the Venice Biennale
   Armavirumque
6. War Against Iran
   Somewhere On A1A…
7. Be Not Afraid
   Michael Yon
8. Pre-emptive Defeat
   Power Line
9. A French Lesson for America’s Grand Old Party
   American Enterprise Institute
10. Twenty Years Ago in Berlin, Seeing the Rally Against Reagan
    Gay Patriot
11. Rudy’s Very Bad Day
    Captain’s Quarters
12. Ron Paul Introduces Unprecedented Anti-Terrorism Bill
    Ace of Spades HQ
13. What Is Your Purpose Here, Senator Reid?
    BitsBlog
14. Dodgey Column: No Grumble Here
    Dodgeblogium

Yesterday, I made a comment with regards to the culpability of Jimmy Carter as regards our current troubles with Iran.  As you may imagine I managed to get some email commentary on that charge.  For the most part, the mails chided me for rendering such a verdict against so great a president.  Apparently, the people writing, have learned nothing from reading this site, over the years.  In any event, Michael Evans, in an OP/Ed piece in the Jerusalem Post, nails it down quite nicely ;

We just don’t get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Evans goes on at some length looking at Carter’s misguided liberal policies and their results the Islamic revolution in Iran, the subsequent Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (to which you will recall Carter’s response was to boycott the Olympics that year… Boy, I’ll bet that bothered the Soviets…) but for all that the patterns were there for everyone to see….

…. Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,” Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi (“the plague of Western culture”).

…

Carter’s belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy – and nothing but diplomacy – now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.

There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.

The lack of understanding of those points, is precisely why we are the situation we’re in today. I would urge you to read the entire article and keep it bookmarked, because I’m going to be referring back to it frequently.

Jimmy Carter is, in fact, the father of the Iranian revolution, and bears direct responsibility for current events in that region. As I said yesterday, the sad part of this is every time somebody takes Carter seriously, good people die.

With a big BBCT to the Jawa report,  I think you’ll find this of use: Just cut and paste this list. I think you know what else to do.

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; joe_o’[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; mike_o’[email protected]; michael_o’[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

I suppose that I should expect logical disconnects from Kevin Drum as simply being part of the game.  Part of the package.  Example:

It’s true that I wish Michael Moore were a wee bit more scrupulous with the facts in his films, but I sometimes wonder if he doesn’t insert random distortions into his movies deliberately. With rare exceptions, after all, they’re small things that could just as easily have been presented correctly without damaging his narrative at all. But the end result is the kind of publicity money can’t buy, and it’s the sweetest kind of publicity of all: the kind that’s subsidized by his enemies, who helpfully boost ticket sales by furiously denouncing his films for weeks on end.

So here we have Drum willing to accept at face value, Moore’s statements, lies and all, without question. Better, we have him on record as stating so, flatly.

With SiCKO, though, I’m willing to bet Moore mostly sticks to the facts

Ummmm Yeah, I suppose you would.

One suspects that this willingness is because it matches Mr. Drum’s political world view.  It’s less challenging for Mr. Drum to accept Mr. Moore, lies and all, at face value.  Easier than actual thought. Drum’s logic never quite makes it so far as to understand that if Moore is lying about THIS, he is far more likely to be lying about THAT. To come that understanding, would be to force oneself to admit that their world view is also a lie.

Given their demonstrated limited capacity for actual thought, would someone please explain to me why anyone takes either one of these two people seriously?

Mark Kirkorian at The Corner:

Sen. Lott is rapidly turning into a parody of himself. Yesterday, a Jackson, Miss., radio talk show host (you know, one of those people who are running America and have to be dealt with) and some other activists delivered a petition calling on the senator to stop supporting the amnesty bill. Here’s Lott’s response:

“To think you are going to intimidate a senator, any senator, that way,” he said, adding that he’s not influenced by those who’ve urged him to change his position.

Fine. Then, as Master Po said to the grasshopper:

” Time for you to leave”.

Marcia Kramer, reports:

(CBS) NEW YORK Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the Republican party and will remain unaffiliated with any political party, CBS 2 HD learned Tuesday night.

The move will clearly begin advancing rumors that the mayor is gearing towards a presidential run, which he has denied in the past.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the Republican party and will remain unaffiliated with any political party, CBS 2 HD learned Tuesday night.The move will clearly begin advancing rumors that the mayor is gearing towards a presidential run, which he has denied in the past.

Bloomberg only joined the Republican Party as a way to by-pass the crowded democrat primary for the NYC mayor’s race.  Easy come, easy go.  Don’t  let the door hit you on the way out.

… plus the vid, are all online at Townhall.com

It’s worth your time.

One of the best indications that your foreign policy is on track, is when Jimmy Carter complains loudly about it.  Such is the case, with his latest tirade:

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

First, Carter is without any question whatever the worst foreign policy president in this country’s history, period.

Second, where is he getting this idea that the west didn’t accept the election of Hamas? if I recall correctly, the very raisin that the United States stop sending money to “Palestine ” was because of the election of Hamas.

Thirdly, it should be pointed out that the Nazis were more organized than other groups of the time.  They also made the trains run on time.  Whether not that made them the best choice for a government… well, that’s perhaps another matter. Tyranny, after all, is by definition, organization.

Fourth, the question needs to be asked, how much money has been provided for Carter in support of his politics by pro Hamas Arabs?

Fifth; Carter refers to an election.  Carter has been brought in to supposedly oversee many elections.  If you look closely at the record, however, you may notice something; he approved of every one of them.  Every single one.  Apparently, as long as it’s an election, it doesn’t present a problem for Jimmy Carter. Particularly when such elections involve a terrorist group or were so obviously rigged that everybody but Jimmy Carter can see it.

Finally, let’s remember which president it was, that lost Iran in the first place. Do the numbers 444 mean anything to you, Jimmah?

The really sad part is, good people die, every time somebody takes this moron seriously.

Addendum: Michelle Malkin has lots more... a pretty good roundup.

• Third place at OTB’s Caption Contest. I dunno. Sometimes the picture connects with the weird side of me, and sometimes it doesn’t.
• I see Rasmussen has Fred topping Rudy for the first time… and Fred’s not even officially running, yet. McCain and Romney are distant third.  This should quell all the remaining speculation about the relative strength of Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate. I’m telling you, folks, there is a hunger out there for a conservative candidate, and the rest of the wannabes, simply don’t qualify.
• A huge BBCT to Blackfive, who celebrates their fourth year up and running, today.
• I suppose I can’t blame Drezner for looking at the Iran situation through an economic filter.  After all, that’s what he does, and he does it very well.  He also runs a blog still worthy of my daily reading. But at some point , concession is going to have to be made to the fact that that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running the Iranian economy into the ground, because economic matters are not his focus. As to what specifically is his focus, well, you’d have had to have been paying attention for the last couple of years, to make that determination. It’s that chant of “Death to America” the press has been ignoring/denying.
• Speaking of finances, it is said that college graduates as a rule earn more than their non graduating counterparts.  Never was that more true than in the case of the Duke lacrosse players who recently had a payday with the university.  I cannot imagine that is the end of it, however, there have got to be other civil suits going on in their immediate future.  These guys won’t have to be working, anytime soon.  And frankly, after what they went through, they deserve to be an easy street.
• VDH outdoes himself, today. …..My only quibble… and it’s a minor one: The word, Victor, is “culture”.
• Consider the statement: “I hate intolerance”.
• Michael Moore is more of an anal clog than I thought he was..  After claiming he didn’t mind people downloading his movie for free, it turns out he’s behind turning in such people as do as he suggests to the police.  All in the name of stopping “Internet piracy”.  What he doesn’t seem to be addressing is the question of whether not someone would actually pay to see that movie. I tend to doubt that they would have before, and they certainly aren’t going to do that now. The other thing he doesn’t seem to be addressing, His Rotundity himself encouraged people to download the movie. Based on that, prosecution would seem a little difficult.
• I am struck with the parallels and opposites… in Princess Diana, we had a rather nice looking blond lady…somebody who it was said belonged to all the people.  She died in a tunnel, in Paris.  On the other hand, we have a girl named Paris, a rather different shade of blond who is anything BUT a lady, and who apparently thought of herself as a princess, AND who has belonged to everybody at one time or another, and these days nobody would get caught dead in her tunnel. Opposite ends of the spectrum, I suppose.