...in his latest "Talking Points Memo":

"In Sunday's Times, editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at a Fuddrucker's restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.

"Now apparently The Times isn't real concerned about Muslim guys allegedly trying to set up another 9/11. On page one of Sunday's New York Times was this story: some poor people in India making bricks....

"...The good news here is that most Americans in both parties understand that Muslim extremists want to kill us and will if they get the chance. So John Edwards looks dopey. The New York Times looks dishonest. And the far left loses all day long, which of course is a good thing.

"What is not a good thing is the press using its power to help a political party in its news pages. That is corrupt."

But...

It's almost as if O'Reilly doesn't go far enough.  Is this really just "far-left" thinking?  Or is it mainstream Democratic thought?  When, out of the eight Democratic candidates for president of this country, seven (save Joe Biden) support limiting at best or eliminating at most our military funding...does that mean that O'Reilly thinks that seven of the eight candidates are "far-left"?

Because they aren't taking threats against our country very seriously - just like the New York Times.

And, just like the New York Times, all these Democratic candidates sit and wait for the Bush administration to fail to pounce on another political opportunity.

O'Reilly may say "far-left" to appear "fair and balanced."

But let's be honest instead...

Michael Graham thinks Hillary won - essentially because she spoke less, and sounded less dense than, say, Obama:

"By the way, where is this engaging, inspiring Barack Obama we keep hearing about? He has yet to show up for any of the debates. Conservatives have long insisted that politics isn't such a tough job, that a lack of 'inside the Beltway' experience is a benefit, not a problem, but Sen. Obama may be proving that theory wrong.

"He's clearly a smart guy, but even straightforward questions seem to catch him flat-footed. An audience member asked the rather simple question "Why can't veterans use the hospital of their choice?" In other words, why are they stuck in the VA system?

"Great question, the kind that the average NRO reader could handle on an off day. But Sen. Obama was stumped. He stammered and stumbled and then eventually suggested it might have something to do with prescription drugs — as though the drugs veterans use aren't available at CVS.

"Last night, Sen. Obama proved yet again that the idea of his candidacy is a lot more appealing than listening to the real thing.

"Sen. Clinton was her usual, professional self: prepared, pleasant, generous. She knows her greatest challenge is her image, and she took every opportunity to appear friendly and collegial. Using Gov. Richardson's performance negotiating away North Korea's nuclear program was, perhaps, generous to a fault given the facts on the ground. But it served her purpose.

"In the end, frontrunner Hillary won last night because a) she didn’t lose; and b) nobody else made any meaningful progress.

"She was also helped by the fact that, according to numbers provided by the Chris Dodd campaign, she spoke 1:34 less than Barack Obama."

Star Parker reminds us, though, that people still don't like Hillary, largely because of her socialist, big-government ideas:

"If you want to know about how Senator Clinton feels about freedom and her confidence that Americans, when acting without government in their face, are a productive and charitable people you, again, just have to listen to her.

"The Senator was in true form the other day, speaking at a vocational school in New Hampshire.

"'Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.'

"I don't think that Senator Clinton really got the message when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed."

Fox News with a succinct round-up, including information from the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll showing Hillary Clinton still well ahead of her nearest competitors.

If this poll is accurate, and Star's column is accurate...doesn't this look good for a Republican candidate to win in '08?

Let's hope so.

The Nashua Telegraph also highlights why I think Clinton won, as well:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the Democratic frontrunner, disagreed with Edwards [on his "bumper sticker" comment]. As a New York senator, she saw the toll from terrorism when the hijacked jetliners brought down the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

"'I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11 and I have seen first-hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda,' Clinton said."

Democrats desperately want to seem tough on the war on terror, and this is the way to do it.  Edwards, by appealing to the far-left, opens himself up to criticism from "moderates" like Hillary, which make her seem tough by comparison.  She loses, though, in a comparison against any Republican candidate, so I believe it is wise to seem tough now to appeal to Democratic voters not allied with the MoveOn.org crowd.

Lastly, Chris Dodd is crying foul over his "talk clock":



Looks like Wolf Blitzer came in third!  Way to go!

Do you think Brit Hume would've registered on this "talk clock" during the last Republican debate?

We'll see how much spotlight Wolf hogs when the Republicans debate on Tuesday...

It's a question the Washington Post is posing as legitimate.

But the topic might not be what you would expect.

It's about being pregnant with two or more children at once, and then deciding to abort one or more in a process euphemized "selective reduction" - hence, "too much to carry."

"Selective reduction is one of the most unpleasant facts of fertility medicine, which has helped hundreds of thousands of couples have children but has also produced a sharp rise in high-risk multiple pregnancies. There is no way to know how many pregnancies achieved by fertility treatment start out as triplets or quadruplets and are quietly reduced to something more manageable. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which publishes an annual report on fertility clinic outcomes, does not include selective-reduction figures because of the reluctance to report them."

So, the Washington Post believes that abortion makes pregnancies more manageable - well, I guess by terminating them...yeah, that would be more manageable, right?

Dr. Mark Evans is considered a pioneer in "fetal therapy" - I'm not sure how therapeutic it is for a child to be killed, though...but, don't worry - his goal, apparently, is to deliver healthy babies.  Even if it means "sacrificing the fetus in utero."

Sound like eugenics, Linda Chavez?

The sympathetic Post spins the facts:

"...Triplets pregnancies are far riskier than most people realize: Carrying three babies to term would more than double the woman's risk of developing the most severe diseases of pregnancy, such as preeclampsia. The average triplet is born two months premature, significantly raising the risk of disabilities such as cerebral palsy and of lifelong damage to the infant's lungs, eyes, brain and other organs. By reducing the pregnancy to twins, the woman and her husband would decrease the risk of severe prematurity. And the risk of losing her entire pregnancy would fall from 15 percent to 4 percent."

First off all, nothing is cited to back these facts up - a little pet peeve of mine.

I'm just waiting for the day when the following argument will be made: "By reducing the pregnancy to nothing, the woman and her husband would eliminate any risk of severe prematurity.  And the risk of losing her entire pregnancy would fall from 4 percent to 0 percent."

Are we really that far off in this culture of death?

And does this not sound like an advocate of child-killing or what:

"...The fetuses were moving and waving their limbs; even at this point, approaching 12 weeks of gestation, they were clearly human, at that big-headed-could-be-an-alien-but-definitely-not-a-kitten stage of development. Evans has found this to be the best window of time in which to perform a reduction."

Read the whole thing and be outraged.  E-mail the author (mundyl@washpost.com) to tell her you're not sympathetic to this procedure "not technically" an abortion.

Also, Michelle Malkin has blogged about this in the past - read her piece here.

If you don't think the Culture of Death permeates our society, look who's getting out of prison today.

Dr. Death himself.

So what are Dr. Death's future plans?

"He is expected to now move to Bloomfield Hills, just outside Detroit, where he will live with friends and resume the artistic and musical hobbies he missed while in prison. His lawyer and friends have said he plans to live on a small pension and Social Security while doing some writing and make some speeches, although he said he doesn't expect them all to be on euthanasia or assisted suicide."

From Ramesh Ponnuru's The Party of Death, on Kevorkian and the Hemlock Society, and the rule of law:

"Kevorkian got his nickname [Dr. Death] early in his medical career because of his habit of trying to photograph patients' eyes at the moment of their deaths.  Also early in his career, he campaigned to legalize experimentation on death-row inmates.  (Nazi concentration-camp experimenters, he once explained, 'did the right thing,' except for the lack of anesthesia and consent forms.)  His goal was to create a new field of medicine called 'obitiatry.'...

"...The Hemlock Society, which may be the leading pro-euthanasia organization nationally, started calling for the legalization of assisted suicide for people with 'incurable conditions.'  It also uses the phrase 'irreversibly ill adult' to describe the object of its lethal solicitude.  If you take them at their word, they want people with arthritis to be able to have themselves killed.

"Any assisted-suicide law practically presupposes that it can be rational for some people to commit suicide...If it is rational for someone to choose suicide, then it might be irrational not to choose it."

And we let people who think like this out of jail?  How does 130+ assisted suicides equate to 8 years in prison under our justice system?

It's disrespect for human life, plain and simple.  And it happens when the Party of Death has influence.  Now more than ever, they have to be stopped - this should serve as a stark reminder.

Laura Ingraham takes him to task.

Brian Maloney covers the mainstream media's new love affair with the president: "Suddenly, these guys [the mainstream media] have taken a break from Bush- bashing just long enough to make sure the conservative movement comes across as unreasonable."

And it's not just the mainstream media who's making those who oppose this bill look "unreasonable" - shockingly, it's other supposed "conservatives."

Case in point: former liberal Linda Chavez (apparently, that transformation is not yet complete).  Doesn't she sound like a liberal here with this scathing indictment of border-enforcing conservatives as essentially racist?  Be the judge:

"Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

Who are the "some people" Chavez refers to?  Republican members of Congress, talk radio, some cable news, and what she terms "fringe public policy groups," like the Minuteman Project.

(side note: Chavez needs to be reminded of what happened when the Minuteman Project tried to participate in an honest discussion of immigration at Columbia University - who are the hate-mongers now?)

And since when are "rule of law, national security, [and] amnesty" racially charged arguments, as Chavez asserts?  The "race card" is played constantly as a last resort by open-borders advocates but the fact is that Ronald Reagan pushed through an amnesty bill back in 1986, when the United States had 3 million illegal aliens living within its borders.

The result?  20 years later, we have 12 million (at least) illegal aliens.

Who's to say this number won't quadruple again in the next 20 years if we repeat the mistakes of the past?  If my math is right, that would put the U.S. with about 50 million illegal aliens by about 2030.

And what thanks does the United States get on the international scene with all this kowtowing to an illegal culture?
 
I think the Miss Universe pageant offers a great snapshot - just look how pro-Mexico the AP is, though, as it spins the audience's rude booing of Miss USA, Rachel Smith:

"Even an opening 'hola' might not have helped Smith, who faced long odds for simply being a gringa.

"U.S.-Mexico relations worsened in the past year after the U.S. National Guard was sent to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist the U.S. Border Patrol and help build hundreds of miles of wall to keep out illegal migrants.

"Mexicans are also upset over a U.S. Senate proposal for a sweeping immigration reform bill that would limit the consideration of family ties, capping visas for foreign parents of U.S. citizens at 40,000 a year. The plan would change a system that favored family ties for four decades.

"Many Mexicans also feel that the United States exerts its influence to tip the balance in its favor, whether in global politics or sports events.

"On Tuesday, Mexican media lamented the fact that their contestant, Rosa Maria Ojeda, did not make it to the top five in the pageant while Smith did, despite falling down on the runway. Smith's fifth place finish only added to the theory that the United States always is favored.

"The Mexican newspaper El Universal said Ojeda's fans were not as upset about her top-10 finish as they were that 'the judges did not penalize that fact that Miss USA totally fell on her seat after she stepped on her dress.'"

"The newspaper said that when the show went to a commercial break, an NBC representative warned the audience of 9,000 to behave because 'this gives the world a bad image of Mexico.'"

If you've seen the video, did anyone else think the audience was shouting "gringa" and not "Mexico", as this article claims?  Who are the racists, Linda Chavez?

The excerpt quoted above puts all the strain on the United States for bad relations with Mexico.  It's not our fault that Mexico's economy is so bad that its primary source of income is money sent back from the United States (called "remittances").  Now I ask - What types of people do you want working in this country: those who work here to contribute to our own country's well-being...or to another country's well-being?

The NBC representative is right in that the audience makes Mexico as a whole look bad by booing the U.S. contestant.  More importantly, though, doesn't the U.S. seem weak, here?  This poor woman, obviously a fantastic representation of what it means to be an American, competes on an international stages, gets villified by a foreign audience, and is subsequently remembered only for falling and getting booed instead of finishing in fifth place. 

Few are sticking up for her, as many stories play up sympathy for Mexicans like the AP does - see ABC News, but particularly Reuters, offering this gem: "This year's contest was marked by controversy, with a handful of Mexicans booing Smith in the run-up to the finals because of what they saw as U.S. unfriendliness toward illegal immigrants."

Defense, as usual, has to come from the blogs: Michelle Malkin, Sister Toldjah, and Tammy Bruce, among others.

Bruce hits a home run:

"Rachel Smith, our entrant and a Tennessee girl, a state being overrun by the same sort of people who maliciously boo'd this young woman...Despite the characterization that there was a 'handful' of Mexicans who boo'd, it was thunderous. How dare they, with all this nation has done, and now because they want a free pass to ravage this nation further and we resists, they boo this young woman."

Back to Chavez' idea that Latinos have too many babies...well, do they?

Heather MacDonald:

"...Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country – over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1 ½ times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for unmarried white women, 22 for unmarried Asian women, and 66 for unmarried black women."

And...as a result...

"Despite the strong family support, the prevalence of single parenting among Hispanics is producing the inevitable slide into the welfare system. 'The girls aren't marrying the guys, so they are married to the state,' Dr. Sanchez observes. Hispanics now dominate the federal Women, Infants and Children free food program; Hispanic enrollment grew more than 25 percent from 1996 to 2002, while black enrollment dropped 12 percent and white enrollment dropped 6.5 percent.

"Illegal immigrants can get welfare programs for their American-born children. Amy Braun works for Mary's Shelter, a home for young single mothers who are homeless or in crisis, in Orange County, Calif. It has become 'culturally OK' for the Hispanic population to use the shelter and welfare system, Ms. Braun says.'"

Oops - is it racist to point these facts out, Linda Chavez?  Michael Gerson?  President Bush???  All of you who are supposed to be conservatives?

Important reading material:

LaShawn Barber on why this is bad for low-income blacks.

Ann Coulter on the true motivation of liberals and amnesty - importing a slave class.

Amanda Carpenter on the cost to taxpayers.

And must-read Thomas Sowell's three part series "The Amnesty Fraud", found here.

Just finished The Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuru - I'll likely post a full review of it soon, but it was pretty well written and thorough, especially for Ponnuru's first effort.

Related to the abortion debate, please check out "Tap Dancing Around Abortion" by Ken Connor, a trial lawyer famous for representing Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case.

Next up: Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell.  From the Publisher's Weekly review:

"...Hoover Institution Fellow Sowell, author of Ethnic America, argues that 'internal' cultural habits of industriousness, thriftiness, family solidarity and reverence for education often play a greater role in the success of ethnic minorities than do civil-rights laws or majority prejudices....Many of Sowell's arguments-that the 20th-century resegregation of Northern cities was a response to the uncouthness of black rednecks migrating from the South, or that segregated black schools often succeeded by suppressing redneckism with civilized New England puritanism-will arouse controversy, but these vigorously argued essays present a stimulating challenge to the conventional wisdom."

Interesting theses - I'm curious to see if he proves them...

There's been much discussion over the proposed Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill, with, from what I can tell, all of it focusing on our Southern border with Mexico.

But indications are that Washington needs to pay attention to our northern border as well.

First of all, we know that terrorism exists in Canada - one need only remember the plot foiled in 2006 to blow up parts of Ontario.

And, as part of that plot, we know that terrorism in Canada has links to terrorism in other countries: arrests related to the 2006 plot took place in the United States, Britain, Bosnia, Denmark, Sweden, and Bangladesh, as well as Canada.  So the terror network in Canada, based on this account, would seem somewhat sophisticated.

The goal of the terror plot was "to blow up parliament buildings in Canada, storm the CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corp.], take over the CBC, as well as, among other things, behead the prime minister."  Despite its severity, the shelf-life of this story was only a few days, which indicates to me that the press doesn't see Canada as an important link to the war on terror.

Therefore, the public likely doesn't see the link. 

This could bode well for the jihadists.

It appears that these men, like the Fort Dix terrorists after them, were inspired by Al-Qaeda.  Also of note is that of the 17 arrested, five were youths.  This important point seems to have been glossed over by mainstream media outlets, some of whom did mention the fact, but none of whom elaborated on its significance.  The point is rightly made time and again that young Muslim men (and women) are being raised to believe that it is just and good to wage jihad against the United States - and these Muslims are not being raised only in the Middle East, but in our own hemisphere.

Liberal websites naturally downplay (or, more accurately, ignore) the signficance of worldwide terror and imply that increased diligence in the worldwide community for uncovering terror plots is somehow a manufactured ploy by the Bush administration to keep the populace "scared."  Of course, to prove their point, they cite terror threats taking place outside of the United States, such as those in London, Canada and Germany of the recent past. 

That's liberal logic for you.

There's more to the terror angle in Canada:

1) Abdurahman Khadr (from 2004):  Khadr was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for a time but, from what I could gather, now lives in Toronto.  He's admitted that he was raised to become a suicide bomber, and told Canada's CBC television that he was part of an "Al-Qaeda family."  Here's his sympathetic portrayal of Osama bin Laden:

"In the CBC programme, Mr Khadr described the Osama Bin Laden he knew as a normal person, with money worries and difficulty controlling his children.

"'He has issues with his wife, and he has issues with his kids, financial issues, you know, the kids aren't listening, the kids aren't doing this and that.'

"'It comes down to (the fact) he's a father and he's a person,' he said."

2) Mohamed Mansour Jabarah: This Ontario resident was prepared to front an Al-Qaeda affiliated group in Singapore, Jemaah Islamiyah, with the cash necessary to carry out plots to blow up Western embassies and a U.S. warship in Singapore harbor.  Thankfully, this man was captured in 2002.  The scariest part of this story? "Police in Singapore, Canada and the U.S. all say that [Jabarah] was sent to Southeast Asia by Osama bin Laden himself. They say that his planned attack could have killed thousands."

3) Mohammed Momin Khawaja: The first person charged under Canada's federal Anti-Terrorism act, Khawaja was arrested in 2004 for terrorist-related activities:

"The charges allege that terrorist activities took place in London, England, and Ottawa between November 2003 and March 29, 2004. Khawaja had made trips to London but his brother said it was to find a wife."
 
A likely alibi.

He's been linked to the recent arrest of five Britons, conspiring to commit terror:

"Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Anthony Garcia, Jawad Akbar and Salahuddin Amin were convicted on Monday of conspiring with Canadian Mohammed Momin Khawaja to cause an explosion likely to endanger life."

And...

"The prosecution said the men had discussed targets including London's biggest nightclub -- the Ministry of Sound -- gas, water and electricity supplies, synagogues, trains, planes, and a large shopping center, Bluewater, east of the capital."

Much more from TigerHawk.

The New Republic reported on Canada's terrorism problems after the 2006 Toronto plot was unveiled, and highlighted the case of Ahmed Ressam:

"With generous refugee policies, a sizable welfare state, and its proximity to the United States, Canada became a favored location for Islamist terror networks. In 1994, an Algerian man named Ahmed Ressam immigrated to Canada, using false documents. After entering the country, Ressam plotted to destroy Los Angeles airport and other targets on the eve of the millennium. Though Ressam left Canada several times between 1994 and 1999 (at least once to travel to Afghanistan to learn how to manufacture bombs), never showed up for his refugee status hearings, and was the subject of an explicit warning from French terrorism investigators to the Canadian government in 1999, he was never kicked out of Canada or arrested.

"Ressam's plot, supported by a cell in Canada, was broken up only when an astute American customs officer, who thought Ressam looked nervous, stopped his car as he tried to cross the U.S. border from British Columbia. Ressam tried to prove he was a Canadian citizen by giving the officer a supermarket membership card; when this (unsurprisingly) did not placate the customs officer, Ressam sprinted from his car. Caught a few blocks away, Ressam had the phone numbers of top Al Qaeda members on him and, inside his trunk, some 100 pounds of explosives. Shortly after Ressam's arrest, American newspapers revealed that U.S. officials long had privately complained about Canada's lax immigration."

Think it's time to start complaining about it publicly?

CNN is reporting that both sides already see problems with the proposal.  Here are the details and the upcoming timeline for approval:

"Should the bill get through the Senate, it will proceed to the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told the White House that she's not going to bring the issue to the floor unless the president can deliver at least 70 Republican votes.

"The 380-page bill, which comes after nearly three months of negotiations, would give immediate work authorization to undocumented workers who arrived in the United States before January 1, 2007.

"Heads of household would have to return to their home country within eight years, and they would be guaranteed the right to return.

"Applicants would also have to pay a $5,000 penalty.

"Additionally, the number of Border Patrol agents would be increased, border fencing would be strengthened and employers who hire undocumented workers would face fines.

"The process of enforcing those provisions would take about 18 months, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

"Michelle Malkin points to an Associated Press piece, where illegals state the obvious:

Many illegal immigrants said they had little incentive to apply for residency because the process was long and did not offer much hope of bringing their families.

"'If I'll never be able to bring my family, why should I apply?" said Jose Monson, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Guatemala who has lived in Los Angeles for four years. 'I prefer to just stay here illegally.'

"'If I get deported and need to cross the border again, that's not a problem,' he said."

Laura Ingraham lets us know how we can contact Congress to voice our disgust.

Mitt Romney's press release:

"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S."

Rich Lowry:

"And it is an amnesty, no matter what supporters call it. Sen. John McCain, a backer of the deal, unleashed this howler at the GOP presidential debate: 'I have never supported amnesty and never would.' But the 12 million illegals here before January would get probationary legal status immediately when the bill passes, an effective amnesty. (It's unclear why illegals arriving here after January would be excluded so coldheartedly -- what does McCain want to do, deport them all?)"

And always must-read Debbie Schlussel offers exclusive outrage from DHS officials - it's imperative that you read the whole thing.

That's the new report from The Hill. 

Someone alert Chris Matthews:

"Many GOP aides say that it’s the same-old, same-old around the nation’s capital — they are sexier and they dress better.  But some Democrats claim that being in the majority has meant more partying and more dates.

"Due to the nature of this story — sex and dating — few aides were willing to discuss the subject on the record for fear of getting into trouble with their offices. They were also wary of having their personal lives or dating tastes made public."

And...

"The bottom line: Romantic opportunities have increased for Democrats. For one thing, there are now more of them around Capitol Hill — all the better for socializing. And some aides and political experts have noticed that Democrats have begun to dress the part and are looking better."

Later in the piece, liberal thinker David Corn admits that he thinks Nancy Pelosi is "hot."  This seems to solidify the assertion that Democrats are wrong about everything.

Need we remind everyone who has the sexier party?

It's no contest.

Investors Business Daily explains why it's a bad idea:

"In the past, we've opposed talks with Iran not because we think diplomacy is bad, but because we fear talking to the mullahs will help them crack down further on the regime's foes.

"Besides, we've already talked to them — by proxy. Britain, France and Germany, working through the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, have engaged in nearly two years of diplomacy with Iran in an effort to get it to give up its outlaw nuclear program.

"It's brought little but contempt from Iran — and steadfast refusal to end its enrichment of uranium, as required by international law.

"Why think they'll now do anything we ask — particularly since Iran has repeatedly portrayed the U.S. as the "Great Satan"?"

Read the whole thing.

PREVIOUS: Does Al Qaeda Have Our Troops?

Bloody attacks loom, according to an Al-Qaeda front group, in response to the Sarkozy election.

Atlas Shrugs talks about the significance of tomorrow - the day Sarkozy officially becomes president.  Her source thinks there may be rioting...

I'll keep researching this one.

Just finished The Fountainhead.  It was amazing, as expected.

Now, back to non-fiction: The Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor at National Review.

Hint to Rudy Guiliani - "The Party of Death" is NOT the Republican party...

...but something MUCH WORSE.

One, because it actually happened.  Do you know the names Channon Christian and Chris Newsom? 

If you follow the mainstream media, probably not.  Nothing came up on CNN (here and here).  Not on MSNBC (though, curiously, look what did come up: "Lawmakers return Abramoff donations" and "How Foley Scandal Could Cost Bush Congress" - this is how "mainstream" MSNBC is...but I digress).  Nothing here for MSNBC either.

FOX news does have a link to an AP story on the case from January, but not much else.

If not for La Shawn Barber, I would have known nothing of this case, either.

The details from Flopping Aces:

"[The couple] were driving in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint. While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his [privates were] cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channon's hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence—all while she was still alive. To add to Channon's degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body there—in five separate trash bags."

Where is the outrage from the black community on this one?  I'd like to see what Sharpton, Jackson, Shabazz, and all the rest think of this.

La Shawn Barber makes the same point, while adding that "feminists" are also silent:

"Every time someone starts telling the truth about black crime, someone else comes out of the woodwork to remind everyone that a 'few' black criminals don't define the black community. From my perspective, it's difficult to argue that point with a straight face. Of course, the murderous deeds and thuggish ways of black criminals shouldn't define all blacks. But if you try to pretend that it's not a serious problem that blacks commit a disproportionate share of crimes — an incontrovertible fact — or that the lack of blanket media coverage and outrage has nothing to do with race, you're being willfully blind and foolish.

"As I see it, black crime is so commonplace that it's just not interesting to white liberal journalists, especially black-on-white crime. And white liberal feminists are more outraged when white men use a so-called sexist term than they are with black-on-white rape statistics. I have yet to hear a feminist condemn what was done to Christian."

If they can get mad at Don Imus, they certainly can get mad about this.

Of course, this isn't just a fault of the black leadership (if you can call Jackson, Sharpton, et al "leaders") picking and choosing its battles.  The fact that the "establishment" media won't touch the story seems, to me, just as disturbing.  We as a country should be infuriated by this story, and not just for its sheer brutality.  If you note the WBIR account, you'll see that one of the perpetrators, Lemaricus Davidson, is a recently released convicted felon.

Someone capable of this unspeakable tragedy is allowed to walk the streets?

How this story can be ignored while the Duke lacrosse "case" was allowed to fester is beyond me.

PREVIOUS: Heather Mac Donald has addressed the black crime issue before - something I've noted here.

I've been having problems with the site today, but I wanted to pass along this story from Michelle Malkin.

And Rudy Guiliani gave money to these people?

The following passage is from The Fountainhead, which I'm almost done with (so don't spoil it!)...it's a conversation between two main characters who share a similar life philosophy: Gail Wynand and Dominique Francon: (keep in mind - this was published in 1943)

"...And that particular sense of sacred rapture men say they experience in contemplating nature - I've never received it from nature.  Only from..." [Dominique] stopped.
"From what?" [Gail asked]
"Buildings," she whispered.  "Skyscrapers."
"Why didn't you want to say that?"
"I...don't know."
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline.  Particularly when one can't see the details.  Just the shapes.  The shapes and the thought that made them.  The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.  What other religion do we need?  And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage.  Is it beauty and genius they want to see?  Do they seek a sense of the sublime?  Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel.  When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body."
"Gail, I don't know whether I'm listening to you or myself."

Ayn Rand felt this way over 60 years ago - do we still feel this way?