Hmmm...

Rhodes (brother of White House spinner Ben Rhodes) was an emergency fill-in speaker at the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. While he spoke about a bunch of topics...

Rhodes interjected a parenthetical note about the "pretty alarming" situation [in Benghazi] saying, "Our government thinks that, you know, there's a really good chance this was not just a spontaneous mob reaction to what some thought was an offensive film but actually a coordinated effort timed to the 9/11 anniversary."

Several interesting things here:

1. Per Rhodes sources, the government did not believe the YouTube Video story which was already gaining traction in the media.

2. And they believed this the day after (or even the day of) the Benghazi attacks.

3. David Rhodes likely has numerous sources (and spoke of sources, plural), but one would certainly expect his brother Ben to be among them.

So what the hell was Ben Rhodes doing pushing the "YouTube video" story in the Talking Points for the Susan Rice talkshow blitzkreig on the 15th?

(And why, oh why, is CBSNews refusing to cover this story at all?)

Video and more analysis at the link.

Thanks to @spongeworthy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:35 PM | Comments (400)
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

It's worth remembering that in 1994 a Chris Lehane-drafted memo conjured up the menace of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" by essentially claiming that any and all derogatory reports on Bill and Hillary Clinton were "conspiracy theories."

There were indeed some claims made by conservatives on the internet that could be termed "conspiracy theories," such as the alleged cover-up of the Vince Foster suicide.

But the Lehane memo also categorized Gennifer Flowers' and Paula Jones' allegations as "conspiracy theories." And of course they were true.

The scandal-plagued Democrats now enact the same playbook, claiming that every true-but-damaging thing said against them constitutes a "conspiracy theory" that no reasonable person could possibly entertain.

Jay Carney:

“There is a problem when you have so many conspiracy theories that get knocked down by the facts and yet, the adherents to those theories only become more convinced that the facts aren’t what they so clearly are,” Carney said, calling the special committee “so partisan in nature.”

Carney went on to criticize the “information loop” on Benghazi saying that Republicans and “certain media outlets” were fueling a false narrative on the attack that killed four Americans.

David Plouffe calls any questions about Benghazi "delusional."

"There's a very loud, delusional minority that's driving our politics that's in control of the Republican Party. There's no conspiracy here at all."

Former Congresswoman (D) Jane Harman likewise claims that Republicans are engaging in "conspiracy theories" about Benghazi.

HARMAN: [L]et me make a couple comments on Benghazi. I know something about this. And the day after the Susan Rice appearances, I -- or the day after the event, I was meeting with some senior intelligence committee folks, because I still advise in some capacities on boards to some of our agencies. And I think there was legitimate confusion.

I agree about the point that the video was in Egypt and nobody really knew what the facts were. I'm reading from the Ben Rhodes memo which I've never seen before and it said, "We're not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

And I think that was accurate. So --

WALLACE: Because we didn't have actionable intelligence about 9/11. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

HARMAN: No, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

WALLACE: It doesn't mean it wasn't a terror attack.

HARMAN: I would call that an intelligence failure. And, by the way, this was an intelligence failure. But it wasn't a conspiracy. And there aren't aliens in Area 51 and Vince Foster wasn't murdered.

And it's time to move on and focus on the real problems in Libya and other problems that affect the --

Sounds like the White House has crafted some new Talking Points about their discredited Benghazi Talking Points.

In the Obama Wonderland of endless dissembling, even the Talking Points have their own Talking Points.

Incidentally, Britt Hume let Jane Harman have it on her rote Talking Points Talking Points.

“You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack,” Hume said. ”That’s not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used. I’m not talking about the CIA talking points, I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading, that since have been shown to be false, and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.”

Hume pressed Harman to name a single person in the administration who credibly believed that the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-Islam video. Predictably, she could not do so.

“Ben Rhodes talks about the video five times in this memo, five times,” host Chris Wallace interjected.

Sharyl Atkkisson notes that this is precisely what she means when she talks about the Administration's unending campaign to "controversialize" legitimate, factual reporting they don't like.

SHARYL ATTKISSON: Well, the key words they use such as conspiracy and delusional are in my opinion, clearly designed to try to controversialize a story, a legitimate news story, a legitimate area of journalistic inquiry. To some degree, thatÂ’s successful, but I think primarily among those that donÂ’t want to look at this as a story in the first place. But I see that as a well-orchestrated strategy to controversialize a story they really donÂ’t want to hear about.

The media, she means, by that bit.

The best lie is the one you never have to offer, because you've intimidated people from asking about it at all.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Comments (307)
Post contains 830 words, total size 6 kb.

82%?

Meanwhile, an unrelated poll by USAToday/Pew predicts the possibility the largest GOP midterm gains in 20 years.

Yes, more than 2010.

Voters currently have so strong a preference for the Republican Party that if midterm elections were held today the results would signal the strongest gains for the GOP in two decades, a new poll has found.

According to the new USA Today/ Pew Research Center Poll conducted April 23-27 of 1,501 people, including 1,162 registered voters, 47 percent said they are inclined to support the Republican candidate over the Democrat in their congressional district in 2014, compared to 43 percent who would choose a Democrat.

That result is so massive that it suggests 2014 could be a major "wave" election more sweeping than the election of 2010 that saw the tea party movement's rise to dominance.

...

The GOP's lead in the generic congressional ballot is the largest at this point in the midterm cycle for Republicans in the past 20 years, including before the partisan "wave" elections in 1994 and 2010.

By way of comparison, in 1994 the same poll found that Republicans had only a +2 advantage in 1994 (which produced the first GOP-held House since 1952) and were net-even with Democrats in 2010.

The 1994 election produced +54 GOP House seats and, interestingly, +8 Senate seats.

I doubt the GOP can win more than a dozen new House seats (we've gotten nearly as many as we're likely to get) but that +8 Senate figure is possible.

Posted by: Ace at 10:47 AM | Comments (247)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

From the sidebar, but it's been a while since my last post (I'm looking, I'm looking!).

This morning the Supreme Court held in Town of Greece v. Galloway, that the townÂ’s practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It was a 5-4 decision, split along traditional right-left lines, though there is not a clear majority opinion.

It's not a clear majority opinion because while five votes support the ruling in this case, there are not five votes for any sequence of logic -- the five conservative justices alternately join, or refuse to join, each other's opinions as to why they're holding as they are.

(Note: A decision's "holding" is just who wins, who loses, more or less. The opinion is more important going forward, as that will inform lower judges how to apply the law. With no clear majority opinion, I'm not sure if any law has actually been made here.)

The dispute comes down to how a court should analyze "coercion" in such matters. While people may have the right to invoke, say, Jesus Christ in their opening legislative prayer, all members of the court seem sensitive, to one degree or another, to the possibility that specific invocations of a specific religion in official state business might "coerce" non-believers in some way.

Scalia and Thomas refuse to join Kennedy's opinion on this point, because they find that he creates an overbroad definition of "coercion" that would outlaw too many sorts of prayer.

Posted by: Ace at 10:25 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 285 words, total size 2 kb.

After a series of pro-gun rulings, the Supreme Court declines to make another one.

The Supreme Court appears hesitant to wade back into the national debate on guns.

The court refused Monday to decide whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home. The justices won't consider a challenge to a New Jersey law that restricts most residents from carrying guns in public.

...

New Jersey law enforcement groups defended the state's requirement that citizens prove a "justifiable need" to carry handguns outside the home, whether openly or concealed from view. In their brief, they claimed the law "qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee."

The Ninth Circuit had offered a contrary ruling --in Peruta, the appeals court ruled that San Diego could not impose a "justifiable need" requirement on the right to bear arms.

But New Jersey's law was upheld several times by the Third Circuit -- and the Supreme Court has refused to harmonize the decisions by issuing a ruling as to who is right.

The San Diego Sheriff declined to appeal the Peruta ruling. Given this new non-ruling from the Supreme Court -- seemingly blessing a version of the San Diego "justifiable need" regime -- Peruta might wind up being an outlier. And maybe the San Diego Sheriff will choose now to appeal it (if he still has time to do so).

[Update - Andy] More from our friend Michael James Barton at NRO's Bench Memos.

Posted by: Ace at 08:35 AM | Comments (358)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Apparently that conservatives, well at least the ones who oppose amnesty, want immigration laws enforce inside the country as well as at the border is big news that's totally going to change everything. Or something.

[Univision's Jorge]Ramos repeatedly pressed Goodlatte to explain why it is that House Republicans refuse to act on immigration reform. Goodlatte repeatedly claimed the problem is that Republicans canÂ’t trust Obama to enforce the law, as evidenced by the fact that deportations from the interior have dropped. Goodlatte explicitly said the problem is that only people convicted of serious crimes are getting deported from the interior.

Ramos then pressed Goodlatte on whether this means Republicans want to see more deportations from the interior. Goodlatte — who as chair of the House Judiciary Committee is a key player on immigration — refused to answer directly:

BOB GOODLATTE: That is the problem. Only people who committed serious crimes.

JORGE RAMOS: So your point is that you want more people to be deported?

BG: My point is that I want the President to enforce the law, and that way Congress will feel the pressure to reach a resolution to deal with the people who are lawfully here, who have been law abiding citizens. And if they meet the terms that the law might provide, like paying taxes and paying a fine, and learning civics about the United States, and other things like that, we could reach a solution. But if the President keeps showing that he wonÂ’t enforce current law, then weÂ’re going to have this ongoing problem where people in the Congress donÂ’t trust that. And that creates a problem for me. Trying to convince my fellow members to do it.

Yep that's big news alright...conservatives want the laws of the United States of American enforced.

Of course the fact that the Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee can't make a counter argument that puts Team Amnesty on the defensive is rather troubling. Though it's not surprising since he's basically on Team Amnesty himself.

So how should supporters of real immigration reform respond to these types of questions? How about something like this?

It's not a question of wanting more deportations or not. It's a question of enforcing the laws. Why are immigration and employment laws the only laws we're not supposed to enforce in this country?

Yes, deportations may result from properly enforcing our country's laws and that will have a regrettable impact on some families but that's true when any law is enforced. What you're basically arguing is that immigration laws are inherently unjust and the moral course of action is not to enforce them. I disagree with that notion. A nation has the right and the obligation to set the terms under which people are allowed to enter and to stay in it. Every country, Mexico, Canada, Great Britain, South Africa, Japan, which ever one you name has border enforcement, immigration and work visa regimes. The United States is not any different from them, yet the case is being made that somehow this is an area of law than any enforcement is immoral. I reject that and I think an overwhelming number of American's agree with me on that.

No one is talking about sending police into neighborhoods with large immigrant populations to round people up and put them in buses to the border any more than they are suggesting IRS agents swoop into neighborhoods to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars the government says it is owed. But no one is demanding that tax laws in general not be enforced.

Should there be enforcement checks at workplaces reasonably suspected of illegal employment practices? Absolutely. Once you force companies to play by the rules Americans and legal immigrants are able to get jobs they weren't before.

Now if you want to make the case that there should be no border controls or that once an illegal immigrant makes it 10 or 50 or 100 miles away from a border check point they are safe from any repercussions of our existing immigration laws, then make that case. Or if you think people who came to this country by breaking our laws should have an advantage over the hard working, honest men and women who want to come to this country and are doing so via the rules we have set up, and those rules should be improved on, you are free to do so. And you know what? I'd be happy to have that debate because I'm confident that the American people are on my side of that argument.

Where's the Republican candidate making that argument? That's the man or woman I'd be interested in supporting. Sadly, I'm not seeing that from anyone of note in the GOP.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:46 AM | Comments (155)
Post contains 828 words, total size 5 kb.

• Who Among Us Will Cast The First Bid For Sterling's Clippers?
  
• Sooner Or Later, They're Going To Come For People You Do Like
  
• What Do You Do When You're On The Wrong Side Of History
  
• Obamacare's Doom
  
• Opposition To Obamacare At An All-Time High
  
• Obstuctionist Democrat Wants To Boycott Benghazi Committee
  
• Kafka And The Guillotine
  
• Benghazi Made Simple
  
• Liberals And Their Ad Hominem War Of Attrition
  
• Fair And Balanced Editorial Boards
  
• Irate Maine Doctor Writes His Senator About Obamacare
  
• Japan Split Over Revision To Pacifist Constitution
  
• Democrats May Not Run Anyone In FL-13
  
• Number Of Children In Japan Slips To New Low
  
• I For One Welcome Our New Chicken Overlords
  

Follow me on twitter so you can watch me gloat as the Penguins beat Drew's Rangers.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:40 AM | Comments (407)
Post contains 134 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Cinco de Mayo!

Sen. Paul puts hold on Obama judicial nom who wrote at least one unreleased drone killing memo. Continuing his smart pattern of asking for actual gets when does these things, Paul says he'll release the hold if Obama releases the memos.

Former presiding FISA court judge says he expects no legislative alteration to the FISA regime until at least after the midterms.

Iowa's 1st congressional district GOP voted over the weekend voted to add this plank to the GOP platform: "We support the removal of the institution of marriage from government control." It was heated. "'I begged people to stand up, I shouted stand up for morality!' Saul wrote on Facebook. 'No one else other than the 89 stood. I shouted at the ones sitting down and called them moral cowards. They threatened to remove me and called the sergeant of arms.'"

Suprise! Switching from gasoline to ethanol-enhanced fuel is linked to more ozone pollution.

Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft say they are rewriting their privacy policies so that they will now disclose to the user if a government agency subpoenas the user's information without a court-issued gag order.

Read this teacher's angry post about having to administer a flawed Common Core exam.

This sounds like something out of turn of the century pulp horror—turn of the last century, that is.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (200)
Post contains 246 words, total size 3 kb.

Quote of the Day I

"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

-- Mark Cuban

Quote of the Day II - On the Nerd Prom AKA the White House Correspondent's Dinner

"The correspondent's dinner was a thoroughly medieval spectacle. Never was a lord's hall so earnestly thronged by grateful peasants as that venue. The comparison was nearly exact since it featured jesters, court ladies and the obligatory men-at-arms hovering outside the drawbridge of the castle. Royalty was of course in attendance, resplendent in its dazzling gowns and chic elegance. The designated buffoon of the evening was Kathleen Sebelius who was employed as a sight-gag as an obligatory adjunct to something broken as if she could absorb for herself the sins of the King."

Thought Policing Comes to the Sports Leagues

Cuban's point, though, is a valid one. It is, as he says, a "slippery slope" for NBA owners-or the owners of any sports franchise-to decide who should be able to enter their club based on the righteousness of their thinking, because who is to determine what is righteous?

As if to prove Cuban's point, Esquire's four-eyed, multi-chinned, monomaniacal hack in residence, Charles P. Pierce, took to the digital pages of his glorified lad mag to call for Adam Silver to enact similar sanctions on the owner of the Orlando Magic. His thought crime? Opposing same sex marriage. Note: The owners of the Magic have not been accused of, say, banning gay people from the arena or making them uncomfortable at games. Simply engaging in the political process in a wholly legal manner is enough for Pierce to call for their defenestration.

Similarly, Washington, D.C.'s fake congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, issued a call for Roger Goodell to sanction the owner of the Washington Redskins for profiting off of racism. Ace has handled the idiocy of referring to the name "Redskins" as racism better than I can; allow me to simply note that this only helps prove the NBA owners are setting a dangerous precedent if they vote to strip Donald Sterling of his property for saying offensive things and holding offensive thoughts

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:53 PM | Comments (376)
Post contains 1820 words, total size 16 kb.

For your non-astronomy needs.

Posted by: CAC at 04:17 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.