As dominoes go, this is a pretty big one.

The New Yorker is coming around to the possibility that the Benghazi coverup might be more than a Republican fantasy:

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

...Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue.

...In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), [White House Press Secretary Jay Carney] said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.

This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

You can expect any politician's Twitter feed to be littered with anodyne banalities, but as Mollie noted below, the White House's tweets are notable for their unintentional revelations. 

Whoever's in charge might want to throttle back on the Dear Leader posts, though.

Our North Star? Note to the acolytes: you might believe that the President is the guiding light in the celestial firmament, but it's probably not a wise idea to pepper the feed of the People's House with lines from your daily devotionals. 

The New Yorker is not generally known as a right-wing rag—it is very much an Obamaphile publication, in fact—but even it can’t deny that there was something very wrong with the Obama administration’s response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi:

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now… .

Read the whole thing. And recall that from the very outset, Obamaphiles have assured us that criticism of the administration on this issue was misguided and partisan, without any real credibility. So much for that claim. (The talking points are linked in the excerpt, but I am going to provide another link to them here.)

Ron Fournier sums up matters rather well:

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.” With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft “talking points” leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard — also contradict the White House version of events that led to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice misleading the public about the cause of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. installation in Libya.

Where does this all lead?

Politics: It would be naïve to expect any White House to ignore the political implications of a foreign policy crisis occurring two months before a presidential election. But there is a reason why no White House admits to finessing a tragedy: It’s unseemly. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland injected politics into the U.S. response to Benghazi when she raised objections to draft “talking points” being prepared for Rice’s television appearances.

One paragraph, drafted by the CIA, referenced the agency’s warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months prior to the attack, as well as extremists linked to the al-Qaida affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information “could be abused by members (of Congress) to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

How much more has to be revealed before the administration’s response to the Benghazi attack gets seriously investigated?

as only it can:

Thanks to the #ACA, 1 in 3 women under 65 gained access to preventive care—like birth control—with no out-of-pocket costs. #HappyMothersDay

— The White House (@whitehouse) May 10, 2013

As I relate in detail in my book, for about 30 years there has been an ongoing attempt to morph campus anti-harassment rules into broad, all-purpose speech codes. For almost as long, the law and public have pushed back. For nearly 15 years FIRE has pushed back, as well, and the definition of harassment was starting to take shape as a description of an unprotected pattern of serious discriminatory behavior, not a generalized "right not to be offended." Now the DOJ and DOE have undone decades of work in one letter. I am stunned.

More from FIRE's PR:

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2013—In a shocking affront to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have joined together to mandate that virtually every college and university in the United States establish unconstitutional speech codes that violate the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent. 

"I am appalled by this attack on free speech on campus from our own government," said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has been leading the fight against unconstitutional speech codes on America's college campuses since its founding in 1999. "In 2011, the Department of Education took a hatchet to due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. Now the Department of Education has enlisted the help of the Department of Justice to mandate campus speech codes so broad that virtually every student will regularly violate them. The DOE and DOJ are ignoring decades of legal decisions, the Constitution, and common sense, and it is time for colleges and the public to push back." 

In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country," the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private. 

Also, check out this spot-on analysis by a former DOE lawyer on the DOE's and DOJ's shocking overreach. 

I haven't followed the case very closely, but I get the impression that, by inflicting 27 to 30 stab wounds (depending on the news source) in addition to slitting her lover's throat and shooting him, Jodi Arias may have inflicted more wounds than even OJ Simpson was accused of dispensing. If only she had yelled, "Allahu Akbar," or at least done things Kermit Gosnell-style, and said that she was merely performing a very-very-late-term-abortion, things may have worked out differently for her. Come to think of it, had she the foresight to kill as many potential opponents as possible, she could have been given a small country to run, along with the undying adulation of the New York Times editorial board. Castro is getting old after all, Hugo Chavez is dead, and Sean Penn needs someone new to admire. 

Imagine for a moment all of the heavy hitters, with their heavy gravitas, gravitating from one piece of chicanery to the next. Hillary Clinton could have testified, presumably having as much knowledge of the Arias case as she claims to have had of security problems at Benghazi, and thundered, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" before receiving the MSNBC Distinguished Award for Indignant Ignorance. For his part, Jay Carney could have employed his boyish charm and pugnacious dishonesty to simultaneously deride the murder as old news and call out the prosecution for politicizing the issue. They could have even jailed a film maker.  

For that matter, if Jodi Arias had murdered Travis Alexander as an act of jihad, she would have benefited from the Attorney General's announcement that no backlash would be tolerated, and that the full weight of the US Justice Department would come crashing down like thunder on the head of anyone guilty of Anti-Ariasism. And if no such acts were forthcoming, the Council on American-Islamic Relations would have fabricated a few just to give the media something -- anything -- to talk about besides the murder.  

Major newspapers would have implored us to understand the rage and address the root causes. Maybe Jodi didn't make the soccer team. Maybe it was George Bush's fault. The US Army could have conducted social actions seminars for the troops, warning them of any extremists who might question Ms. Arias' motives. For his part, Dana Milbank could have described the story as, "…a made-for-Hollywood plot with slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion," but reluctantly conclude that the story would, "…not be much use…"

The preceding being rank nonsense of course, primarily because Jodi Arias didn't claim Islamic motives for her butchery, it bears reminding that the same arguments, methodology, and pathologies described above have comprised the liberal response to Islamist attacks in general and the Benghazi attack in particular. How else to explain the yawning indifference that greeted the news that an event reported by those on-scene as an attack, was, for days and weeks thereafter, referred to as a 'spontaneous demonstration' whose roots lay in an obscure YouTube video?  And what, in retrospect, ought we to make of the Presidential statement that was made on the day of the attack? 

This attack on the American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it's disgusting, it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom, and justice, and honor.  

… America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles in our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

That statement had a lot going for it, encapsulating the horrific reality of the attack and, with one glaring problem, speaking to American resolve in the face of savagery. The glaring problem, incidentally, was the fact that President Obama never made that statement.  Governor Romney did, for which trouble he was vilified by people who've spent the intervening months either ignoring the facts of the Benghazi attack or actively covering them up. As for the President's response, we turn to a video that you paid for, starring the President and then-Secretary of State Clinton. From the President's remarks: 

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None.

And if that doesn't put the fear of some deity or other into the radicals, Secretary Clinton delivered the following ultimatum: 

Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

From resolution of this magnitude, Islamic attacks will spring eternal. The crowning crime of it all is that, even as they spoke this pusillanimous pablum into the camera, they knew bloody good and well that a video had nothing to do with this; that it wasn't a spontaneous uprising, but rather a coordinated and planned attack. They knew this from real-time reports from the battle. They knew this because they had been warned by the intelligence community and by the diplomatic staff in Benghazi that something was brewing. Secretary Clinton knew because she had rejected requests for increased security, and it was her State Department that was busy re-writing administration talking points, deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA's earlier warnings.  

This is neither a botched burglary nor a trade of arms for hostages. Four Americans are dead due to inadequate security in the face of a known and growing threat, and a steadfast refusal to send reinforcements to the battle.  The response afterward was to obfuscate, lie, and denigrate anyone who sought the truth in order to get through the election. We now know that Special Forces personnel were ready to roll, but were told to stand down. We know that people within the State Department who wanted to tell the truth were instructed by State Department lawyers to remain silent and, in some cases, were subject to retribution.  

What we don't know yet, but might still find out, is what exactly the President did during the attack. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the utterly regrettable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, have both testified that, aside from a 15 minute discussion in the Oval Office, neither of them heard from the President through the remainder of the evening, even as our Ambassador and three others were being murdered.  

Where was he? Did he give the "stand down" orders to Special Forces personnel? He has promised a thorough review, and his administration has followed through on that promise by trying to muzzle people like Gregory Hicks. It's time for the President to be truthful on his actions that fateful night. And it's time for the House to convene a Special Committee on Benghazi with full subpoena power. It shouldn't be that difficult, really. Just pretend it's as important as Jodi Arias. 

From the Associated Press:

The Internal Revenue Service is apologizing for inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews.

Over at National Review, Kevin Williamson responds in a manner both succinct and just:

Using the IRS to target political opponents is banana-republic stuff, a clear and intolerable violation of the public trust, not to mention relevant criminal statutes. This is not the sort of offense that should get these IRS workers fired from their jobs — it is the sort of offense that should get them five years in prison.

On Wednesday, the great Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement filed his brief on behalf of Carol Bond, a Pennsylvania woman currently doing time for violating federal law.  Even if you don't usually read legal briefs for fun, take a look at this one.  It's a fascinating read and an insight into yet one more threat to our system of federalism. 

There's no dispute about the facts: In 2006, Ms. Bond discovered that her husband was carrying on an affair with her best friend. In an attempt to exact revenge, she purchased some chemicals and spread them on the home-wrecker's mailbox, door handles, etc. Nobody ever suggested that Ms. Bond intended to kill her husband's lover, but only to cause some pain and, in fact, the only injury inflicted was a mild thumb burn. 

Ms. Bond was admittedly guilty, and she deserved to be charged, tried, and punished -- by local law enforcement. Instead, federal agents immediately wrested jurisdiction of the case and charged Ms. Bond with violating a federal law implementing . . . The Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty designed to eliminate WMDs of the chemical variety. The US implementing legislation is broad enough to reach individuals, but with the idea that individuals might be involved in stockpiling, proliferating, or using chemical weapons on a large scale. It was not intended, in the words of the Third Circuit, to turn every "kitchen cupboard and cleaning cabinet in America into a potential chemical weapons cache."

Bond appealed her conviction on the grounds that any federal law that purports to govern minor assaults exceeds Congress's enumerated powers -- treaty or no treaty. The feds have fought this tooth and nail, of course, taking the position that once the US ratifies a treaty, Congress can enact any legislation to further the treaty's purposes without regard to federalism or any other restraints on Congress's power. 

Now it's up to the Supreme Court. If the Court upholds the Administration's expansive reading of the Treaty Power, it will be yet another step in the campaign to turn the states into puppets of the federal government. Imagine what a creative Congress could do with an international treaty on global warming, or educational standards, or "reproductive rights," or gun control (as it happens, the UN Arms Treaty raises similar concerns). For more on this topic, I urge you to peruse Georgetown Professor Nick Rosenkranz's posts at Volokh, collected here. Nick warned about this sort of abuse of the treaty power in the Harvard Law Review even before the Bond case arose.

Scott Conroy, writing today at RealClearPolitics, takes a look at the political future of Chris Christie and comes to the conclusion that there's plenty of upside. To wit:

If Christie does become the first Republican since 1985 to earn at least 50 percent of the vote in a New Jersey gubernatorial contest, he will earn bragging rights that could bolster an eventual White House bid. And with the 2016 cycle expected to kick into gear earlier than past campaigns, he will need whatever boost he can get.

While Christie remains one of the nation’s most popular governors in his home state, he has a lot of work to do to win back many conservatives outside of New Jersey who were turned off by his emphatic, post-Hurricane Sandy embrace of President Obama just prior to the November election.

Organizers of February’s CPAC gathering snubbed Christie, denying him an invitation to the largest annual meeting of conservative activists, and some key GOP influencers have expressed publicly their disappointment in him.

That blowback may have disregarded Christie’s well-established conservative record on fiscal matters along with his less well-known positions on social issues. Last year, for instance, he vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey and publicly urged Mitt Romney to pick a pro-life running mate.

I'm curious as to where the Ricochetti come down on this. Is Christie a figure that you consider beyond the pale as a presidential candidate? If so, why? Was the post-Sandy presidential lovefest enough to get you off the bandwagon? Were you ever on it? If you're on the fence about Christie, what could he do to win you over? If you're a supporter, why does he command your affection? Let us know in the comments.

According to the GOP report on Benghazi released this week and testimony given by whistleblowers before the House Oversight Committee, evidence is mounting that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to Congress in January. But she didn’t commit perjury because she never testified under oath.

That’s right. The committee didn’t swear her in. Breitbart News has confirmed that she did not take the oath to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as the three witnesses did on Wednesday at the House hearing.

While all witnesses who testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee are legally obligated to tell the truth, lying to Congress is not the same as perjury.

Perjury, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, requires violation of an oath. The crime of making a false statement to Congress, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, covers lying about or concealing "a material fact" in "any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."

The difference is subtle but significant. A witness testifying under oath is under a greater obligation to tell the truth right down to what he or she believes it to be. A witness merely testifying to a committee of Congress without taking an oath may not subjectively believe what he or she is saying but will probably escape punishment, so long as he or she does not "knowingly and willfully" misrepresent or cover up a material fact.

In the Benghazi hearings, Clinton offered “ordinary testimony,” but lower-ranking officials had to testify under oath.

The differential treatment partly reflects the traditional deference shown by the legislature to presidential appointees, but also reflects a phenomenon referred to by the witnesses on Wednesday, who noted that the key decisions had been made by "presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed" officials, yet those disciplined thus far had been career civil servants. The message, they said, was that "if you're above a certain level" you will not be held accountable.

This issue has highlighted something I’ve been thinking about in response to the belief that nothing will happen with Benghazi because the mainstream media is not reporting it as they did in Watergate and Iran-Contra. While I understand the power of the press to drive stories and hold officials accountable, this does not mean justice cannot be had if popular support is absent.

It can happen if our members of Congress have the integrity and courage to do their job. Their responsibility is not to act according to the level of public support, but to uphold the laws of the land -- even if they must stand alone to do it.

Allowing Clinton to testify without being under oath is an example of political leaders putting politics above duty. If Benghazi is not investigated to the fullest extent, the blame will fall on weak politicians who have failed to do their jobs regardless of what is or isn't reported in the New York Times or on network television.

Just as Condoleeza Rice was called to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath even though she had already spoken to the panel previously, Clinton needs to be recalled to testify under oath to explain inconsistencies in her initial testimony. In addition, Speaker Boehner needs to appoint a select committee to this case so the truth can be found out once and for all and so those who are responsible for wrongdoing can be held accountable.

The dam is finally breaking and information is pouring out about what really happened in Benghazi on September 11 and how the administration and various agencies responded.

Stephen F. Hayes' reporting on the truth being removed from Administration talking points is devastating. If you didn't read his first report over at The Weekly Standard, where he broke the news that the administration worked to obscure the truth on Benghazi, do it now. ABC News' Jonathan Karl has just confirmed that report, which gives permission for the pack media to finally step up on this story. (But please, don't tell the New York Times.) Hayes' update today -- about CIA Director David Petraeus' surprise at how the truth was being scrubbed from the talking points -- is also devastating.

I know that some people care about this issue because it's a useful cudgel to use against President Obama. But I'm interested in it for different reasons.

First and foremost, I think it's a basic issue of justice. Murder is an injustice. Four of our country's bravest men were murdered. And it wasn't random. It was part of an epic conflict that we need to understand and win. Even if it was random, we owe these men and their families the search for truth and justice. They were willing to put their very lives on the line in service to our country. I don't even agree with having as much of a presence in countries across the world as we do, but that's not the point. The point is that our country does have consulates and outposts from here to kingdom come and if we're going to have them, we should defend and protect them.

When we stop caring about seeing justice served, chaos ensues. If it "doesn't matter" what happened in Benghazi, does it matter what happened in Boston? Does it matter what happens with crimes in my neighborhood?

My other big issue with this story is, unsurprisingly, the media. A friend of mine tweeted this morning:

If the U.S. had state-run media, how would things look any different than they do now?

It's an exaggeration, obviously, but almost frighteningly true. So many of our media thought their job was to protect and defend Team Obama. Remember how they cheered when Candy Crowley misrepresented the truth in that presidential debate? Remember how they showed an astonishing lack of curiosity on any detail of this story (that didn't involve a now-imprisoned YouTube filmmaker who Rich Lowry calls our country's first person jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws).

So that's why I care about the Benghazi scandal. Why do you care? And what do you hope happens from here?

I hadn't connected the oddness of our debate here in Minnesota over same-sex marriage with the fact that it's Mother's Day on Sunday, as Mollie reminds us. That said, today's vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives to legalize same-sex marriage should not pass without notice. Some interesting things happened.

I was a member in 2011 and sat through seven very emotional hours of argument when we voted to put the marriage question on the ballot. Supporters of SSM jeered, booed and, in one case, spit on a legislator who voted to place the issue on the ballot. As a result, there was beefed up security today. There were also raucous but good-natured supporters and somber opponents who appeared resigned to the outcome. In both 2011 and 2013 the outcome was known; this time the debate and vote took less than three hours. (Here are some photos if you are interested.)

Republicans offered two amendments. First was one by Rep. David FitzSimmons, who inserted the word 'civil' before 'marriage' throughout the Minnesota statute for marriage. He included language that he believes protects religious freedoms, thus:

 (a) Except for secular business activities engaged in by a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society, the conduct of which is unrelated to the religious and educational purposes for which it is organized, no religious association, religious corporation, or religious society shall be required to provide goods or services at the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage or be subject to civil liability or any action by the state that penalizes, fines, or withholds any benefit to the religious association, religious corporation, or religious society under the laws of this state, including, but not limited to, laws regarding tax exempt status, for failing or refusing to provide goods or services at the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage, if providing such goods or services would cause the religious association, religious corporation, or religious society to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) The exception in paragraph (a) applies to employees, agents, and volunteers acting within the capacity of their employment or responsibilities with a religious association, religious corporation, or religious society."

This passed on a voice vote, meaning we do not know who was against it. The bill's chief author, Rep. Karen Clark, and House DFL (Democrat-Farmer-Labor) leadership supported it as a possible way to attract GOP votes for the bill. They eventually got four out of 61 GOP representatives, including FitzSimmons. More on this in a moment.

Some weeks ago, Rep. Tim Kelly had put forth a civil union bill as an alternative, and he introduced it as an amendment after the 'civil marriage' amendment had been adopted. There was mild debate and then the amendment failed on a roll call, 22-111. Four DFL members joined 18 GOP representatives in voting for civil unions. The 4 DFL and 4 GOP members then proceeded to vote for the bill itself with its civil marriage amendment. The final tally was 75-59.

Two exit thoughts, questions infra.

1. I have no idea if the religious freedom protection in the civil marriage amendment will stand up in court to protect those churches who will refuse to provide, say, their function hall for a reception for a civil marriage of a same-sex couple. You legal types can hash that one out for me. I get the idea that the supporters had -- if you want a religious marriage, get to a church and have one, don't go to City Hall. I just hope that is airtight. The explanation has not sat well with opponents of SSM;  there are catcalls for the four who voted for it. I sympathize for them; the pressure is incredible when thousands stand outside a room waiting to see if you press a green (yes) or red (no) button.

2. We have wondered whether it has been about the word 'marriage'. Well the answer today was yes ... and no. Yes, as only 22 would vote to legalize and call all marriages 'civil unions' (not a separate, second class of contracts for same-sex couples, as I read the civil union bill.) 111 members said no to that. Each side wanted to claim the word 'marriage'. I note that, with only 4 DFL votes, civil unions could not have passed even if every GOP member voted for it. But on the other hand, if you qualify the noun 'marriage' with the adjective 'civil', that was OK with SSM supporters. I am sure there will be Ricocheti who support or oppose the adjective. Have at it in the comments.

The Senate votes on the bill Monday, the day after Mother's Day, where passage is pretty much a foregone conclusion.  Governor Mark Dayton is planning on signing the bill on Tuesday.

OK now, Team Ricochet, here's a riddle:  

You are the U.S. government. You know, the same government whose Secretary of State and her superior could not get it together to send rescuers to the aid of our ambassador to Libya. That aside, your top concern is, as your mission statement puts it, "to provide for the common defense."  

To this end, you have planes, ships and troops deployed all over the world, including in Africa. Of course, you are very protective of your facilities for communicating with your forces, and you are particularly worried about electronic eavesdropping and other forms of cyberwarfare by China. So how do you communicate with those troops and have them communicate amongst themselves?

Stumped?

To support our forces in Africa, the answer is that you rent space on a Chinese communications satellite and run all your most sensitive data and communications through it.

Yes, according to Wired.com's Danger Room blog: "The Pentagon is so starved for bandwidth that it’s paying a Chinese satellite firm to help it communicate and share data. U.S. troops operating on the African continent are now using the recently-launched Apstar-7 satellite to keep in touch and share information."

Said one official: "We recognize that there is concern across the [national security] community on the usage of Chinese satellites to support our warfighter. And yet, we also recognize that our warfighters need support, and sometimes we must go to the only place that we can get it from.”

Wired reports that: "In 2012, China for the first time launched more rockets into space than the U.S. – including the Chinasat 12 and Apstar-7 communications satellites."

As one particularly witty student of military affairs responded when I shared the Wired posting with him, "It's troubling when you can't tell the news from Onion articles."

Here's the full piece.

Is it just me or does this unnerve you, too?

My brother is in special forces, and there are two things that remain constant with all his deployments to Afghanistan:

1) It stinks -- literally. The air is rancid

and

2) Team America references.

Team America: World Police was funny for 45 minutes and gross for the other 45. However, there were a few scenes from the film that remain timelessly hilarious. Team America isn't unique in this; it's one of a multitude of films where the parts were greater than the whole.  

If you'll indulge me, this is a humble collection some of my favorite funny movie scenes.  Even if the film itself was underwhelming, these are scenes that will always make me laugh, regardless of how many times I see them.

Here are a few of my laugh out loud favorites:

Durka Durka! This scene makes me laugh every time.  Every. Time.  Even referencing this scene will make me laugh.  @exJon tweeted a loosely tethered mention of "durka" once, and I LOL'd. 

The dinner scene from The Break Up.  This scene is the perfect storm of humor. It's funny while also being excruciatingly uncomfortable.  The first time I saw it, I laughed so hard I hurt, and then I ran to my husband and made him sit through the entire thing.  (Side note: one of my absolute favorite things to do is watch my husband sit through uncomfortable awkwardness. He is a wonderful man, who has meticulously crafted his existence to avoid all social unpleasantness. To date, no other movie scene even comes close to making my him crawl inside himself to avoid the embarrassment.)  Enjoy.

Galaxy Quest: the best scenes with Guy. I love this movie. This was the film I watched through all three of my kids' deliveries. Sam Rockwell is great in this film. Enjoy.  

Ok, Ricochetti, what are some of your favorite funny movie scenes? 

Politico's media reporter, Dylan Beyers, noting a Washington Post story (which, in true WaPo fashion, was relegated to the Style section) on Sheryl Atkkisson -- the CBS reporter who's been one of the most dogged pursuers of the Benghazi story -- adds some interesting behind-the-scenes color:

... [The] piece places Attkisson in a David-vs.-Goliath narrative, wherein the Obama administration is Goliath ...

...  But from where Attkisson is sitting, there are actually two Goliaths, one of which is almost entirely absent from the Post profile.

The second Goliath is CBS News, which has grown increasingly frustrated with Attkisson's Benghazi campaign. CBS News executives see Attkisson wading dangerously close to advocacy on the issue, network sources have told POLITICO. Attkisson can't get some of her stories on the air, and is thus left feeling marginalized and underutilized. That, in part, is why Attkisson is in talks to leave CBS ahead of contract, as POLITICO reported in April.

Because Attkisson was also one of the few journalists making a prolonged push on Fast and Furious, I think we can all imagine a certain cable network that probably has her representatives on speed dial.

And I'm not sure that's a great thing.

Make no mistake, Fox gives a lot of talented, smart people a platform they wouldn't otherwise have. Those aren't the only people they give it to, but it's still something.

Still, is it too much to ask that a few troublemakers hang on to their seats at the other broadcast and cable news networks? Fox, for all its merits, is an outlet that primarily talks to people who already agree with the vast majority of its stances (which always --always-- leads to a little softening of standards). It simply means more to the median voter when a reporter at CBS gets critical of Benghazi than when Sean Hannity does the same. 

It's great that the right has taken the initiative over the past few decades to build a legitimate opposition press. But it's shameful that the rest of the media has interpreted that as a hall pass to drop any pretense of adversarial coverage of the people with which they agree.

Heather Mac Donald has written an excellent analysis of the "diversity" machine at the University of California - a machine that includes several administrators making well over $200,000 a year. The following are a few choice passages:

It’s impossible to overstate the extent to which the diversity ideology has encroached upon UC’s collective psyche and mission. No administrator, no regent, no academic dean or chair can open his mouth for long without professing fealty to diversity. It is the one constant in every university endeavor; it impinges on hiring, distorts the curriculum, and sucks up vast amounts of faculty time and taxpayer resources. The university’s budget problems have not touched it. In September 2012, for instance, as the university system faced the threat of another $250 million in state funding cuts on top of the $1 billion lost since 2007, UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses. (A pricey but appropriately “diverse” female-owned executive search firm had found this latest diversity accretion.) In May 2011, UCLA named a professional bureaucrat with a master’s degree in student-affairs administration as its first assistant dean for “campus climate,” tasked with “maintaining the campus as a safe, welcoming, respectful place,” in the words of UCLA’s assistant vice chancellor and dean of students. In December 2010, UC San Francisco appointed its first vice chancellor of diversity and outreach—with a starting salary of $270,000—to create a “diverse and inclusive environment,” announced UC San Francisco chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann. Each of these new posts is wildly redundant with the armies of diversity functionaries already larding UC’s bloated bureaucracy.

 

UC San Diego’s electrical and computer engineering department found itself facing a mandate from campus administrators to hire a fourth female professor in early 2012. The possibility of a new hire had opened up—a rare opportunity in the current budget climate—and after winnowing down hundreds of applicants, the department put forward its top candidates for on-campus interviews. Scandalously, all were male. Word came down from on high that a female applicant who hadn’t even been close to making the initial cut must be interviewed. She was duly brought to campus for an interview, but she got mediocre reviews. The powers-that-be then spoke again: her candidacy must be brought to a departmental vote. In an unprecedented assertion of secrecy, the department chair refused to disclose the vote’s outcome and insisted on a second ballot. After that second vote, the authorities finally gave up and dropped her candidacy. Both vote counts remain secret.

An electrical and computer engineering professor explains what was at stake. “We pride ourselves on being the best,” he says. “The faculty know that absolute ranking is critical. No one had ever considered this woman a star.” 

 

Sometimes, [UC's diversity machine] can’t manage to lower hiring standards enough to scoop in a “diverse” candidate. In that case, it simply creates a special hiring category outside the normal channels. In September 2012, after the meritocratic revolt in UC San Diego’s electrical and computer engineering department, the engineering school announced that it would hire an “excellence” candidate, the school’s Orwellian term for faculty who, it claims, will contribute to diversity and who, by some odd coincidence, always happen to be female or an underrepresented minority. UC San Diego’s Division of Physical Sciences followed suit the next month, listing two tenure-track positions for professors who could “shape and expand the University’s diversity initiatives.” If the division had any specific scientific expertise in mind, the job listing made no mention of it.

Here's the latest from the front lines of the academic left: The student government at Northwestern University warned students this week not to eat tacos or drink tequila on Cinco de Mayo.

Because--you know--it's racist.

“Drinking tequila shots, eating tacos, and wearing sombreros do not commemorate Mexican culture; on the contrary, that offends, marginalizes, and isolates many of our friends, classmates, and community members, and casts our entire community in poor light.”

Suddenly, I'm feeling guilty about that guacamole I ate last night. I had no idea I was disparaging an entire race. I would like to publicly thank the Student Government Association of Northwestern University for alerting me to the error of my ways.

It looks like the Obama Administration may soon request greater enforcement authority against internet communications companies to allow wiretaps. Apparently, the FBI is having trouble surveilling electronic communications beyond e-mail, such as instant messaging and social media. The FBI wants the ability to go to the courts for fines against communications providers that do not build in a backdoor to allow messages to be collected, pursuant to a warrant.

Let's get the obvious out of the way up front: if a Republican administration had proposed something like this, the civil libertarian heavens would have fallen.

The Patriot Act did something similar: it updated existing surveillance powers for the internet age. But the left jumped on it as the end of civilized government.

Let's recall the hype: Former Vice President Al Gore, calling for the Patriot Act’s repeal, accused the Bush Administration of using “fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use.” Then-presidential candidate Howard Dean denounced it as “morally wrong,” and “shameful.” In House floor debate, Dennis Kucinich claimed that “it has become crystal clear that this administration is currently and will continue to abuse, attack and outright deny the civil liberties of the people of this country in defiance of our constitution.” The American Civil Liberties Union convinced several city councils to pass symbolic resolutions refusing to obey the act and some librarians to file lawsuits against its expanded surveillance powers.

I am certain we won't hear these usual suspects voicing outrage against the Obama Administration, even though it is going just as far as Bush. In fact, it's actually going further.

Rather than ask companies for compliance with an individual warrant, it appears that the FBI wants courts to force communications providers to build in certain systems to make collection of communications easier in case there is a warrant.

This represents something much broader than complying with a court order for surveillance of an individual; it requires companies to systematically change the nature of their product to comply with a potential future government request. There seems to be precedent for this; e-mail and network providers do turn over communications in response to warrants. But in those cases, the government seeks the communication itself or some electronic systems communication -- like GPS signals, tollbooth images, or cellphone locations -- that are not created for surveillance purposes, but rather to make the system work more effectively.

What if a communication provider's very modus operandi, for example, is that it doesn't create permanent records of the messages? Can the government force changes even in those systems, undermining their very competitive advantage?

So let me get this right. President Obama had a narrative and the narrative went like this: "Thanks to my heroic assassination of Osama Bin Laden and my simultaneous wooing of the more peaceable elements in the Umma (the Cairo "surrender monkey" speech; the redesignation of NASA as an agency for Muslim outreach; etc) I, your president, have now single-handedly defeated the Al Qaeda menace."

And when reality contrived to get in the way of that narrative, reality was brushed swiftly under the carpet and four brave men - including Ambassador Chris Stevens -- lost their lives so that the Obama Administration might continue to live out its fantasy.

Sorry, but to my mind, this is way worse than Watergate or Contragate or any of the recent scandals in which Republican presidents have been implicated. In fact, in my view, had the MSM done its job it should have cost Obama the last presidential election.

Why did it not? Well, as I argue at my Telegraph blog there was a great big clue in Obama's joke at the White House correspondents' dinner.

I recognize that the press and I have different jobs to do.  My job is to be President; your job is to keep me humble.  Frankly, I think I’m doing my job better.

Except it wasn't really a joke at all. Just an honest reflection of the near-total lack of scrutiny that the Obama administration gets from his amen corner in the MSM.

My second post for my guest blogging series for the Louis D. Brandeis Center is now up. By highlighting several prominent cases, I explore the selective application of "hate speech" rules on campuses against those who offer any criticism of Islam, regardless of how mild or truthful.

These cases provide compelling examples of how students can get themselves in trouble for expressing viewpoints critical of Islam in the one place that is supposed to enthusiastically welcome important debates: our colleges and universities. It’s also a tale of how, regardless of their good intentions, “hate speech” rules can be selectively used as a political cudgel to silence speech administrators and faculty dislike.

Mother's Day is the worst. I know, I know, you're trying to get me fired just for saying it. Here's my short case for why I don't really celebrate it:

• It's not on the liturgical calendar (speaking of which, Happy Ascension Day, everyone!). My enthusiastic celebration of non-holy holy days is limited to the 4th of July and Thanksgiving.
• It can be a spectacularly cruel day for women who are barren, who grieve dead children, who failed as mothers or who never married.
• It gives children and spouses the idea that one day of pampering makes up for a general lack of gratitude.

It turns out that I'm blessed to have a husband and children who make me feel appreciated and loved every day of the year. That's far more than I could ever hope for.

Anyway, before you yell at me for my un-American ways, allow me to point to someone whose ideas about Mother's Day are even worse! Kate Stone Lombardi writes a piece for Time headlined "Is Mother's Day Sexist?" It begins:

It’s the time of year when we celebrate mothers and — about a month later — fathers. But the way we view each holiday reveals a lot about the growing gap between cultural gender stereotypes and the reality of most families’ day-to-day lives.

Lombardi writes that everyone celebrates Mother's Day by giving mothers the day off and everyone celebrates Father's Day by letting him do fun stuff with the kids. Whether it's true or not that this is how everyone celebrates these made-up holidays, it makes sense that these types of traditions would develop on account of the particular sacrifices that grown men and women make for their families. But, we're told, these things are bad:

Other messages in Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards also reinforce sex stereotypes. Moms are thanked for the hugs, for drying the tears, for “always being there.” Dads, though, tend to be thanked as role models and individuals to look up to. A typical Hallmark Father’s Day card reads, “Integrity. Respect. Honor. I learned these things from you.”

Of course, there is not a thing wrong with children saying thank you for all those cuddles and comfort, or for expressing gratitude for models of strength and responsibility. These are all lovely sentiments. The question is: why in 2013, are we still dividing all these traits by gender? It’s insulting to both women and men and it has less and less to do with contemporary American families. Dads can be nurturers. Moms can be role models. Many, of course, already are.

I'm sure you agree that if there is one thing we need to fix in this country, it's that too many fathers are teaching too many of their children about integrity, respect and honor. It's about time someone told men that there is nothing special about them and that a mother can do these things better than they can (and vice versa).

Which is, of course, the real point of the piece:

Studies that look at gay parents question the presumption that mothers and fathers bring separate gender-based skills to parenting (like mothers excel in nurturing and caretaking, while fathers bring discipline and rough housing into the mix).

See, children don't need to be raised by their mothers. Children don't need mothers at all!

I haven't seen confirmation of this in the mainstream Israeli press yet, but the Sunday Times is reporting that Israel

is preparing to agree a defence co-operation deal with Turkey and three Arab states aimed at setting up an early warning system to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

The proposal, referred to by the diplomats involved as “4+1”, may eventually lead to technicians from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan working alongside Israelis in joint command-and-control centres.

The American-brokered plan is to build a “moderate crescent” of allied states that share a powerful vested interest in countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“The plan is to start with information-sharing about Iran’s ballistic missiles,” said an Israeli official.

Israel, he said, believes President Barack Obama has no appetite for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “That’s why the Americans are working on a regional alliance to deter and contain Tehran.”

Under the plan the Israelis would have access to real-time data from radar stations in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

In return Israel would provide access to its highly advanced anti-missile defence systems and early warning radar which would be shared online with its new partners.

Israeli Arrow anti-missile interceptors will also provide a defensive shield for Jordan against incoming Iranian missiles.

If this is true, it's remarkable, to say the least. Last time I checked, Israel has no diplomatic relations with Riyadh or Abu Dhabi. 

The Times also reported recently that Israel is capitalizing on the recent warming of relations with Ankara to negotiate the establishment of a base in Turkey for Israeli strategic assault aircraft:

Yaakov Amidror, the head of Israel’s National Security Council, is due in Ankara to settle details of the reconciliation. He is also expected to offer the Turks, who are equally wary of Iran’s nuclear programme, advanced missile and surveillance technology in exchange for a base and training facilities at Akinci air base, northwest of Ankara.

Amidror had been sent to Ankara ostensibly to arrange compensation for the families of the nine Turks killed on the Mavi Marmara in 2010. A reconciliation was brokered by the Americans at the cost to the Israelis of a public apology and an agreement to pay damages.

The second Times piece is interesting for the light it throws on the details of the Israeli-Turkish military relationship. Turkey's and Israel's IAFs maintained lines of communication throughout the rift, but politics got in the way of open deal-making. What the Turks have in mind, now that the Israelis have been embarrassed sufficiently to move forward, is a pile of Arrow anti-ballistic missiles, some Elop technology (Elop is an Israeli company that has developed an advanced visual intelligence system for fighter pilots), and an advanced electronic warfare system manufactured by a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel has also, according to the article, upgraded old Turkish tanks for years, and supplied the Heron drones that Turkey has used during its long battle with the PKK. The restoration of the relationship is an urgent priority on both sides:

Turkey’s continuing need to upgrade its air force is in part a reaction to the deterioration of security in Syria as its two-year civil war becomes bloodier and more unpredictable. It also shares western and Israeli suspicions about Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists  is being developed only for peaceful purposes.

“The Israeli defence establishment has been lobbying hard for the politicians to find a form of apology, in order to restore the Israeli-Turkish alliance against Syria and Iran,” said an Israeli defence source.

“Turkey is very worried by Iran’s missile ambitions — countering this independently would take them years. With Israeli know-how based on the Jericho ballistic missiles, the time-frame will be cut short.”

Turkey is a signatory to the missile technology control regime, a 34-country voluntary pact to prevent the proliferation of nuclear-capable missiles with a range of at least 180 miles.

“Until the recent crisis, Turkey was our biggest aircraft carrier,” observed an Israeli military source. “Using the Turkish airbases could make the difference between success and failure once a showdown with Iran gets under way.”

Friedrich Hayek was born on May 8, 1899 -- 114 years ago today -- and died on March 23, 1992, just short of his 93rd birthday. In recent years, much of the discussion of 20^th century economics has centered around a discussion of the relative influence and contributions of Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, in large part because national fiscal and monetary policy are in such disarray. But it is important to remember that Hayek also did work on some of these issues, including on the business cycle. His lasting influence, however, comes from a very different source: his ability to articulate a coherent attack on the dominant views of central planning that were in fashion during much of that time, especially among the intellectual elites in England.

His most significant work, which culminated in The Road to Serfdom, was his relentless critique of the view that a perfect society could use central planning as a means to achieve  incompatible ideals: high production and some preconceived ideal distribution of wealth. His simple insight -- prices are an effective means for individuals to coordinate their efforts in ways that allow society to take advantage of widely distributed knowledge -- remains, to this day, the strongest argument against central planning of the economy. The ability to pull people back from the brink of socialism led to a massive increase in market activity throughout the world, unleashing the constructive forces of voluntary exchange as a tool to advance overall social welfare.

For that one contribution we should be eternally grateful; but, by the same token, we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that there were no weaknesses in the Hayekian intellectual armament. Here are two.

Some years ago (indeed, on the 100^th anniversary of his birth) I wrote a short paper called Hayekian Socialism, which was meant to point out the elements in Hayek’s thought that, in fact, were in serious tension with free market principles.

The short version of the argument goes like this: in dealing with the pressures of his own time, Hayek was intent on getting rid of the built-in protections that workers would receive regardless of the demands for their services. Think, for example, of the position of the miners in England before Margaret Thatcher took office. The price that he was prepared to pay to eliminate this wrong was his willingness to guarantee essential social services, like health care and unemployment insurance. This strategy was a vast improvement over the earlier state of affairs, but Hayek did not see the vast extension of state power that could emerge from a robust Medicare program and 99 weeks of unemployment insurance.

The second error in Hayek was his unwillingness to understand that certain elements in society must be subjected to a form of centralized planning. The government need not set prices and production quotas for all goods and services in the economy. But it does have to lay out infrastructure, condemn the land needed to build it, and find some way to finance it all. That requires extensive planning in a limited sphere, and it is notable that Hayek (like Friedman) was reluctant to wade into this area.

In truth, many of Hayek's views are extremely relevant to the question that situation poses: how is it that free market principles can help with the creation, financing and maintenance of these essential projects?

No matter how those issues are resolved, however, Hayek’s signal contributions are always cause for renewed celebration.