In response to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent comments in support of the Minuteman Project in Arizona, Professor Bainbridge comments:

One can but assume that Arnie’s worries about winning the GOP gubernatorial primary in 2006 have prompted him to appeal to the nativist/racist wing of the state party.

People who want to control illegal immigration into the United States are racists? What utter nonsense! Professor Bainbridge’s statement is itself bigoted. Has the Professor been hanging out with his campus MECHA chapter lately or what?

This is the sort of brain-dead slander we typically hear from the left – You support border security? You’re a racist. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist.

We’re pretty surprised to hear that sort of unmitigated drivel from the professor. Maybe he just had too much wine with dinner.

Update: Michelle Malkin has responded to Bainbridge here.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News asks what 20 political websites we would read if we could only read those 20 for the next year. So here they are (in no particular order):

• National Review Online and The Corner
• Townhall
• Real Clear Politics
• OpinionJournal
• The Drudge Report
• Michelle Malkin
• Professor Bainbridge
• Powerline
• Little Green Footballs
• Stones Cry Out
• Volokh
• Wizbang
• Patterico
• Hugh Hewitt
• Media Research Center
• The Weekly Standard
• Mark Steyn
• Frontpage Magazine
• Fox News
• The Washington Post

No offense to the other sites on our blogroll, he only asked for 20. :)

A good response to Harry Reid’s knee-jerk “far right” smear from Hugh Hewitt:

“Far-right” means militias and camouflage and the Klan. This absurd rhetoric is hateful, and along with Senator Schumer’s assault on “deeply held convictions,” is sending a signal to 70% of America to the right of Dick Durbin that they are nuts in Harry Reid’s book. The message being sent to “values voters” is pretty simple: The Democratic Party doesn’t value you.

Very well put.

The NY Times editorial April 28th contains this gem:

On the bench, Justice Brown – a black woman raised in segregated Alabama – is a consistent enemy of minorities…

(Via Michelle Malkin)

This is nothing but pure, unsubstantiated race-baiting. Malkin notes there isn’t anything in the editorial to back up the claim. Apparently, according to the editorial board of the NY Times, all black people must think alike, or they’re not just wrong, they’re “the enemy.” There used to be a time when decent liberals would think the idea that “all black people think alike” was racist. Now if you think blacks are allowed to have independent thoughts, you’re part of the “radical right.” The Times could just as well have written, “Justice Brown – a black woman raised in segregated Alabama, ought to know her place.” Disgusting.

Update: Captain’s Quarters has more thoughts on Justice Brown here.

ConfirmThem.com explains how the DNC is spreading falsehoods about Justice Brown’s record.

Stanley Kurtz had a follow-up to his article we referenced yesterday posted in The Corner at NRO.

Yesterday, I suggested that the Harper’s cover story could signal the start of a larger campaign against conservative Christians. Well, take a look at plans for this upcoming conference at City University of New York, “Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right,” which features luminaries like Karen Armstrong and one of the Harper’s authors, Jeff Sharlet. Notice that the conference is supported by People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, The Nation, The Village Voice, and the National Council of Churches. After the election, there was some talk of Democrats reaching out to Christians and toning down their language of attack. This conference shows that the Democratic left is determined to go the opposite route. The strategy seems to be to tar the Republicans as captive of Dominionist Christians-folks who want to force every American to pay church tithes and bring back capital punishment for blasphemy and witchcraft. Looks like it’s going to be an interesting election.

Stanley Kurtz has written a powerful article for National Review Online about the rise in anti-Christian bigotry in today’s political discourse. The article is called “Scary Stuff: There’s a real venom on the Left against conservative Christians“.

An excerpt:

Harper’s Magazine’s May cover stories about “The Christian Right’s War On America,” frightened me, although not the way Harper’s meant them to. I fear these stories could mark the beginning of a systematic campaign of hatred directed at traditional Christians. Whether this is what Harper’s intends, I cannot say. But regardless of the intention, the effect seems clear…

…It’s been said that James Dobson overstepped legitimate bounds when he compared activist judges to the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, that was an ill-considered remark. I hope and expect it will not be repeated. But Dobson made that comparison extemporaneously and in passing. If that misstep was such a problem, what are we to make of a cover story in Harper’s that systematically identifies conservative Christianity with fascism? According to Harper’s, conservative Christians are making “war on America.” Can you imagine the reaction to a cover story about a “war on America” by blacks, gays, Hispanics, or Jews? Then there’s Frank Rich’s April 24 New York Times op-ed comparing conservative Christians to George Wallace, segregationists, and lynch mobs.

These comparisons are both inflammatory and mistaken. Made in the name of opposing hatred, they license hatred…

Read the whole thing.

As we’ve discussed before, there’s some debate about whether hostility to those of traditional faith is behind the judicial nomination fight in some way. Kurtz’s article provides additional indirect evidence that is the case.

Al Gore made another maniacal speech Tuesday to moveon.org. He said:

“This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place.”
He went on to talk about “…”an American heresy – a highly developed political philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of the United States of America.”

“If they were to achieve their ambition – and exercise the power they seek – America would face the twin dangers of an economic blueprint that eliminated most all of the safeguards and protections established for middle class families throughout the 20th century and a complete revision of the historic insulation of the rule of law from sectarian dogma.”

(Via Wizbang)

There’s been a debate ongoing at The Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Bainbridge, and others about whether any part of the Democrats’ position in the judicial nominations fight amounts to anti-Christian bigotry. If Gore’s statements above don’t amount to open hostility to those with traditional religious views who engage in politics, then nothing does.

Gore’s shouted rant – “aggressive strain”, “zealotry”, “heresy” – sounds like something coming from some mullah over in Iran. Of course what Mullah AlGore is saying is slanderous nonsense. The point is to say anything to demonize those he disagrees with. Throw enough mud, hope some sticks – that’s the Democrats’ strategy. And it isn’t just Gore making these kinds of statements.

Michelle Malkin has a new column up about the relative positions of the Democrats and Republicans on border security. A small excerpt:

Now, before my fellow conservatives get all outraged about Hillary’s politically calculated doublespeak on border security, here’s another catch: President Bush has the exact same position as Hillary. When he learned about the passport requirement plan earlier this month — a plan he signed into law last December as part of the so-called intelligence reform bill — he worried that it could “disrupt the honest flow of traffic.” After expressing ignorance about his own policies, Bush ordered State and Homeland Security to reconsider the passport rules.

What a pair: Sen. Conniver and President Clueless. Pick your poison. Either way, we’re committing national suicide.

Devastating but so true. How does the Republican leadership think they can possibly ignore this issue and maintain the majority?

Matt at Stones Cry Out links to a post on Instapundit that expresses worry the Republican party is becoming the party of Dobson and Falwell. Glenn Reynolds said,

The Republicans’ weakness is that people worry that they’re the party of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They tried, successfully, to convince people otherwise in the last election, but they’re now acting in ways that are giving those fears new life.

Matt agrees with Reynolds, to a point,

In all honesty, I don’t think that Glenn’s worries are unfounded. If nothing else, we must be aware of public perception. The GOP is running a very real risk of convincing the swing voters of this country that it is the party of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. I don’t for one second believe that to be the total truth, but if you’re naive enough to be a swing voter, chances are you won’t be sharp enough to tell the difference between George W. Bush and Pat Robertson.

Conversely, I think it is legitimate to worry that non-Christians, or at least the unchurched, may percieve that traditional evangelicals and, I suppose in some cases, Catholics, are the religion of the GOP. I doubt very seriously that Justice Sunday helped to dispell that notion. As with the GOP itself, I don’t think it’s an entirely fair stereotype. Nevertheless we must be aware of public perception, however skewed it might be.

Good points all. We need to be very careful about how we present ourselves to the public at all times. However, the Democrats and their allies at places like PFAW will scream “theocracy!” whenever anyone opposes their positions on social issues like abortion and the definition of marriage. The only way to avoid that charge is to leave the political arena entirely, or at least to give up on social issues. And that is simply unacceptable. We have to make the argument that people of traditional religious faith have the same right to the public square as every other citizen. We have to win that argument, not abandon it. But people like Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan are not just calling for a change of presentation, they are opponents on those social issues. Their comments need to be considered with that in mind.

WILLisms says it’s all about the price of gasoline. (link via Instapundit) That’s probably much more true than not.

In her column today, Linda Chavez writes in favor of reinstating real filibusters:

If the Republicans want to force a vote on the president’s nominees, they don’t have to change the filibuster rules permanently, or even adopt the so-called “nuclear option” of allowing Vice President Cheney, acting in his Constitutional role as presiding officer of the Senate, to rule that executive matters — specifically judicial nominations — are not subject to a cloture vote. Why not just insist that senators who want to filibuster actually do so, bringing work in the Senate to a halt?

If the Democrats really believe that stopping someone like Janice Rogers Brown from becoming an appeals court justice is worth grinding Congress to a stalemate, let them.

You can read the whole column here.

Did Iraq send WMD to Syria or not? The MSM has some disagreement about the Iraq Survey Group’s conclusion.

Headline from the NY Times: “Arms Move to Syria ‘Unlikely,’ Report Says”

Headline from the Washington Post: “Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms”

From the Los Angeles Times:

“Duelfer said a group investigating whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion wasn’t able to reach firm conclusions because the deteriorating security situation limited and later halted its work.

The investigators were focusing on alleged transfers from Iraq to Syria.

However, information obtained from questioning Iraqis did not support that possibility, the addendum says.”

Headline from The Washington Times: “CIA can’t rule out WMD move to Syria”

The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there…

…But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.

Captain’s Quarters blog has more analysis

Ted Kennedy gave a speech yesterday to commemorate (celebrate?) the date the Abu Ghraib scandal became public.

In an excellent rebuttal, Chrenkoff points out a list of other important events in Iraq that Fathead Ted decided to ignore.

Senator Edward Kennedy didn’t have anything to say on 19 March, the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq. In fact, he kept quiet until two days later, only to talk about President Bush’s judicial appointments.

Senator Kennedy didn’t have anything to say on 9 April, the second anniversary of the liberation of Baghdad and the end of Saddam’s regime. In fact, he kept quiet until the following day, when he spoke on the occasion of receiving a community award…

Read the whole thing here.