politics : Duthie On...

The By Any Means Necessary strategy...don't let the people vote:

"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place. That's the only way we're going to win," said Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary.

There's something intensely wrong about groups that do not trust voters to decide issues, and it's no surprise that these groups are almost uniformly on the political left. Unlike most of her peers, Stern openly acknowledges that her preferred policy will fail at the ballot box, so the solution is to prevent that from happening. And in the process, they'll smear Ward Connerly, and assert that he's lying to petition signers:

"They ask people, 'Would you like to sign a petition to eliminate discrimination in Nebraska?'" Kramer said. "Well, gee, I don't know anybody who would be against that. It's such an offensive way to go about it."

Well, since the ballot initiatives that Connerly's group is pushing would "ban public agencies — including the University of Nebraska and state and local governments — from considering race, ethnicity or gender when hiring, selecting contractors or enrolling students" it seems to me that the question above is an entirely accurate way of putting it, which is why the bans are successful when put before voters. And also why folks like BAMN are terrified of them.

It is long past time that we stop using discrimination to right wrongs of the past. Affirmative action is discrimination that punishes the innocent, and does not help its purported beneficiaries. It is unjust, and it should end. Where racial or gender discrimination remains, let those guilty of it be punished under the law. But stop using discrimination to justify more discrimination, and lying and suppressing democratic action as a means of continuing an unjust policy.

Omaha.com Elections Section

Never mind that this guy wasn't elected, but is only governor because his predecessor had to resign in shame, nevermind that neither Paterson nor Spitzer ran on a promise to legalize gay marriage, and most of all, never mind asking the citizens of New York what they want:

David Paterson has unilaterally declared New York a gay-marriage-friendly state:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gay rights advocates had reason to celebrate on both coasts Thursday, with New York set to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and California preparing to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on June 17.

Hours after California issued a directive Wednesday authorizing that date, word came that New York Gov. David Paterson instructed state agencies — including those governing insurance and health care — to immediately change policies and regulations to recognize gay marriages.

Even if you're a supporter of gay marriage...is this really the way you want it implemented? By fiat? In a way that's almost guaranteed to generate far more opposition than if it was done through democratic means? I don't support gay marriage, but if the voters of New York or California, or wherever chose to implement that, that's their right in a federalist system. But in California (and other states before it) it's judges making the decisions, and now in NY it's the governor. What about the people? Don't they get a say in whether or not we completely redefine one of the bedrock institutions of society? Guess not.

The Corner on National Review Online

Wow. This post, on successful government reform in New Zealand, is remarkable and inspiring. If nothing else, it gives one hope that perhaps there will be at least some last bastion of liberty in the world if the libs have their way here in the U.S. Certainly, I'll have to put NZ on my list of places to visit soon.

A powerful indictment of CO2 restrictions as a means to combat "climate change":

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Read the whole thing, in particular the list of signatories, which includes several IPCC reviewers. Wonder why their opinions didn't make it into the Summary for Policymakers? Oh yeah, that's right, because the summary is written by policy wonks, not scientists, and the wonks are bound and determined to hype the so-called "climate crisis" at all costs. Yeah...OK.

Don't fight, adapt

Almost 4 full months to earn enough to pay your taxes...too much:

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Who would have predicted this:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Oh yeah, that's right...I did, almost a year ago:

So it seems to me that even granting the best possible assumptions for CFL supporters we are going to end up trading mercury emissions in US coal-fired plants for:

1. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-fired plants
2. Mercury pollution at CFL facilities in China
3. Mercury pollution in the US waste stream

This just doesn't seem like a wise trade-off to me.

The article notes:

As long as the mercury is contained in the bulb, CFLs are perfectly safe. But eventually, any bulbs — even CFLs — break or burn out, and most consumers simply throw them out in the trash, said Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University and editor of the journal Environmental Research.

“This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it,” she said.

Welcome to the party, folks.

Oh, and make sure to read the sidebar to the article, too, which contains the 11-step process the EPA recommends for cleanup after a CFL breaks. Thanks, but not in this house, at least not until the federal ban on incandescent bulbs kicks in.

One last thing...the article doesn't do the math, but here's an interesting quote:

Consumers bought more than 300 million CFLs last year, according to industry figures, but they may be simply trading one problem (low energy-efficiency) for another (hazardous materials by the millions of pounds going right into the earth).

Let's see...5 milligrams of mercury per bulb (.005 grams) x 300,000,000 bulbs is about 1.5 million grams of mercury, or 1,500 kilograms. That's one and a half tons of mercury that may potentially enter the waste stream or end up elsewhere in the environment. And that's before the federal ban on incandescent bulbs takes effect. That's a lot of mercury to trade for warming that may not even be happening anymore.

Shining a light on fluorescent bulbs - Environment- msnbc.com

There appears to be some enthusiasm for the idea of John McCain choosing Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate, to reach out to the GOP conservative base:

Even as the Democratic presidential contest seems to be morphing into Dr. Doolittle's mythical beast with a head at each end, the pushmi-pullyu, John McCain has the chance to make a leisurely choice of potential running mates. But he had better not wait too long.
The spectacle of a third of voters in the Republican primaries in Texas and Ohio voting for the doomed candidacy of Mike Huckabee suggests strongly that McCain still hasn't won over the base of the Republican Party. It's a question of trust, but verify. As Hillary Clinton says of Barack Obama, one speech does not make up for her experience as a housewife at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor can one speech by McCain at CPAC win over a disgruntled base of folks who may very well stay home, as they did for G.H.W. Bush the second time and for Bob Dole. The base is looking for action, not words.

That's why McCain's choice of vice presidential running mate can make or break his candidacy. The party's professional trunk-waving pachyderms and the beltway bozos who think that pragmatism will win the new day are already offering up a list of business-as-usual candidates. But pragmatism is not practical in the long run. There's Governor Whatshisname from one of those Ice Belt states that always seem to be ready to fall over the border into Canada. Then there's that other governor in Florida who, seizing the opportunity, endorsed McCain four days before the primary. Some are getting excited about Condoleezza Rice, who puts forward a pretty face even as she has done nothing but act as a front for the Foreign Service Corps establishment ever since she got the job.
No, this is the time for change, real change. This is a time for someone whom everybody knows to be the rising star of the GOP, the new governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

I disagree, at least in part because my priority isn't electing McCain, but preserving and promoting conservatism. Tapping Jindal as a running mate might well be a smart move for McCain, but it would probably be a bad move for Jindal, and for conservatism in general. Here's why. Given Jindal's remarkable early successes in pushing through significant ethics reforms in a two-week special session of the Louisiana legislature, there's good reason to believe that he may be able to demonstrate, through one of our "laboratories of democracy," the ability of conservative ideas to win, and to work. If Jindal jumps to run as VP to McCain, that potential is thrown away, and jumping ship so early in his term could undermine Jindal's ability to achieve similar successes later on, should the McCain/Jindal ticket fail in the general election.

Instead, Jindal should remain in Louisiana, and rack up as many conservative success stories as possible. Should McCain win in the general, it's possible that he might choose to step down after one term, in which case Jindal would be well-positioned for a GOP run in 2012. Similarly, if Clinton wins in the general, Jindal would be positioned to challenge in 2012. In either case, the experience of a nearly full term as governor of a southern state, and one in desperate need of reform, would serve Jindal far better in my opinion than four years as veep.

And even if McCain won and chose to run again in 2012 Jindal is young enough, at 36, to bide his time and build more experience and success as a governor.

Lucier is correct to call Jindal a "rising star of the GOP." It would be a shame to slow that rise by chaining him to McCain.

The American Spectator via the Wall Street Journal

So the Pentagon released a report that says, among other things:

One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam’s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s “coercion” toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and “outreach programs” for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

The New York Times headline, meanwhile, says of the report:

Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie

Of course, the first line of the article qualifies the headline significantly:

There was no direct operational connection between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda before the war in Iraq, says a Pentagon-sponsored study.

The study, meanwhile, found clear connections between Saddam Hussein's IIS security organization and, among others, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was run by none other than al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Seems appropriate somehow for the media to be in such denial about the truth of Saddam's support for terrorists, given that denial's not just a river in Egypt.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon Update: What it means

I love this campaign spot, by Kerry's Republican opponent. He doesn't have a chance, but ya gotta like the guy's style:

If only this were true...certainly the least we could do to welcome him:

Only Scrappleface, Alas   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Report: Ahmadinejad Tasered at Columbia University

by Scott Ott

(2007-09-24) — Columbia University promised a full investigation into charges of police brutality after today’s reported Tasering of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had come to the Ivy League school to give the annual Adolph Hitler Memorial Peace and Tolerance Lecture.

Like a similar incident at the University of Florida last week, the stun-gun assault by police followed a lengthy anti-American rant by the alleged victim, and was immediately condemned by civil rights advocates.

According to eyewitnesses, Mr. Ahmadinejad was dragged from the room shouting: “Do not make to Tase myself, slang brother man.”

It was not immediately known whether the victim was legitimately attempting to exercise his freedom of speech or if, as one unnamed witness said, “he’s little more than a publicity hound and prankster who will do anything to get news coverage.”

The Corner on National Review Online

OK, it was bad enough when the threat was lead paint in kids' toys...now this: 

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Beijing factory recycled used chopsticks and sold up to 100,000 pairs a day without any form of disinfection, a newspaper said on Wednesday, the latest is a string of food and product safety scares.

Counterfeit, shoddy and dangerous products are widespread in China, whose exports have been rocked in recent months by a spate of safety scandals, ranging from pet food to medicine, tires, toothpaste and toys.

Officials raided the factory and seized about half a million pairs of recycled disposable bamboo chopsticks and a packaging machine, the Beijing News said.

As I've said before...it's not that this comes as a shock to me, though you can be sure I'll stick with my own utensils from now on...it's that I'm surprised that it's taking us so long to realize just how problematic Chinese goods are.

And it's worse than just potentially contaminated chopsticks, lead-coated toys, or poisoned toothpaste. Part of every dollar spent on Chinese goods ends up in the hands of the Communist government, which is busy building up its military to confront...well, it's not as though they have any major adversaries in Asia, so I wonder who they are preparing to confront.

Since geopolitical reasons haven't been enough to convince most Americans to avoid Chinese goods, I wonder if a wave of product recalls will be. My guess is that these will soon be forgotten, in the pursuit of cheaper goods.

Now dirty chopsticks picked up in China scare - washingtonpost.com

James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been a major critic of the Bush administration's response to global warming. Hansen has repeatedly claimed that he's being silenced for his outspoken views on the subject. Given that he's not an official spokesman for the government on climate change, it's not surprising that his public assertions that climate change is man-made and heading towards a point of no return would be viewed by the administration as unacceptable freelancing, not to mention scientifically dubious.

Now comes evidence that Hansen was, to be charitable, relying on data that was incorrect at best:

Last week's revelation by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre of a serious mistake and subsequent changes made by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the temperature history of America has created quite a debate in the new media.

While conservative bloggers were quick to point out the hypocrisy regarding the lack of an official announcement from GISS chief James Hansen as well as the possible significance to the entire global warming debate, alarmists such as RealClimate and TNR's The Plank viewed McIntyre's discovery and GISS's alterations less than earth shattering.

Is anyone at all surprised that Hansen has failed to make the same amount of noise about the errors by GISS, given that they tend to undermine his alarmist views? Or that the media has largely ignored the story? No one should be...it's just more evidence that climate change isn't about science, and making sure we have the best evidence. It's about politics, and burying any story that doesn't serve the preordained end.

Much more here.

How Important Was NASA’s Change to Historical Climate Data Last Week? | NewsBusters.org

OK, so perhaps I'm not as funny as the Dell Dude (assuming he was ever funny), but this one strikes me as an idea that only he could love.

I was browsing around Dell's website today, checking out the cost of some new desktop hardware, just for curiosity, more than anything else, when I came upon what I can only describe as the enviro-nut section of the build process.

In the services section of the website (see the image below), you now have the ability to have Dell (for a fee, of course) plant a tree for you to offset the CO2 emissions of your new PC.

They call it "Select my Plant A Tree." I call it, "let's buy into enviro-voodoo."

But hey, I suppose if people want to give Dell an extra $2-4 to make themselves feel better about buying a new PC, who am I to object. Apart from the fact that there are growing concerns that offsets may, in fact, lead to higher emissions of CO2, in part by making people feel less guilty about consuming electricity and burning fossil fuels.

It's probably not enough to stop me buying a Dell...they make good machines, and after all, the "service" is optional.

But it would be nice if there was some corporation in America willing to stand up and say "wait a minute! How about we work from facts here!"

What's especially amusing about this, IMO, is the fact that it's not as though consumers are beating the doors down demanding this, at least not if the turnout and viewership for Live Earth was any indication. Instead, this seems to be yet another example of top-down elitism...our corporate betters trying to tell us how we should live.

Thanks all the same...I'd rather have the Dell without the guilt...or the offsets.

There's an funny line that goes something to the effect of "Gravity: It's not just a good idea...it's the law." While there's nothing funny about the story below, it does illustrate the fact that unintended consequences are as hard to escape as gravity:

TWO decades ago, in an effort to curb domestic violence, states began passing “mandatory arrest” laws. Police officers responding to a call for help would no longer need to determine whether one person was truly violent or out of control; every time someone reported abuse, the police would simply be required to make an arrest.

It seemed like a good tactic — at least to people who work with victims of domestic violence. (Police officers tended to be less enthusiastic, because they prefer to make arrests at their own discretion.) Arrests would immediately stop the violence and might discourage abusers from further acts of abuse.

But 20 years later, it seems the mandatory arrest laws are having an unintended, deadly side effect. The number of murders committed by intimate partners is now significantly higher in states with mandatory arrest laws than it is in other states.

Maybe if lawmakers were actually occasionally affected by the legislation they enacted (apart from profiting from it, that is), they might pay more attention to the law of unintended consequences. Oftentimes, these kinds of consequences are predictable to anyone who understands the basics of how incentives work, and takes the time to consider what incentives are set up by a given legislative act.

I remain convinced that one of the reasons that the founders of this country attempted to make it hard for Congress to pass legislation, and easy for the President to veto their efforts, is because they well understood the harm possible when people who wish to be seen as "doing good" don't bother to find out whether the actual outcome is anything like what they promised.

The Protection Battered Spouses Don’t Need - New York Times via The Corner

OK, so when you've failed to convince Rolling Stone that a favorite liberal solution is a good thing, you've got a real problem (WARNING: article contains some strong language):

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn.

Of course, author Jeff Goodell, who goes on to describe ethanol hype as "dangerous, delusional bullshit" is right on target. Ethanol is more expensive than gasoline, less efficient, and has the nasty side effect of raising prices for everything that depends on corn, which includes dairy products, meat, and oh, yes, corn tortillas, which are a staple of poor Mexicans, who are likely to suffer greatly from this pork being larded out to American corn farmers.

Read the whole thing.

Ethanol Scam: Ethanol Hurts the Environment And Is One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles : Rolling Stone

Apparently Barak Obama has figured out how to win the war on terrorism:

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

OK, so we'll invade Pakistan, which has been comparatively cooperative in the war against terrorism, but Iran, which is one of the major sponsors of terrorism worldwide, gets face-to-face talks? Sure, I guess that makes sense in Democrat fantasyland.

Good luck with that, Obama.

Obama might send troops into Pakistan - Yahoo! News

Saudis attempting to silence critics who claim they're funding terrorism in the name of charity? Sounds like it:

Here’s a story with huge implications for freedom of speech (all negative), and it’s apparently gone almost entirely unreported in the mainstream press. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required), under threat of a law suit, Cambridge University Press has just agreed to pulp all unsold copies of the 2006 book, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World. According to the Chronicle, this is the fourth such book on terrorism funding to be pursued by a libel action. The Chronicle quotes Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, whose own book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed–and How to Stop It is one of the four books.

In an interview on Monday, Ms. Ehrenfeld characterized as "despicable" Cambridge's decision to settle this week, a move the press has defended as necessary and just. Ms. Ehrenfeld, who is a friend of Mr. Burr's [one of the authors of Alms for Jihad], said that, as she understands it, press officials "caved immediately."

"They didn't even consider the evidence that the authors had given them," she said. "They received a threatening letter, and they immediately caved in and said, Do whatever it takes. Pay them whatever they want. Ban the book, destroy the book, we don't want this lawsuit."

Very disturbing to see publishing houses just rolling over in the face of these suits.

Read the whole thing.

More here.

The Corner on National Review Online

So The New Republic's anonymous correspondent from Iraq is no longer anonymous:

My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Neither Beauchamp's letter, nor TNR's accompanying statement, resolves the basic issue of credibility, however. Yes, it demonstrates that the correspondent is indeed a soldier serving in Iraq. But it does nothing to address the numerous questions about his reporting, including:

• The expert statements that driving a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the way described by Beauchamp is essentially impossible
• The description, by Beauchamp, of a situation requiring soldiers to change a flat tire in a river of sewage, despite the fact that the only vehicles used by the military that have tires use run-flat tires so that they can be driven out of harm's way if necessary. One could be forgiven for assuming that any soldier would drive out of the sewage on the run-flat tire rather than change it in the muck.
• Beauchamp's description of a 9mm "shell casing" "with a square back," followed by a claim that only Glocks use such casings, and only the Iraqi police use Glocks. Not only has the existence of "square back" 9mm casings been widely disputed, but the notion that only the Iraqi police use Glocks doesn't pass the laugh test.

Perhaps even more importantly, Beauchamp doesn't address, nor does TNR ask him to, whether or not he reported the events he "witnessed" to the appropriate authorities. If he did not, why not? This question also goes unanswered. And given that most of his accounts have him participating in some of the abhorrent behavior he describes, why would we trust his account to be accurate? Someone willing to describe himself taunting and insulting a disfigured victim of an IED attack is hardly someone whose character I'd be willing to rely on.

So great, now we have an actual name...which should help resolve at least some of the questions above, since now other media outlets will be able to find and talk to his comrades-in-arms. And until we hear from them, it seems to me that it's a little early to be simply taking TNR or Beauchamp at their word that these stories are true.

The Plank via NRO Media Blog

So how hard was this to predict:

ALBANY, July 23 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s aides, including one of his closest advisers, improperly used the State Police to gather information about the governor’s chief rival, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about Mr. Bruno and damage him politically, according to a report on Monday by the attorney general’s office.

Spitzer aides, chiefly his communications director, Darren Dopp, concocted a false story for why the information was being gathered, saying the governor’s office acted after receiving a press request seeking details of Mr. Bruno’s use of state aircraft, the report said.

...

And fallout from the report may endanger central elements of the agenda that Mr. Spitzer laid out at the beginning of his term. On Monday, some Republican officials signaled their intent to revisit a deal struck with the governor last week to overhaul the state’s campaign finance laws.

At a somber news conference Monday that had the air of a cross-examination — with Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, in the unaccustomed role of defendant — the governor insisted that he knew nothing about the effort to damage Mr. Bruno, a Republican.

It's no surprise that Spitzer, famous for his by any means necessary style as Attorney General would use whatever power at his disposal to attack his political opponents. Nor is it surprising that he would seek to avoid responsibility by blaming aides for the misconduct. What's surprising is that anyone believes him.

And kudos to the NYT for reporting on this. Although I'm not a big fan of the Times, and continue to believe that they spend an inordinate amount of ink carrying water for Democrats, it's important that they're covering this story.

Spitzer Aides Cited for Use of Police to Tarnish Bruno - New York Times

Apparently, the U.N.'s idea of punishment for sex abuse by its peacekeepers is to send them home:

ABIDJAN, Cote d'Ivoire (Reuters) -- The United Nations said on Saturday it had suspended a Moroccan military contingent from its peacekeeping mission in Cote d'Ivoire while it investigated allegations of widespread sexual abuse.

"It means they don't participate in our operations," said Hamadoun Toure, spokesman for the U.N. mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ONUCI). "Those who are found guilty will be sent back home."

I suppose that beats allowing them to continue to sexually abuse those they are supposed to be protecting, but it's pretty typical of the U.N. to be too busy attacking the U.S. or Israel to be able to do anything serious about fraud and abuse in its ranks.

U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges - CNN.com

Or so says Barak Obama, while fishing for support from a group whose name translates as "The Race". But of course, they're not racist...no:

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — Sen. Barack Obama told the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group yesterday that he earned their support for his presidential campaign by marching in last year's May 1 immigrant rallies and challenged them to learn whether others met that standard.

"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked," Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach. "I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences."

The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

Of course, his primary opponent, the former First Lady, was no better:

In remarks during a morning brunch, Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate.

The only venom I've seen lately is from proponents of open borders (both Democrats and Republicans) accusing those who want to see our existing laws enforced of racism. I've said repeatedly, both publicly and privately, that I am in favor of immigration. And I have no problem whatsoever with hard-working immigrants, Hispanic or otherwise, who come to this country legally. But we must have control over who comes here, and have an orderly process. Simply allowing anyone who wants to to traipse across the border (or overstay a visa), and then every few years call a "do-over" with the latest amnesty is unworkable.

The reason we're in the mess we're in currently is because of the 1986 amnesty bill, which encouraged millions more to enter this country illegally, while we showed no will whatsoever to enforce the parts of the 1986 bill that were supposed to secure the border and make it harder to work illegally. That Obama and Clinton wanted to pass a bill that will do much the same as the 1986 amnesty -- give a free pass to millions who've broken our laws, and provide lip service to enforcement -- tells you everything you need to know about their motivation...they're looking for more votes, pure and simple, and they don't care if they have to import them illegally.

Obama solicits La Raza backing - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper via The Corner

If you haven't been keeping up with it, the New Republic is under fire for some stories that they published by "Scott Thomas," who's supposedly a soldier serving in Baghdad. Thomas recently wrote a piece called "Shock Troops" that described soldiers engaging in a variety of abhorrent behavior, from mocking a woman disfigured by an IED, to running down dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb has kept an impressive roll call of the soldiers and bloggers calling BS on various parts of the story. One of the things he notes:

The blog at the American Spectator has some great stuff on "Shock Troops." John Tabin finds more suspect information in a previous story by "Scott Thomas". In his second piece for the New Republic titled "Dead of Night," "Thomas" had written,

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Now I won't claim to be a firearms expert by any means, but it just so happens that I fired a Glock 9mm not two weeks ago at a pistol range, and unless my eyesight is completely busted, the shell casings were round. Given that I reloaded the magazine several times in a row, I'm pretty sure that's the case. Now I suppose it's possible that the Glock 9mm I rented was the round casing model, while the range keeps the square casing model for the more regular customers, but does anyone think that's the likeliest explanation?

The silence from TNR management, particularly given their past experiences with their staff making stuff up, is deafening.

The Weekly Standard

Andy McCarthy on the Iraq war and the surge:

That's why I get so disheartened when I hear the president talk this nonsense about the universality of freedom.  If the surge is just about Iraqi freedom, we shouldn't be doing it.  The American people don't care what form of government Iraq has — not enough to fight a war over it.  They care about defeating enemies who threaten the United States, and the president has never made the case — nor do I think he could — that American national security is materially affected by whether Iraq remains Iraq as we know it, whether it is democratic, or whether the Shiites and Sunnis — despite knowing they are being played by al Qaeda — decide they nonetheless need to slaughter each other in order to somehow vindicate Allah the Merciful and the Compassionate.

and

Until we finally decide to do what obviously needs doing, the overall war can't be won.  But if we have no intention of doing what needs doing, then it pointless to go on.  That is why regular Americans — not the media and the Left, but regular Americans — have not gotten four-square behind the surge.  If we are not committed to REAL victory, meaning defeating this enemy—which is far from limited to the Iraqi insurgency and includes Iran and al Qaeda's new safe-haven on the Pakistani/Afghan border — then that's slow-motion defeat.  If we're for slow-motion defeat, we should stop belittling the people who are ready to sign off on defeat now.  I don't think we are for slow-motion defeat.  But that means we've got to start demanding a plan to win the whole thing, not just to avoid losing in the Iraq theater.

I think he's mostly on-target here. Bush has chosen, over and over again, to make the case for the Iraq war in a Wilsonian, "save the Iraqis" fashion, perhaps in an attempt (albeit a hopeless one, IMO) to win over the left. In the meantime, by not making the conservative argument (kill our enemies), and by fighting with half-measures, and largely ignoring the provocations and outright acts of war against us being committed by Iran, the President has signaled to the right that he is not serious about winning, which has lost him support on the right.

I hope that as a country we will commit ourselves to winning the war against radical Islamic terrorists, and preferably before another major attack on our homeland. But like McCarthy, I'm not entirely confident that's what will happen.

The Corner on National Review Online

What is it with Al Gore...I mean, I've come to expect that he does not live by the conservationist message he preaches to the rest of us peons, but you'd think he would be at least a tiny bit embarrassed by all the attention:

ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter's wedding in Beverly Hills.

Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Also known as Patagonian toothfish, the species is under pressure from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities in the Southern Ocean, jeopardising the sustainability of remaining stocks.

Of course, that would assume that Al Gore has any capacity for embarrassment, which seems unlikely.

UPDATE: According to this article, the Chilean sea bass in question was from "one of the world's few well-managed, sustainable populations of toothfish, and caught and documented in compliance with Marine Stewardship Council regulations." Duly noted. So on this particular charge of hypocrisy, it looks like Al may be off the hook, so to speak.

Gore's message loses bite | The Daily Telegraph

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty on the decision to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling overturning the D.C. handgun ban:

"We have made the determination that this law can and should be defended and we are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents," Fenty said in a press release. "Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

Someone should remind Mayor Fenty of a couple of things...one, the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, making an outright ban rather difficult to defend, despite Fenty's assertion to the contrary, and two, the District's rather sorry record of protecting the city's residents from being murdered by...three guesses, and the first two don't count...handguns!

Of course, the timing of the appeal makes one wonder even more about the veracity of the recent Washington Post story I blogged about in which an upscale dinner party defended itself from an armed attacker with wine, cheese, and hugs.

Mayor To Appeal Gun Ban Ruling - News Story - WRC | Washington

Bob Novak:

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

So now that the columnist whose column began the whole sordid affair that has resulted in the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby has publicly acknowledged what we've all known to be the truth for months, namely that Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby, leaked Plame's name, and did so in a meeting that was scheduled before Joe Wilson's Times op-ed criticizing the administration appeared, can we expect the Left to drop the baseless assertion that Plame was outed by the Bush administration to punish Wilson?

Of course not...because this was never about the truth. It was about attempting to destroy the Bush administration at any cost. Never mind that the cost increasingly appears to be defeat in Iraq (a defeat that was not inevitable), if the democrats have their way, and possibly defeat in the war on terror. If that's the way it truly shakes out, the price Libby is paying for the left's obsessive Bush Derangement Syndrome is nothing compared to the price the country will likely pay in the future, in lives lost to Islamist terrorism.

CIA leak: Now it can be told :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

This, sent by a friend, is just a hoot:

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out.

OK, so let me get this straight...the globe is warming, and that's causing it to get colder and snow in Johannesburg? Anyone care to offer a scientific explanation of how that phenomenon works?

I think it's just the curse of the Goreacle. Wherever he goes, it gets cold and snows, particularly where he's going to pontificate about climate change. Perhaps, since he was in DC this week, the curse affected Jo-Burg instead, since it's still part of his big concert extravaganza.

But it couldn't be that the low turn-out had to do with people not being especially interested in being hectored about their carbon footprint by a bunch of celebs who's energy consumption easily dwarfs that of most average folks. Nah!

UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT

Gore goes on a tear in the usual vein at the DC Live Earth show:

"Some who don't understand what is now at stake tried to stop this event on the Mall," the former Democratic presidential candidate said in a thinly veiled hit on members of President George W. Bush's Republican party.

"But here we are," he said as an image of a bright Earth shined behind him. "And it wasn't the cavalry who came to our rescue, it was the American Indian."

Um...no, it wasn't. It was a bunch of libs at one of the Smithsonian museums...not the same thing, Al.

Oh, and you say you didn't know there was a DC Live Earth show? Well, apparently you're not alone:

A few hundred spectators turned out for the concert, which began at 10:30 am (1430 GMT).

I wonder how much carbon per attendee that works out to? Too darn funny.

Al Gore slams global warming doubters at Live Earth

Once again, anti-poverty-crusader John Edwards is in the news for his largesse on his locks...this time having spent as much as $1,250 for a single cut:

For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

The most obnoxious part of the whole haircut thing is Edwards' steadfast refusal to accept any responsibility for making decisions that seem rather incongruous for someone who's claimed eliminating poverty as one of his main campaign themes. For example, there's this from the story:

Asked for a comment, the Edwards campaign said this week that Edwards had arranged for the stylist to give him numerous cuts over the past four years. But it said that a personal assistant handled paying for the haircuts and that Edwards didn't realize how much they cost.

"Breaking news -- John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts."

So it's someone else's fault that the campaign spent enough on Edwards' hair to feed several families for a year? Please. Part of the reason that there's as much political fallout over this is because of statements like the above, which demonstrate that Edwards has no desire to accept responsibility for even small embarrassments...given that, why would anyone trust him with the responsibility of the Presidency?

Seems to me that Edwards could get a lot of mileage out of a few appearances at Hair Cuttery, or better yet, he should just show up at the local barber shop wherever he is when he needs a trim. Heck, it might even make him seem a bit more manly, using a barber instead of a stylist.

Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story - washingtonpost.com

You gotta figure Al's not thrilled with this, three days before the Live Earth carbon orgy:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Maybe, instead of trying to "save the earth" and tell all us rubes how to live our lives, AlGore should try spending a little more time being a father. Then perhaps Al III wouldn't feel quite such a strong need to act out. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that the above is a cry for help. It's easy to see the humor in this regarding Al II's crusading, but on some level you have to feel pity for Al III...it has to suck having a father who appears to be more concerned with the planet (or at least with his own political ambitions and reputation, since that's what this is all really about) than with his own son.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car | U.S. | Reuters

The Times editorializes on the President's commutation of Libby's jail sentence: 

Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to federal agents investigating the leak of the name of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson. Mrs. Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to investigate a central claim in Mr. Bush's drive to war with Iraq whether Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa. Mr. Wilson concluded that Iraq had not done that and had the temerity to share those conclusions with the American public.

It seems clear from the record that Vice President *** Cheney organized a campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Libby, who was Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, was willing to lie to protect his boss.

Read the whole thing...mostly to verify that not once does the Times mention Richard Armitage, the person who actually leaked Plame's identity. One assumes this is because that would make the theory that Libby was lying to protect Cheney look rather silly. Given that it wasn't Cheney's people who leaked Plame's identity, the whole whackjob conspiracy theory that her identity was leaked to "punish" Joe Wilson sort of falls apart.

Soft on Crime - New York Times

John Fund: 

Last week a federal district judge found direct evidence that the political machine in Noxubee County, Miss., had discriminated against voters with the intent to infringe their rights and that "these abuses have been racially motivated."

Among the abuses catalogued by Judge Tom Lee were the paying of notaries public to visit voters and illegally mark their absentee ballots, manipulation of the registration rolls, importation of illegal candidates to run for county office, and publication of a list of voters, classified by race, who might have their ballots challenged. The judge criticized state political officials for being "remiss" in addressing the abuses. The U.S. Justice Department, which sued Noxubee officials under the Voting Rights Act, has called conditions there "the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the [department's] Voting Section in decades."

Explosive stuff, so why haven't you heard about it? Because the Noxubee case doesn't fit the media stereotype for voting rights abuses. The local political machine is run by Ike Brown, a twice-convicted felon. Mr. Brown is black, and the voters who were discriminated against were white.

Judge Lee concluded that Mr. Brown retained his power "by whatever means were necessary." According to the judge, Mr. Brown believed that "blacks, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of whites." (Whites are 30% of the county's 12,500 people, but only two of the 26 elected county officials.) Judge Lee also criticized top officials of the state Democratic Party for "failing to take action to rectify [Mr. Brown's] abuses."

Good thing OpinionJournal covers stuff like this...you know it won't show up in the NYT or the Post.

OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail

via Instapundit

James M. Taylor:

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

Read the whole thing for a short list of just some of the fibs in "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient indeed.

Source: Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views

 Iain Murray observes, regarding the foiled London car bomb:

James Forsyth of The Spectator has an important comment:

One of the great delusions of our time is that once Blair, in the UK case, and Bush, in the American one, stepped down from office the terrorist threat would disappear. The news that a car bomb attack was foiled in London last night illustrates just how wrong this belief was. Although, the fact that the vast bulk of planning for the 9/11 attacks was done during the Clinton presidency should have shown people how wrong-headed this idea was in the first place.

Even George Galloway might have difficulty pointing to this attempted outrage as down to Brown's close relationship with the USA. Probably won't stop them trying, though.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the recent knighting of Salman Rushdie as a possible motivation. Granted, the planning for this attack may have started before that, but what the Islamist reaction to the Rushdie case highlights is the fact that it's not about US/UK relations, nor about our policies in the Middle East. The only way to satisfy the Islamists' demands would be to surrender entirely to what they want. Because even if we pulled out of the Middle East entirely, and abandoned Israel completely, there would still be things that we do that would cause outrage among the Islamists, and they would still use that as an excuse for their desire to conquer us all.

Source: The Corner on National Review Online

UPDATE: Looks like I was right. According to ThisIsLondon (H/T Stanley Kurtz), a posting on a jihadist website that preceded the attacks used the knighting of Rushdie as one of the justifications for the attacks. No surprise, as any excuse is a good excuse for these murderers.

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to evoke sympathy: 

Mexican illegal immigrant Jose Madrid, 28, said he has been unable to find a construction job over the past six weeks because of the crackdown, and hasn't been able to send money to his parents and his 7-year-old son back home.

"We immigrants, we are leaving Panama City. People are afraid they will be deported," he said. "The companies don't want to hire illegal people. Now they're only hiring those with papers."

But while I'm sorry to see anyone suffer unnecessarily, I have little sympathy for the complaints of someone who came to this country illegally. The United States simply cannot provide for or solve all the world's problems, particularly not by ignoring our existing immigration laws.

The fact that one sheriff in Florida is fed up and trying to do something, particularly in the face of the disgusting and undemocratic maneuverings as the Senate attempts to ramrod an amnesty bill through Congress, despite overwhelming evidence that few in the country support it, is pretty amazing. Even more so is that given the comments above, it's effective, and being reported as such.

Just imagine if the feds actually got in on the enforcement business...

Source: My Way News - Fla. Sheriff Targets Illegals

Read that last line twice...and the next time someone tells you how ethanol is necessary to combat global warming and save the world's poor from its ill effects, ask them what they're planning to do about the poor who rely on corn as a food staple, who can no longer afford it.

MORE ON WHY ETHANOL FUEL is probably a bad idea:

Congress evidently believes that American energy independence depends, in part, on turning massive quantities of food into fuel. The energy bill being debated in the Senate would mandate that 36 billion gallons of ethanol be produced for transport fuel by 2020. President Bush is more or less on board since he proposed a 35 billion gallon mandate in his last State of the Union speech. This is on top of the 2005 requirement that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be produced by 2012. Almost one-third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to produce ethanol in 2012.

Some energy hawks might argue that breaking our dependence on foreign oil is worth higher food prices. After all, on average Americans spend about 10 percent of their incomes on groceries. Doubling that would bring us back to the good old days of the 1950s when families spent about 20 percent of their incomes on food. Doubled food prices would not mean mass starvation for Americans. However, our biofuels frenzy will not only starve oil despots of cash, but it could end up literally starving millions in poor countries.

As far as I can tell, food-based ethanol is just liquid pork. Nonetheless, the idea will probably get traction, because: "the world's poor do not participate in Iowa's presidential caucuses."

Source: Instapundit.com

As an American of Scots descent who was married in a kilt, this makes me both angry and sad. How far one of the cradles of western civilization and freedom has fallen:

Kilt wearers could face prosecution if they do not have a licence for their sporran under new legislation which has been introduced in Scotland.

The laws are designed to protect endangered species like badgers and otters, whose fur used to be favoured by sporran makers.

What's really disturbing is the government officials who think nothing of threatening to take people's possessions if they do not obtain the new license, even though their possessions may be perfectly legal:

A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said the new rules had been put in place to bring Scotland into line with existing European legislation designed to protect vulnerable species.

"The licence will allow people who possess artefacts made from these species in circumstances compliant with earlier laws to keep them," she said.

"This could be family heirlooms of various descriptions.

"Having a licence for such an artefact, proving it was obtained legally, will ensure they will not be prosecuted or have it taken from them under the new regulations."

Perhaps we can start selling some new bumper stickers:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Sporran wearers may need licence

This covers it about as well as I've seen:

Regarding immigration like a crime problem is the succinct answer to the comprehensive-reform crowd's best rhetorical device:  The searing question, What are you going to do about 12 million people?  The answer is:  The same thing I do about the millions of drug felonies that happen yearly. 

I don't expect to deal with every one, much as I might like to.  I don't have the resources and the public would not support such a sweeping program.  So, I am going to go after the low-hanging fruit (smugglers and felons who are apprehended by federal state and local authorities violating criminal laws), I am going to deal aggressively with the root of the problem (the employers who knowingly hire illegals — if I had my druthers, I would also address access to public welfare services and too-easy citizenship qualification, but that is probably too much to ask).  And I am going to strengthen my border and external enforcement to try to prevent the flow from getting here in the first place. 

But as for the rest, I am going to tolerate their law-breaking — not approve it or give it amnesty, but grudgingly tolerate it — as I do with the gazillion instances of people who use illegal drugs.  I am going to make life difficult for them; I am going to round up the occasional bunch of them so they don't get too comfortable in their law-breaking; and I am going to encourage other measures (analogous to drug testing in schools and certain industries) which, short of arrest, discourage the behavior.  But I am going to realistically accept that I can't, and don't want to, round-up every offender.  Illegal immigration is a crime problem to be managed and reduced, not exterminated.

Remember that...we don't need to round up and deport 12 million illegals, any more than we round up and jail every criminal in the U.S. We do the best we can with the resources available, and consistent with our notion of liberty, and we do so in the knowledge that while we can't catch all criminals, the ones we do catch and punish provide a disincentive to the rest.

Source: The Corner on National Review Online

OK, so perhaps that isn't an exact quote, but he certainly seems to be a fan, and views them as having won a "democratic mandate" to lead. This should come as no surprise for Carter, who's never met an anti-American thug he didn't like, but what's remarkable is Carter being so open about supporting a terrorist organization supported by Iran:

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas