-By Warner Todd Huston

I guess that getting the correct information when arranging a smear campaign and protest is not necessary when you are the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Who needs to be in the right when you are an important, powerful, politically connected union, eh? The seriousness of the charge and the effort to "raise awareness" is far more important than targeting the right people to smear, right?

It seems that the SEIU decided to picket against Marcellus Shale drilling, sometimes called hydrofracking, and the severance tax associated with it. So the government employee union picked a site in Hastings, Pennsylvania to highlight this subject and to shame the company that owns the property into siding with them.

Only one tiny, little problem. There is no Marcellus Shale drilling going on at the site they descended upon with their protests. And there never has been. It turns out the SEIU got the wrong place.

The SEIU has apologized, of course, but… well, so what? The fact that the union muffed this one so badly shows that truth and due diligence doesn't really mean much to this union.

As HotAir.com and Michelle Malkin have quipped, "SEIU stands for Sorry, Error in Unionizing!"

It makes one wonder just how much of what these unions do is based on a dearth of truthful information with no effort to find out what the truth is, doesn't it?

He's for cap and trade… well, until he was against it. He's for Obamacare… well until he wants to run against it. He's against insurance companies… well, maybe not these days. He's called himself a "non-traditional" Republican because Democrats support him… yet now he wants to be Mr. Conservative to run for president?

It's Jon Huntsman: RINO King...

For those not following that closely, Jon Huntsman is Obama's recently resigned Ambassador to China. He was also the 16th Governor of Utah. A Mormon, Hunstsman is also a Republican and, though he has not officially announced, is interested in running for the GOP nomination for president.

-By Warner Todd Huston

In just one more example of the thousands of examples of political graft in Illinois, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that being a board member of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board is one giant no-show, do-nothing pay off to friends, family, and allies of Illinois' Democrats. Members make up to $100,000 a year to do practically nothing on this useless board and we, the people, are paying through the nose for it all.

Members of this board have a grueling yearly schedule, indeed. They meet once a month. Well, "meet" is relative as rules allow them to just phone it in… literally… as members constantly "attend" the meetings by listening in over the phone. So, yes, they are paid up to $100,000 a year to make a phone call once a month.

Even so, maybe you'd think that their actual duties are time consuming aside from that big once a month meeting? Not according to the Post-Dispatch. You see, the board also has full time, paid staffers that assemble all the reports and then make the recommendations for the board members to vote on. When the members "meet" they usually just rubber stamp the work of the paid staffers.

So the taxpayers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year so that a few politically connected pals and family members of the legislators can rubber stamp the well paid staffer's findings.

And who are some of these board members? One is the wife of a state senator. One is a Springfield lobbyist. Another is the ex-legislative aid of a member of the legislature. Yet another used to work for the governor. Politically connected one and all.

It gets worse. There are 321 other boards like this in Illinois. All causing the state to spend millions upon millions a year for no-show jobs given to political pals of the members of the general assembly.

Senator Sean Duffy of Barrington (R, 26th District) has been raising the alarm against these wasteful boards filled with payoffs to politician's friends.

"It's just another way for the politically connected to make money from the taxpayers," says Duffy. "They're rubber stamps. Some of them are duplicative. It's the cushiest job in government, and I can't figure out what they do."

This whole system is just indicative of the corrupt Illinois political culture we've been saddled with for decades and decades.

Duffy has made no friends with his focus on these corrupt bargains. The members of both corrupt parties have been mad at him over his focus.

"When I started talking about this, people told me, off the record, ‘This is what the majority party does, gives spouses and supporters these positions,' " Duffy said last week. "I'm getting flack from all sides. It makes everyone uncomfortable when I stand up and point this stuff out."

This is why Illinois ranks in the bottom in nearly every category in the country. The most corrupt state in the union.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Obama's National Labor Relations Board made itself infamous not long ago by attempting to tell Boeing in what state it was allowed to build a new manufacturing plant. Indulging his penchant toward anti-business, anti-capitalist sentiment Obama decided that he was the final arbiter on where companies were allowed to move and set up shop. Boeing was evil, you see because they wanted to get out from under the business-destroying grip of unions.

The monsters at Boeing were "retaliating" against the unions said Obama and his NLRB. Boeing was moving its plant from Washington State to North Carolina because in NC the unions have less power. So, it's the unionista in chief to the rescue of the jobs-killing unions. Boeing needs to be slapped down for it's evilness, don't you know?

But, here is where Obama's ever present hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again.

As Senator Jim DeMint informs us, Obama's own closest adviser was a member of the board of Boeing right at the same time it was implementing the decision that Obama thinks is so evil. And yet, Obama sees no reason not to accept Bill Daley -- the adviser in question -- as his White House Chief of Staff.

"If the president really believes Boeing broke the law as is contended by the National Labor Relations Board, he should ask his chief of staff [Bill] Daley to take a leave of absence," DeMint said Thursday on a conference call with reporters, organized by the right-leaning Workforce Fairness Institute.

It isn't just Daley, either…

"The president has since appointed the president of Boeing as his chairman of the Export Commission," DeMint continued. "If he thinks Boeing has broken the law, he needs to make some changes."

On one hand Obama tries to destroy Boeing with his anti-business, union-supporting tactics, saying Boeing is the most evil corporation in modern business. Yet he fills his own administration with members of that same company.

Obama's hypocrisy knows no end.

But there is a method to Obama’s madness. If Obama uses his power to regulate to harm business, then invites the officers of that same business to fill slots in his administration, why he can then scare that business into doing what he wants them to do, he can then set up government approved status for Boeing with Obama in full control. We call it crony capitalism. It is the sort of thing that fascism is built on, too.

-By Warner Todd Huston

On Friday Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu schooled President Obama -- who is clearly out of his depth -- on Middle East diplomacy. This would not have been necessary if Obama had not tried to turn decades of American foreign policy on its ear, if he had not turned against our only real Mid East fried, and if he hadn't made to come to the comfort of radical Islamists without conscience who only want to kill Jews and Americans. Obama also proved that just killing bin Ladden does not equal foreign policy expertise.

Coming off his high after presiding over the end of America's number one enemy, Obama thought he saw an opening to help bin Ladden's Islamist pals win a small battle over Israel. He planned his big speech on America's new Mid East policy. Unfortunately for President Obama, the Hindenburg had a more successful flight than Obama's new foreign policy ideas.

Most of the president's speech was pedestrian and meandering, but one sentence was snuck in that completely changed American Middle East policy, or at least it was intended to.

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

Now, many on the left are claiming that this is an unremarkable sentence and is nothing less than the repetition of foreign policy espoused by presidents going back decades. This spin is, however, wholly incorrect. This sentence is a major shift away from Israel and toward the radical Islamists that want Israel destroyed.

Prime Minister Netanyahu understood full well what a major shift this was and during his joint press conference with President Obama the Israeli PM he shot down Obama's foolish attempt to change direction in no uncertain terms. Why did the Israeli PM so sternly reprimand President Obama? Because Obama's shift changes decades of American foreign policy in the favor of the so-called Palestinians.

Obama is the first president to claim that the 1967 border goal is an American goal. Previous presidents always couched this as a Palestinian goal, not an American one. This may be subtle, but it is important. The U.S. has never backed the Palestinian's claim that the 1967 border is a condition for peace. Past American presidents talked of that boarder, yes, but only to mollify Palestinian sensibilities never as an American goal.

Another subtlety that Obama abandoned was the idea that any peace will be affected by realities of the current situation. In other words, American policy never assumed that the many Israeli settlers that fill the territories would simply be swept away rolled away by the arbitrary borders that the Palestinians wished for.

Past presidents also averred that the Israeli military and security services had to agree to whatever change was made based on Israel's security. This seems to be another thing Obama was trying to throw out.

The fact is there is not now and has never been any such thing as a Palestinian state. There never has been such a thing as a Palestinian people. On the other hand, the state of Israel is an historical fact both in ancient times as well as today. Any new state called Palestine -- while it may be a good idea to create -- would be wholly new and without historical precedent. In his zeal to create this new state, Obama turned his back on Israel.

It's no wonder that the president looked so uncomfortable in Friday's press conference with Israel's prime minister. His hands were being slapped with a foreign policy ruler… and rightfully so.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, accidental Governor Pat Quinn is finally doing something right. He has pledged to sign HB3500, a bill that will keep confidential and away from the eyes of anti-gun activists and the Old Media alike the personal information of registered firearm owners in Illinois.

The Illinois Senate passed the bill 42 to 1 overturning a decision by left-wing Attorney General Lisa Madigan to turn over to the Old Media the names, addresses, and personal info on file of all citizens that have registered with the state for an Illinois Firearm Owners ID card (FOID).

Illinois citizens are not allowed to buy or sell firearms or ammunition in the Land of Lincoln without registering with the state and because this information is in the hands of the Illinois State Police, the Associated Press imagined that this information should be public.

The AP claimed it wanted this information as an effort at "transparency" in government. Naturally, the only real reason the AP could want this information is to "out" gun owners, discomfort them, and make them unsafe in their homes by harassment by the media as well as open them up to criminals targeting them for their firearms.

Initially, when the AP made its request, the State Police refused said that this would violate the privacy of the people. Attny Gen Madigan, however, was happy to help the AP harass legal gun owners in her state and instructed the police to turn over the list to the press.

This prompted the legislature to write a law to prevent Madigan's anti-gun activism.

Fortunately the bill passed both houses of the legislature and the Governor has pledged to sign it. It's a win for gun owners in a state where that does not often happen.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Father Michael Pfleger, one of the most hateful and divisive priests on the American Catholic scene, has been temporarily given back his position as pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side by Chicago's Cardinal Francis George.

In a new statement posted on the website of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Father Pfleger apologizes for threats to leave the Church that he made in a radio interview last month saying he feared that his comments were hurting the Church -- something he claimed he didn't intend.

With public apology in hand, Cardinal George has reinstated this hatemonger to his former role as pastor of St. Sabina Church in order to allow him to help find a new pastor and help with that transition. Apparently he has until December to make the arrangements.

This is quite a shame. He does not deserve the consideration. Pfleger has a long, long history of extremist rhetoric, racist statements, personal attacks on citizens and politicians both, and hardcore, left-wing political activism. He has also stood strongly against many tenets of the Catholic Church like ordination for women and the Church's stance on gays and gay marriage, to name just a few.

Not only is Michael Pfleger not a very good priest, he's not even a very good Catholic. It is a shame that Church leaders are letting this man continue to despoil the Church even temporarily.

There is another interesting thing with this Pfleger debacle, too. As John Ruberry reminds us, few Catholic Priests are allowed more than a term or two as the leader of a particular parish.

…a memorial to another Catholic priest, the Rev. Charles E. Cronin, who served a seven year term as pastor at Skokie's St. Peter Church. Seven years. With rare exceptions, Chicago archdiocese priests are limited to one term as pastor at a parish. Pfleger, utilizing bombastics and whining, is serving his fifth term at St. Sabina.

So, Pfleger has already been given special treatment as it is and that is before he became the most hateful priest in the country! Pfleger is no different than Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church famous for picketing soldier's funerals and sporting signs that "God Hates Gays."

Text of thee two letters:

Statement of Father Michael Pfleger

May 20, 2011

If my remarks in a radio interview seemed to be a threat to leave the priesthood, I am sorry. That was not my intention. I am committed to the priesthood and the Catholic Church. I believe all who know me know well that I want to be a Catholic priest. I have spent the last 36 years of my life trying my best to preach the Gospel, be a voice for justice and the poor, and build up the Church.

In our conversations, Cardinal George and I recognized that the Church has been hurt, and this concerns us both. For the people of St. Sabina and the Church as a whole, I will do all in my power to foster healing for all. We trust in the healing power of God.

Cardinal George has asked, and I agree, that we move toward creating a plan of transition for the future of St. Sabina. In conversation with the people of St. Sabina and our Episcopal Vicar, Bishop Joseph Perry, I will prepare a transition plan for St. Sabina to present to the Cardinal and the Priests’ Placement Board by December 1, 2011.

Cardinal George and I are committed to work together to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in his Body, the Church.

++++++

Statement of Francis Cardinal George, OMI

May 20, 2011

After the remarks Father Pfleger made on National Public Radio, which seemed to place himself outside the Church and constitute a threat to leave the Catholic priesthood, I asked Father Pfleger to take time to pray about his personal faith and his commitment to the Catholic priesthood. In the past month, Father Pfleger and I have discussed how the Church has been wounded and how necessary it is to find a way to heal the hurt and confusion.

Father Pfleger’s statement, which he discussed with me, is a genuine step toward healing the hurt and clarifying the confusion.

Many people have been personally affected by these events, including the people of St. Sabina Parish, and I hope that our statements now will bring the peace necessary to strengthen the mission of the Church. I am personally pleased to restore Father Pfleger to his sacramental and pastoral ministry at St. Sabina and in the Archdiocese of Chicago. With him, I ask the Lord to bless him and the people he loves.

As Archbishop of this local Church, the Archdiocese of Chicago, I share with the auxiliary bishops and priests a particular responsibility for our unity in Christ. We rely upon Christ to heal us now and to guide us in the future. I look forward to visiting St. Sabina Parish in the near future.

-By Warner Todd Huston

From a gang of six to a gang of Dick s, Durbin torpedoes compromise once again

The "gang of six" is a group of senators who had taken it upon themselves to come to some sort of agreement over the competing budget ideas between Republicans and Democrats. It was hoped that these six senators could find a compromise that could kick off the debate with some sort of general agreement right at the start. But it was doomed to begin with. In fact, it is easy to understand how the new "gang of six" talks fell apart in the U.S. Senate this week.

The gang of six had the misfortune of having Dick Durbin (D, IL), one of the most partisan, far left senators in America, as a member. Compromise was never in the cards.

True to form, Durbin's far left, no compromise demeanor caused the talks to bog down and ultimately led to the gang's parting of ways. Politico has the story.

The spat over a deficit-reduction package had been building for weeks, and Coburn had grown frustrated that the Gang of Six wouldn’t get specific enough about where it would cut domestic spending — and he wanted some $130 billion more in cuts out of Medicare.

Believing that the demands were unreasonable, an irritated Durbin engaged in what one source said was a “loud and passionate” argument with the combative conservative Republican, prompting the Illinois Democrat to ultimately tell Coburn that they had reached an “impasse.” Coburn said he slept on it and called Durbin the next morning to tell him, “You’re right.”

Politico tried to steer the story to blame Tom Coburn (R, OK) for his lack of compromise and for continually asking for deeper cuts, but Politico also only quoted Democrats in it's hit job against Coburn, which is telling.

However, one thing that Politico conveniently ignored: the results of the midterm elections.

While Durbin and the Democrats offered weak tea for cuts and while they did little to advance the will of the voters, Coburn seems to have been the only member of the gang who heard what the voters were saying. He was the only one trying to advance the sort of cuts that voters are demanding.

But it was Durbin that really wouldn't bend. He is the biggest pusher of the nanny state in congress. He is the far left's attack dog. He supports every left-wing shibboleth you can imagine. Last year, for instance, Durbin claimed that the people didn't need any vote on brining terrorists to Illinois. His vote was all we needed, apparently.

It might also be remembered that during the Bush years it was Durbin that said our troops were like Nazis. When pushed he gave one of those non-apology apologies and tried to pretend that he really didn't mean it. Fake apology or not, this sort of hate is typical from Dick Durbin.

So, while Politico attacks the only one of the vaunted gang of six that was paying any attention at all to what YOU want, Dick Durbin was torpedoing the group with his hardcore leftism. It went from a gang of six to a gang of Dick s.

This week Youtube launched a new channel it is calling the "Youtube Townhall," a new channel where members of congress are seen in short videos discussing the issues of the day.

Republican Senators Alexander, McCain, Moran, Lugar, Sessions, Isakson, and Hutchison have already uploaded videos to the channel and more are on the way. Republican Representatives Steve Chabot and Phil Gingrey have also added videos.

Interestingly, the identification of the members of Congress do not include party affiliation on the site.

Youtube's description of its new site is as follows:

YouTube Town Hall is an online platform for members of Congress to debate and discuss the most important issues of the day. Visitors can select an issue, watch two short videos expressing competing ideas, and then support the one they agree with most. To help people focus on the merits of the idea and not the party of the speaker, the speaker's party isn't revealed until after a user decides which video to support. The most supported videos will be highlighted on the YouTube Town Hall Leaderboard.

The issues included on the site today are those that were the most popular on Google News and Search over the past year. From this point on though the YouTube community has the opportunity to ask (and vote on) the questions they want members of congress to answer. Every month members of congress will add new videos to the site answering a selection of the top-voted questions. Interested in lowering gas prices, or reforming the tax system, or making college more affordable? Visit YouTube.com/YtTownHallQuestions now to ask a question!

Youtube Townhall

-By Warner Todd Huston

Extremist environmentalists have won yet another victory for propagandizing our children in schools by forcing Scholastic Books to junk a proposed energy-themed classroom education packet that treated the subject in a more even handed mode in favor of a program that only pushes extremist enviro policies. Yes, once again, the hard-core, anti-capitalist left has won a victory to control what our kids are taught in our schools.

As we learn from Commentary Magazine, Scholastic's energy program has been under attack from the far left for weeks. Mother Jones Magazine, The New York Times, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the group aptly named "Treehugger" have been attacking the children's book publisher to force them to jettison the proposed series because Scholastic had authored the program in partnership with the American Coal Foundation.

The 4th grade lesson program was built on a larger look at America's energy products including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power along with the so-called green energies of wind and solar power. But the inclusion of traditional (and technologically possible) forms of energy like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear was enough to send the heads of the radical enviro-wacko's heads spinning.

The enviro-wackos claimed that this program was an evil attempt at "commercial indoctrination" of kids. This, then, is what caused them to launch their concentrated attack on the publisher. But as Bryan Preston has it closer to the truth. "This is the latest in the left’s campaign against fossil fuels, claiming that providing children any information on coal is commercial indoctrination, worthy of an all out ideological war. But the original lesson packet wasn’t limited to coal, and also included general information on nuclear, hydroelectric power, wind, natural gas and solar energy."

Sadly, Scholastic has bowed to the pressure of these far-out leftists. Now, instead of a sensible and logical look at America's energy possibilities Scholastic will give the kiddies a guide written by "expert" Laurie David, the Hollywooder that helped Al Gore write and co-produce his slanted and scientifically dubious film Inconvenient Truth.

As Commentary says, the replacement program is, "filled with alarmism and environmental propaganda, hinting to kids that polar bears and walruses will die if their parents don’t buy hybrid cars or promote ethanol-based fuel."

The new program even encourages little kids to assault their local politicians with pre-written letters telling them to start enviro-themed programs.

Dear Mayor _____________________________________,

Global warming is real and its here to stay – unless we do something to stop it. There’s an amazing agreement that more than 400 of your fellow mayors have signed. It’s called the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. It’s a 12-step program that sets reasonable goals for you city to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to below what the levels were in 1990. Please join these other mayors in being leads in the fight to stop global warming.

The kids of the world are depending on you.

Sincerely,

__________________________________, Age _______

Scholastic has gone from giving kids a dispassionate look at America's energy policy to using children as political pawns to advance a radical, left-wing, anti-capitalist, environmental policy. Yeah, that's a good trade off, eh?

All because Scholastic didn't have the spine to stand up to the radical enviro-lobby.

Folks, we need to take back our education system from the anti-American forces of the left that daily have our children in thrall to far left, anti-American ideals. We ignore this sort of garbage at our own peril. With programs like this flooding into our schools every day it is no wonder we are turning out voters without a clue driving this country toward socialist utopian thinking.

Here is the waste and fraud that your tax dollars are put to, America. Senator Tom Coburn has alerted the nation to a 30-year-old man in California named Stanley Thornton, Jr., who is paid by Social Security to lay about his house and pretend he is a baby replete with diapers, baby bottles for nourishment and a 300 pound "nurse" to take care of him.

No kidding. This guy pretends to be a baby and we, the people, send him Supplemental Security Income benefits to do it.

Of course, this California nut claims that he is mentally unable to cope with life and that his SSI benefits are needed because he is "disabled" by his mental state of thinking he is a baby. But Coburn thinks this guy is just scamming the government.

“Given that Mr. Thornton is able to determine what is appropriate attire and actions in public, drive himself to complete errands, design and custom-make baby furniture to support a 350-pound adult and run an Internet support group, it is possible that he has been improperly collecting disability benefits for a period of time,” Mr. Coburn wrote in a letter Monday to Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll Jr.

Amusingly, the Washington Times reached out to little Mr. Thornton to ask his response to Coburn's charges. In reply, Thornton threatened to kill himself if the government cut off his freeloading.

“You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” the California man said. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Thornton!

Still, I find Thornton's reply proof of Coburn's charges. After all, I've yet to se a real baby that can reply cogently -- even with threats -- to an email. Heck, I've never seen a baby yet even able to type "goo-goo-ga-ga."

Thornton certainly seems to be a great example of the sort of fraud and abuse from which our social system suffers.

(H/T The PJ Tattler) -->

-By Warner Todd Huston

Bill Clinton wants the government to "correct" what you say on the Internet, folks. Should the government listen to the former panderer-in-chief, we'll go from Big Brother to Big Bubba on the ol' Internet tubes.

Bubba is not happy with what he claims is the “misinformation” on the Internet and he wants the force of government to stop it all. Politico is reporting that Clinton makes the proposal in an upcoming CNBC interview saying, "It would be a legitimate thing to do."

No, Bubba, it would not.

Clinton says that the idea of having a government agency that "corrects" the "misinformation" on the Internet would be "independent" of government so it isn't a traditional government agency. This, he feels would make it all A-OK with those fearing Big Brother government ministries of propaganda.

Again, Bubba, it would not.

How it is even possible to have an "independent federal agency," is anyone's guess. After all, the second such an agency came into being it would be controlled by the political body of Congress or a presidential administration. There is no way such an agency could ever be "independent." In fact, even the appearance of impropriety is enough to discredit such an effort.

But Bubba insists.

"That is, it would be like, I don't know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors" he said. "And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it's a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money."

But isn't that the rub? Whose "facts" will be presented? Will those facts be administered under the thumb of a fact-master like Clinton, Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica," himself?

Veracity would be a word hard to associate with the BMF, the Bubba Ministry of Facts.

I am not saying there are no such things as facts. Certainly facts are facts, but what people think they can lead to is often ideological, philosophical, or driven by an agenda. There can be several ways to look at a fact and then extrapolate what that fact will "do" once put into play and that, after all, is the nub of politics -- it's even a root of human nature, for that matter. People's perception of what facts mean will differ.

So, if we have this "independent federal agency" deciding what is the right and proper way to view the facts, what do we have? No less than a ministry of right-thinking. This amounts to propaganda. Period.

There is no official role for government to correct what people write on the Internet. Administrations, presidents, parties, individual politicians, they certainly have the role -- no the responsibility -- to let people know what facts and policies they think are best, but there is no role in government for any official fact-master.

This whole idea, however, is quite normal for liberals. Their fascist desire to shut people down, to use the mechanism of government to quash ideas liberals are not fond of, is a core belief motivating liberal thinking.

The fact is, it is up to we, the people, to learn the facts. As Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said exiting the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, we have a republic "if we can keep it." We are responsible to discerning the facts. It isn't government's role to lead us by the nose so.

Big Bubba is not an idea whose time has come. But it isn't surprising that the anti-liberty left might propose such a thing.

… and Why Liberals are Our Weak Spot

-By Warner Todd Huston

For the online, left-wing magazine Slate, William Saletan thinks he's found something that will damage Osama bin Ladden's reputation in the Islamic world. But what he thinks is such a big deal proves that he doesn't understand radical Islam or even the Muslim world. Worse, it proves why liberals are our soft spot and why they could be the death of us.

Saletan is all excited over the fact that the U.S. found a large cache of pornography in bin Ladden's living quarters. This, Saleton is happy to say, will undermine bin Ladden's reputation as a strictly holy man. This hurts bin Ladden, says Saleton, because, "they're more upset by porn and hiding behind women than by suicide bombing"

Saleton contends that in our fight against bin Ladden, we've found the right "argument" to level against our opponent.

Why is porn such a big idea?

After discussing some polls in Europe, Saleton cites the findings on how Muslims felt about pornography.

On pornography, the pattern was reversed. In France, 43 percent of the general public said viewing pornography was morally acceptable, but only 16 percent of Muslims agreed. In Germany, 58 percent of the general public, but only 18 percent of Muslims, said it was acceptable. And while 35 percent of Brits said it was acceptable, only 1 percent of British Muslims shared that view.

"In sum," Saleton says, "if you're looking for an argument in Western Europe that's more likely to appeal to Muslims than to the general population, pornography is a better bet than civilian casualties."

Saleton goes on to further explore how badly porn is looked upon by devout Muslims and concludes that this is the magic bullet that will undermine the bin Ladden mystique.

Oh, but would it be that simple.

You see, Saleton's problem is that he takes the whole blather about how negatively Muslims feel about porn and accepts prima facia that if Muslims come to believe that bin Ladden was a heavy user of porn that they will turn away in shame from his legacy.

It is simply foolish to believe that radical Islamists will bow to this supposed religious principle. They will not. Worse, it is even absurd to think regular Muslims will turn away from bin Ladden because of this.

We must remember that Muslims are some of the most conspiracy minded people in human history. To believe the lies they swallow whole about Jews and Israel alone takes a Herculean effort to avoid truth. Their nearly universal disbelief in the Holocaust, their penchant to think that the USA and the Jews are behind every bad thing that happens to them, even their belief in the existence of Muhammad himself are all exercises in high fantasy.

Instead of seeing Muslims turn away from bin Ladden because of a porn stash, a million conspiracy theories will be born to excuse it away. Muslims will simply claim that the porn was planted by the great Statan, the USA. They absolutely won't believe that bin Ladden had anything to do with the pornography.

In fact, any violation of religious principle is explained away as ultimately useful for "the cause" of destroying the big and little Satan. If Binnie need a little porn to beat the USA and Israel, well no Muslim will deny him that.

That Saleton was foolish enough to imagine that there are any real religious principles behind the beliefs of radical Islam makes him dangerous. It leads him and liberals like him to the mistaken notion that appealing to Muslims’s religious tenets will help us "understand" Islam and will, in turn, help us figure out a way to turn them to our side -- or at least defuse them enough for this whole thing to fade away.

What Saleton refuses to come to grips with is that religion is only a veneer for radical Islam. Any violation of their religion is acceptable if it leads to killing Jews and Americans. They accept the generally violent leanings of their religion and culture, of course. Violent Jihad is the only principle they won't turn away from. But the little things, like treating women well, accepting others, staying away from drink or pornography, all this is easily ignored for the greater goal of dealing death and destruction in an effort to control the world.

As the saying goes, they "don't sweat the little stuff" in order to achieve success on the "big stuff."

That Saleton thinks that telling Muslims (that won't believe him anyway) that bin Ladden violated some of the little stuff of Islam won't in the least dissuade them from thinking Binnie is the big stuff for his 9/11 success. That Saleton thinks it will shows why folks of his ilk on our side give the enemy the upper hand and puts us all in danger.

Everyone's jaws are jamming about the fact that ten years ago Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child out of wedlock with some hussey or another. The follow up shocker is that his wife of 25 years, Maria Shriver -- a member of the Kennedy clan -- has left him. It all makes me wonder what is wrong with Maria Shriver? What sort of Kennedy IS she, anyway.

I was recently on Political Vindication Radio and we came to several conclusions about this whole Shriver woman business.

Maria Shriver simply can't be a Kennedy. I am convinced she was adopted or something.

Shriver stood up for herself here. She refused to allow her husband to sleep around without consequences. She's left him and apparently wants a divorce! This is very good and right for her to do, of course, but it is very unKennedy-like.

Kennedy women don't stand up for themselves. Kennedy women don't scold husbands in public for sleeping around. Kennedy women are meek, weak of will, subservient. Kennedy women let their men sleep around all they want.

In fact, for standing up for herself, holding her husband accountable, and in essence saying he was an immoral lout, she has proved to be as different as can be from the other Kennedy woman throughout history.

Oh, Maria Shriver shows shades of Kennedyism by having a husband that sleeps around. Heck, they ALL have that. But what is with this whole standing up for herself business?

Yep. Very un-Kennedy.

I want to see Maria Shriver's birth certificate to prove she's a Kennedy.

Anyway, at least all of Arnold's mistresses are still alive. Most other Kennedy's kill theirs.

I just finished with a blogger conference call held by Speaker Gingrich in which he tried to further explain where he stands on Paul Ryan, the budget, and Obamacare.

Newt has have been characterized as "trashing Paul Ryan," and Ryan himself took a swipe at him on a Chicago radio show (Ryan said something like, "with conservative like him who needs enemies?"), and of course many see his purported attack on Ryan as a violation of Reagan's famed 11th Commandment. So Newt has a lot to answer for, for sure.

He's badly confused the situation and some are calling for him to drop out and give it all up. Even Rush Limbaugh is claiming that Newt knows he can't win the nomination and this whole thing is just an effort at positioning himself for other things in the future (Rush says Newt might just be angling for a position at the Aspen Institute)

Newt, however, insists that his comments were entirely consistent, that he was taken out of context, and that he wasn't in any way attacking Paul Ryan.

Newt's Comments

Newt was asked directly if he supported Ryan's budget principles, the Path to Prosperity.

"I do support the Ryan plan," Newt said. "When it came out I wrote a piece titled, 'From Paul Revere to Paul Ryan' in support."

Newt was also asked why he seemed to support an individual mandate in the video clip that was used by David Gregory on last weekend's Meet The Press appearance. How could he have been for one then but not now?

"I don't regard a statement made 18 years ago concerning Hillarycare as having anything to do with today and Obamacare," the Speaker said.

"Conservatives in general in 1993 trying to defeat Hillarycare were saying exactly what I had said in that clip. It was a different world then as we were not in a situation of how far Obama has taken the government toward a [socialist] direction. The Democrats have reversed FDR and they have nothing to offer but fear itself," Newt added.

Gingrich went on to say that he was not necessarily against Ryan's plan but is against the sort of "coercion" that radical change in healthcare would force on the public.

"The scale of change we are proposing is very, very large and affects people's lives in a very personal way. We should not try to impose on the people a plan they don't understand."

One of those invited onto the call asked, "Would you still vote for Paul Ryan's plan?"

"Yes," Newt said. "But coming out of the proposal we have to write a bill and that is a vastly more difficult process. The budget statement is not the final bill. We are at the very beginning of an important national discussion. Does anyone think this plan will be signed by this president? This plan is only the first step of setting up the argument for 2012."

Still, some callers were confused as to why Newt seemed to be dissing the Republican plan as "radical change from the right."

Newt said that he felt that healthcare was too difficult to change in radical ways.

"I am worried about compelling the people to accept a radical change that hasn't been tested. Healthcare is ten times more complicated than national security. We were gaining ground with health savings accounts and medicare advantage that were a direct threat to the way that liberals want to do things. But these programs didn't require coercion."

Whatever Newt really meant, he most certainly caused himself some troubles right at the outset of his campaign. Some are saying that this is "Newt being Newt." This has a ring of truth to it. Like Mitch Daniels, Newt spends an awful lot of time re-explaining himself.