An effort to free whales from SeaWorld by claiming they were enslaved made a splash in the news but flopped in court Wednesday.

A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.

40 acres and a pool!

This was him on Twitter a short time ago:

I’m not a Catholic but I stand in 100% solidarity with my brothers & sisters to practice their belief against govt pressure

I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a govement mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you? Acts 5:29

He’s not the only one. Bishops are promising civil disobediance if the contraception mandate remains. Religious institutions are flat-out saying they will not comply with mandates that require them to violate their conscience.

Meanwhile, former House Democrats are saying they now regret their vote for ObamaCare because of the mandate. Former DNC chair and current Senate candidate Tim Kaine has broken with the White House and opposes the violation of the right of conscience. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) is calling on Obama to rescind the order. A majority of the public opposes the mandate, including 65% of Catholics — which Obama carried in 2008.

So what’s Barack Obama doing in the face of his fellow Democrats jumping ship, religious leaders threatening civil disobediance, Democratic candidates distancing themselves, and a majority of the public opposing him? Why, he’s doubling-down on requiring people to violate their conscience, of course.

President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

Obama has terribly miscalculated on this. He’s going to end up driving social conservatives to unite hard behind the right. He could end up losing socially conservative Hispanics and blacks. Democrats running in red or purple states will have to distance themselves from him or risk losing their elections. He’ll be the face of the war on religion, which will turn out religious voters against him. He’s handed the right a sledgehammer.

What was he thinking in starting this piss fight? And what’s more, what is he thinking by sticking to it rather than letting it quietly go away? Is he trying to lose? Just tired of the job, buddy?

But what the hell?

Although the U.S. focus remains on exerting diplomatic and economic pressure on Syria, the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities, CNN has learned.

The options are being prepared in the event President Barack Obama were to call for them. Two senior administration officials who spoke about the review to CNN emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.

Any reason we’re reviewing options for military action against Syria but Iran remains off the table? Do we really have greater interests in intervening in Syria than in striking Iran’s nuclear programs and reducing its capabilities to export terrorism?

I feel for the Syrian people, truly I do. But if we’re going to start another conflict in the Middle East, one against a decent military power that won’t roll over too quickly, why Syria instead of Iran?

Iran is a state sponsor of terror, pursues nuclear weapons, poses a significant threat to regional allies, and has been responsible for the deaths of many Americans. We would have much to gain from military action against the regime in Tehran.

Syria, meanwhile, has a dictatorship that’s being a slightly bigger dickhead than usual. We have no national interest in intervening, Syria plays second fiddle to Iran in the terrorism world, we have no clue as to who would come after Assad, and the engagement would be open-ended.

I say again…what the hell?

So you’d think he would care that the Senate may not pass a budget again this year. But…nope. His spokesman says he has no opinion on the matter. He doesn’t care if they do their job.

Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says we don’t really need a budget anyway:

He continued: “The fact is, you don’t need a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

Yeah, who needs a budget? Who needs legislators and appropriators voting to approve or disapprove of major appropriations? Let’s just spend money like drunken sailors and pray for the Sweet Meteor of Death to arrive sooner rather than later.

As for Obama, he’s hoping his party again blocks a budget this year. The more gridlock in Congress the more he can rail against the “do-nothing” legislative branch. Even if the legislative branch is only “do-nothing” because his party is manufacturing the gridlock to help him.

House investigators wrote the Port of Los Angeles yesterday to review the decision to spend almost half a million dollars in stimulus money on retrofitting a luxury yacht with environmentally-friendly engines.

“The Port of Los Angeles owes the public greater transparency about this project and a full accounting of the cost-benefit analysis used to justify spending on this type of project,” House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote in a letter to the executive director of the port, Dr. Geraldine Knatz.

The Port of Los Angeles spent $489,000 of a $1.5 million grant from the Department of Energy to retrofit a city-owned yacht with “hydro-electric propulsion system,” according to Issa’s letter, rather than the diesel engines it already had in operation. The yacht is used to conduct tours of the port.

And federal taxpayers had to fund this because…why? The state of California has the money for endless cradle-to-grave welfare but not for this?

And if the state of California doesn’t consider this a worth-while investment, then why is the federal government funding it?

If the people most likely to benefit don’t see it as worth it, why are taxpayers on the federal level expected to fork over the cash?

Former Senator Rick Santorum has pulled an upset, carrying all three states up for grabs tonight: Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota.

Romney was expected to easily carry Colorado but ended up falling short in a tight race. Mittens carried the state with 60% of the vote in 2008.

In Missouri, Romney was shut out; Santorum carried every county.

And in Minnesota, home state of Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty? Santorum came in first. Ron Paul came in second. Romney was third out of four.

More: This is a blow for Romney’s inevitability narrative. In case you’re not keeping count at home, Romney has now lost 5 of 8 elections.

He came in third in Minnesota. He didn’t carry a single county in Missouri. He got his ass handed to him in South Carolina. His own people aren’t turning out for him.

Bad for Romney. Bad indeed.

NBC News has called both Missouri and Minnesota for the former senator.

Update: ABC News joins NBC in calling both states for Santorum. Only Colorado remains uncalled. And now, at 10:32pm, CNN joins in.

Update: CNN joins NBC in projecting Santorum as the winner.

“I have given the decision of becoming a candidate for the U.S. Senate very serious thought and prayer,” Kerrey said in an email announcing his decision. “To those who urged me to do so, I am sorry, very sorry to have disappointed you. I hope you understand that I have chosen what I believe is best for my family and me.”

Kerrey, who moved to New York City after giving up his seat in 2001, spent nearly a week in Nebraska last month to seek advice about whether to run in a state that has drifted ideologically away from him since he left.

Kerrey was still viewed as the Democratic Party’s best chance to hold the seat. Nelson was effectively forced into retirement thanks to his unpopular vote in favor of government-run health care.

This announcement pushes the Nebraska seat further into the Republican column. Which is good news for Republicans nationally, who hope to gain control of the Senate — something that would take four pick-ups in November.

WASHINGTON — Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ripped into both President Barack Obama and his re-election team on Tuesday morning for backing off its previous criticism of outside spending on campaigns and embracing the role that super PACs will play in the 2012 election.

“It is a dumb approach,” Feingold said in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. “It will lead to scandal and there are going to be a lot of people having corrupt conversations about huge amounts of money that will one day regret that they went down the route of what is effectively a legalized Abramoff system.”

Feingold went on to describe Obama’s decision as “dancing with the devil” and said voters will see Democrats as “weak” for displaying such hypocrisy.

I’ve always kinda-sorta respected Feingold. He’s a lefty but he’s an ideological lefty. He believes what he says and doesn’t bow because his party decides to opportunistically take a different course. Good for him for staying true to what he believes.

New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has been an outspoken supporter of banning insider trading in Congress, but she and her husband profited by betting against the housing and real estate market during the 2008 financial crisis…

“We are entrusted with a profound responsibility by the American people to look out for their best interests, and nothing else, certainly not our own financial interests,” Gillibrand said in a release after the STOCK Act passed the Senate last week. “Today, we took the first step toward restoring the trust that’s been lost in Washington by ensuring that members of Congress play by the exact same rules as everyday Americans.”

And yet…

A Wall Street Journal report on congressional trading during the 2008 financial crisis found Gillibrand’s husband had “shorted” housing stocks—meaning he bet that prices on home builder stocks would fall—at least 34 times before the housing market imploded.

Gillibrand’s husband made more than 250 transactions in 2008, when his wife was in the House, and almost all of them were put options on homebuilder stocks such as Beazer Homes USA Inc., Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., Meritage Homes Corp., and Ryland Group Inc.

The Gillibrand’s also shorted the property market. Gillibrand’s husband bought options of ProShares UltraShort Real Estate; these options earned $2 for each $1 fall in real-estate stocks.

The transactions helped Gillibrand and her husband rack-up a net worth of more than $1.3 million, according to disclosure filings.

So while Americans were watching their chief investments collapse, feeling the pain of owing more than their homes would be worth, Senator Gillibrand was betting against the American economy and raking in the dough.

You would be wrong.

The New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama has flipped on the issue and is now directly asking donors to give to Priorities USA Action, the foremost left-wing super PAC organization. The paper says Obama will, “dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members ” to raise money for the group. The new effort was announced to the campaign’s National Finance Committee on Monday.

The Times further reports that representatives for the campaign and administration will appear at events for Priorities USA Action, which is expected to benefit Obama in the campaign by launching vicious attacks on Republicans without tying Obama’s name directly to the dirty politics. For the moment Obama himself is not expected to appear at events. Maybe he’ll continue to attack Republican super PACs while ignoring his own policy change.

Robert Zimmerman, a top fundraiser for Democrats, admits, “It’s hard to pass the plate for super PAC money while Democratic leaders have been preaching about the sins of it”. Indeed. One might even say it smacks of hypocrisy. But then, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the Obama campaign and its allies. Hypocrisy up and down, seven ways to Sunday. It’s the modus operandi of the Obama Administration, too.

I look forward to those supposedly “principled” lefties with their “principled” opposition to super PACs turn around tomorrow and explain why this is not only okay but admirable. You know it’s coming. The same people who took part in the demonization last month, when Obama decided to oppose the groups, will suddenly proclaim the virtue of such groups now that Obama has changed course. They’re hacks. All of ‘em.

About 7 in 10 Egyptians surveyed by Gallup in December 2011 oppose U.S. economic aid to Egypt, and a similar percentage opposes the U.S. sending direct aid to civil society groups. This rebuke of U.S. financial support may be a challenge for Egypt’s newly elected parliament and its future president as the government attempts to bolster the nation’s financial stability.

If we do as they want we’ll end up saving about $1.3 billion. Like I said, works for me.

We can’t be surprised. Mubarak was in power for decades and Egyptians remember who supported him.

Ironically, we’re not going to want to stop forking over the aide because we need a bargaining chip with Egypt’s new government. The country has arrested 19 Americans, including Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s son, for promoting democracy. And it’s not entirely clear if the next government will keep its semi-peace with our regional allies.

Senate President Therese Murray declined to say Monday whether she’d support a 20 percent increase in the state cigarette tax proposed last month by Gov. Deval Patrick to help fund the exploding cost of health care programs.

“The Senate can’t initiate a tax. We’ll see what the House does as they prepare their budget,” she said.

This is just the latest tax increase needed to fund the outrageous costs related to RomneyCare.

Governor Brilliant Businessman apparently didn’t foresee a massive entitlement program having out-of-control costs.

The layoffs include 26 workers at a former General Motors plant in Wilmington that Fisker is retooling to manufacture its Nina plug-in hybrid sedan. Another 40 contractors and employees who were working in design and development of Fisker’s Karma luxury car in Anaheim, Calif., also have been cut.

The layoffs come as Fisker is seeking to renegotiate its loan agreement with the Department of Energy.

Fisker has received $193 million of the $529 million DOE loan, mostly for work on the Karma, which sells for about $100,000. The introduction of the Karma was delayed because of regulatory issues and battery pack problems that prompted a voluntary safety recall by Fisker.

What a clusterfark.

But it gets better.

Fisker has only received $193 million of the loan because its original loan agreement stated payouts would be continent upon the company meeting sales and performance goals. It’s not meeting those goals.

So what’s going on now? The Department of Energy is renegotiating its agreement with Fisker so the failing company can have access to the rest of the money. You know, the money that wasn’t payed out because the company is failing.

We have a failing company and the Obama Administration is working to make sure more taxpayer money is pumped into the failure.

And why? Because Obama has staked quite a bit of political capital on the success of these “green” companies. If they keep going under, as they would under fair market conditions, he’ll look a fool. So he’s rigging the market to keep them afloat through the election.

Pathetic. And corrupt.

This is exactly the danger of allowing the individual mandate to stand. Once you accept government can force private citizens into the marketplace to purchase a specific good or service, there’s no end to government power. It would be a disaster for individual liberty.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – A Florida lawmaker is pushing a bill that would ban the use of food stamps to purchase snacks and sweets, such as cookies and cakes.

Republican State Sen. Ronda Storms, of Valrico, says her goal is to stop a small percentage of recipients who misuse food stamps.

Welfare liberals are predictably outraged.

Critics say the government shouldn’t be telling people what to eat.

Democratic Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, of Pompano Beach, also says the educational provision is demeaning to minorities and the poor by implying they aren’t smart enough to make their own choices.

You know what? Tough. If you’re on welfare for any extended period of time it seems to me there’s a good chance you’ve made bad choices. If you have to resort to being fed by taxpayers for an extended period of time, you’ve made bad decisions.

It’s time to take the pride out of living off welfare. Long-term welfare (not talking about temporary assistance) is a sign of failure.

There’s no pride in living off the fruits of other people’s labor. None. Let’s get that out there and over with.

If you’re reliant on taxpayer-funded sustenance for any extended period of time, why should we assume you’ve got your crap together and can make good decisions? Don’t want to attend the classes? Don’t live off welfare.

No, seriously, don’t call it a comeback.

The spot is supposed to be encouraging, as it focuses on the resilience of Detroit. “It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half,” Eastwood says in the spot. “It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game. The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.”

But contrary to what the might ad suggest, the spot was actually filmed in New Orleans and Los Angles. “Yes, part of it was filmed in New Orleans . . . and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” Dianna Gutierrez said. She specifically points to the tunnel scenes as being taken at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, while the stadium shots were in New Orleans.

Asked whether any part of the ad was filmed in Detroit, Gutierrez said that previously taken footage from various parts of the Motor City was used. No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad.

So when they absolutely positively had to show video of Detroit…they used stock footage. Everything they filmed new was filmed elsewhere. What a confidence builder for the city, huh?

“It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker rooms discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half. It’s halftime in America, too.” Eastwood says. “People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re gonna do to make a comeback.”

Now take into consideration the fact that Chrysler, the ad’s sponsor, is nearly half-owned by the pro-Obama United Auto Workers (UAW) union. Until recently the company was even partially owned by the U.S. government under the Obama Administration, which proudly touts its bailing out of the union-run disaster, er, automaker.

Look back at that line. Two teams? Two parties. What we’re going to do in the second half? Which party will lead the country. Then:

Pointing to improvement in the auto industry as a positive sign, the “Dirty Harry” star goes on, “Detroit’s showing us it can be done. …This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do, the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.”

Don’t worry, America. Things are getting better and America, like Detroit, is rising again.

Top Obama political adviser David Axelrod describes the ad as a “powerful spot”. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the taxpayer-funded spot today. He was thrilled. In fact, he found a pro-Obama message in the ad (video at the link).

Kyle Wingfield of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution writes:

But the halftime Chrysler commercial starring Clint Eastwood, describing America as being in its own “halftime,” was just overtly politicized. After all, what else could “halftime” have meant, in the year 2012, than halfway through the eight years Barack Obama would be president if re-elected this fall? I’m fairly certain it wasn’t a prediction that the country will break up circa 2248 A.D.

Chrysler of course has a right to political speech. But it would be nice if the company wouldn’t be so brazen about its leanings while still owing the entire country — left, right and center — billions of dollars.

Karl Rove:

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

Republicans and Democrats seem to agree the spot was pro-Obama, Democrats obviously more thrilled about that fact than Republicans. What would’ve been is if the company had taken the millions of dollars it cost to run the pro-Obama propaganda and instead further payed back the American taxpayers.

But here’s the thing: You don’t rip your husband’s coworkers in public. It’s classless and creates a divide between your husband and the people he works with on a regular basis.

While Gisele is off shopping in Paris, Tom still has to deal with and rely upon the guys his wife so publicly slammed. Again, classless — and not fair to her husband or his teammates.

First, the story:

Rep. Ron Paul appears to have been paid twice for flights between Washington, D.C., and his Congressional district, receiving reimbursement from taxpayers and also from a network of political and nonprofit organizations he controlled, according to public records and documents obtained by Roll Call.

Roll Call identified eight flights for which the Texas Republican, a GOP presidential candidate and leading champion of smaller government, was reimbursed twice for the same trip. Roll Call also found dozens more instances of duplicate payments for travel from 1999 to 2009, totaling thousands of dollars’ worth of excess payments, but the evidence in those cases is not as complete.

The campaign’s response:

Benton said those flights “may appear to show duplicative reimbursements because Congressman Paul’s wife or a campaign staffer traveled with him. In such instances, the U.S. House would reimburse Congressman Paul’s travel to D.C. for Congressional business, while his campaign or political action committee would reimburse his traveling companion’s ticket.” But Benton declined to discuss any of the trips in detail, arguing that the office does not have records for many of the years in question and that Roll Call was using “stolen” credit card records as the basis for the story.

A couple of problems here. First, Paul was listed as the traveler in matching transactions.

Second, stolen credit cards? What, the thieves stole his line of credit and kindly decided to keep booking his travel for him?

The transactions in question involved purchases made by his people — not some alleged credit card thieves.

The available records name Paul as the traveler in most cases. In other cases in which tickets were purchased for Paul’s wife, Carol, or for staffers, those tickets — identifiable by distinct prices, dates and flight paths — were reimbursed separately. In one case, Paul used a company credit card in his name to buy a ticket for his then-deputy chief of staff; Paul was then reimbursed by his Congressional office and also by his campaign.

Roll Call obtained copies of credit card statements for a corporate American Express card assigned to Ron Paul & Associates Inc. on which many flights were purchased. The flight details on those statements matched payment records filed to the Federal Election Commission and office expenses itemized in quarterly Congressional disbursement statements published by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

For example, on March 24, 2003, Paul purchased a round-trip flight from Washington, D.C., to Houston for $651.50. Several weeks later, filings with the FEC show, the Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul paid $651.50 for the Continental Airlines ticket. Congressional expenditure records show Paul also was reimbursed $651.50 by taxpayers for the same flight.

Paul filed articles of dissolution for Ron Paul & Associates Inc. in 2001 with the Texas secretary of state, but the company’s corporate credit card was used for years afterward, the records show.

This could open up a can of worms at the IRS, FEC, and in Congress. I expect Paul’s folks will quickly start writing CYA checks and amending documents.

“Can someone tell me how employment in the black community has improved at a rate three times the national average in just a few months?? With numbers like today, urban communities should be well on their way to economic recovery then! There is something suspicious about the job numbers released today and it has me very concerned,” West wondered Friday. “Is this dramatic supposed decrease in black unemployment a result of job creation or is someone playing around with the census numbers??”

Economists can’t explain it, either:

Economists reached by The Hill for comment couldn’t fully explain the unemployment rate change for the black community. William Darity, a professor of public policy at Duke University specializing in African-American studies and economics, wrote in an email to The Hill that the decline could have been due to a smaller labor force. He called the drop an “unbelievably dramatic drop” but didn’t rule out the possibility of someone tampering with the numbers; he said there was no evidence one way or the other.

Barack Obama’s facing a tough reelection battle that will be based significantly on the shape of the economy and the employment landscape. Up until now the unemployment rate has been relatively stagnant and completely explainable.

Then election year comes rolling around. And the first month out of the gate we have inexplicably good employment numbers from the federal government. Numbers so good and inexplicable that even economists can’t rule out tampering.

How very convenient for the White House.

WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans – even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges – to provide free birth control. But a review of Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts governor shows that he once took a similar step.

In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion.

He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law – one passed by lawmakers despite his veto – but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception.

Some Catholic leaders now point to inconsistency in Romney’s criticism of the president and characterize his new stance as politically expedient, even as they welcome it.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

The Romney campaign’s defense is that he originally vetoed the legislation. But asked why he then later said he thought the mandate was the right thing to do, his campaign was silent. No response.

The Romney administration originally decided that religious institutions would be exempt from the mandate. But then the left pushed back and Romney folded. Just days after the exemption was announced it was revoked.

Further confusing the issue was Romney’s own statements. He originally said he opposed the mandate because he viewed the emergency contraception as a form of abortion. But then he later said in his “heart of hearts” that he viewed the provision as the right thing to do. He appears to have, yet again, abandoned his stated principles in the face of political pushback.

Perhaps this is why Governor Walker’s approval rating is now above water and he leads all of his potential challengers by several points.

Conservatives take note.

(Reuters) – Daniel Radcliffe admitted he was drunk while filming some scenes for the “Harry Potter” movies during a period in his life where he was drinking “nightly,” the young star said in an interview.

“I have a very addictive personality. It was a problem. People with problems like that are very adept at hiding it. It was bad. I don’t want to go into details, but I drank a lot and it was daily – I mean nightly,” Radcliffe said to British celebrity news magazine Heat earlier this week.

“I can honestly say I never drank at work on ‘Harry Potter.’ I went into work still drunk, but I never drank at work. I can point to many scenes where I’m just gone. Dead behind the eyes,” the 22-year-old actor said.

 

Yesterday, Sierra Club Executive Driector Michael Brune came clean about his organization’s profitable relationship with the natural gas industry. Specifically, Brune admitted that his organization had taken $26 million from one of the country’s largest natural gas companies, Chesapeake Energy, since 2007 to fund the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

The investment for the natural gas industry is clear: use the Sierra Club as political cover to induce the federal government to drive up the cost of coal, thereby making natural gas relatively cheaper. It is classic Democratic corporatism in action.

Yep, and Democrats have no problem with it so long as it’s their own pockets or those of their allies being lined. They get outraged only when these companies benefit Republicans or right-wing causes like low taxes or energy independence.

The Sierra Club is severing its partnership because the organization (and the left-wing environmentalist movement as a whole) has decided it’s time to start demonizing natural gas, too. But Conn Carroll asks if lefties like Nancy Pelosi will follow suit.

Back in 2008, Pelosi defended her investment in natural gas companies. “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuel,” she said. Now that lefty organizations like the Sierra Club are dumping on natural gas, will she join them?

Pres. Obama is raising $895,000 for his re-election campaign this afternoon. It’s a chat with 25 supporters paying $35,800 per person.

Remember this the next time he rails against Republicans as the party of the rich. This is just his latest uber-wealthy fundraiser. And it won’t be his last, either.

Two American tourists were kidnapped Friday in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula by Bedouin tribesmen, security sources said.

A group of masked gunmen held up a tourist bus in south Sinai, snatching the two Americans, both women, and their guide before taking off, AFP reported.

The tourists were among a group traveling from St. Catherine’s Monastery, at the foot of Mount Sinai, to the Red Sea resort of Sharm El Sheikh, NBC News reported.

Bedouin sources said the kidnappers were demanding the release of relatives held in Egyptian jails, AFP reported.

Good to see that whole Arab Spring thing working out so well. We’ve replaced a brutal-yet-pro-American dictator with a power vacuum in which Islamists and their supporters will come to power and do as they please.

The case centers around 30-year Los Angeles Unified School District veteran Mark Berndt, who has been arrested and charged with lewd conduct involving an astounding 23 different students. The name of the latest teacher arrested hasn’t been released.

The flyer below was handed out to students during a lesson on the Cold War. The school in question is Roosevelt High School in Des Moines. Click the image to enlarge.

Click Image to Enlarge

On the capitalism side we have unhappy, chained workers cranking out money for a stereotypical fat cat boss.

On the communism side we have happy, well-dressed workers cranking out money for themselves — no boss in sight!

Because if there’s one thing we learned about communism from the Soviet Union, it’s that workers in that system are well-dressed, happy, prosperous, and boss-free.

Apparently words accompanied the flyer, too. Here they are, transcribed:

“Communism stands for equal sharing of the work according to the benefits and ability. But in Capitalism an individual is responsible for his works and if he wants to raise the ladder, he has to work hard.”

“While the profit of any enterprise is equally shared by all in Communism, the profit in the Capitalist structure belongs to the private owner only.”

Roosevelt High School was contacted for comment but the principal, said to be the only one who can speak for the school, has yet to respond. Gee, one wonders why.

This is pro-communist propaganda in the most literal sense.