What ever happened to the Grand Old Party?

One writer puts it this way today:

Taking the GOP Back From the Radical Right
By Michael Stafford | August 3rd, 2011 | 71 Comments

With the debt ceiling crisis resolved, it is appropriate to pause and reflect on how America was brought to the precipice of a potential catastrophe. The answer can be found in two lines from William Butler Yeats’ famous poem “The Second Coming.” In the poem, Yeats’ wrote: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.” Today, Yeats’ words are an apt description of the state of America’s poisonous public discourse.
More:http://blog.cagle.com/2011/08/taking-the-gop-back-from-the-radical-right/

I'm old enough to remember Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, William F. Buckley, and a host of other East Coast Republicans, who --- while right leaning to varying degrees --- understood and respected the democratic tenets of civilized discourse and compromise, and the patriotic imperatives of public service and personal sacrifice.

I thought we had such a Republican in John McCain... until he cynically and recklessly plucked Sarah Palin from relative obscurity, merely to get a "bounce" in the polls.

Patriotism may indeed be the scoundrel's last refuge, as Dr. Johnson claimed. But it is also a crucial attribute of a successful nation, an attribute the US seems to be sorely lacking at the highest levels of power, where sex, money, and notoriety rule. The Wall Street pigs swill more and more at the trough, while their GOP legislators jealously guard their ill gotten gains from even a modest tax hike. Meanwhile, Tea Partiers wallow in their illusion of a rugged individualism that hasn't existed for more than a century. Frankly, I think that's just as excuse to justify the abysmal selfishness that is the only real trickle-down effect of our inequitable tax code.

Recalling some of the "greats" of the Grand Old Party:

DHS August 1 Daily Bulletin

Message 1
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 09:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Executive Hiring Update

You are subscribed to Executive Hiring for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Law Enforcement
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Assistant Director, Office of Training and Career Development


NPPD


July 25, 2011
Legal
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Director of Enforcement and Litigation


DHS Headquarters


August 22, 2011
Management
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Deputy Director, Policy and Planning


CBP


July 27, 2011

Apply Now


Deputy Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum and International Operations


USCIS


August 2, 2011
Medical
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Principal Deputy Asst. Secretary/Dep. Chief Medical Officer


OHA


June 28, 2011
Science & Technology
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Deputy Director, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency


S&T


June 28, 2011

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/careers/gc_1277404180639.shtm


Message 2
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 09:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security The Blog @ Homeland Security Update

You are subscribed to The Blog @ Homeland Security for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
The Blog @ Homeland Security
Monday, August 1, 2011
Video: Secretary Napolitano participates in panel discussion with former Secretary Chertoff

This weekend Secretary Napolitano participated in a panel discussion with former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff highlighting the Department’s ongoing efforts to make our country stronger and more resilient ten years after 9/11 as part of the Aspen Security Forum.

To watch the video, visit http://blog.dhs.gov/


Message 3
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 11:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Secretary Napolitano Announces Proposed Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Secretary Napolitano Announces Proposed Ammonium Nitrate Security Program
08/02/2011 07:00 AM EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today announced the publication of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Federal Register for the creation of the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program—part of the Department's ongoing efforts to secure potentially dangerous chemicals and ensure those chemicals do not fall into the hands of those who could cause harm.

"In today's ever-evolving threat environment, we must continually reinforce the security of substances, such as ammonium nitrate, which can be used for legitimate purposes or exploited by terrorists," said Secretary Napolitano. "Creating the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program is a critical step forward in our continued efforts to ensure the security of potentially dangerous amounts of ammonium nitrate, while still facilitating legitimate everyday use."

Ammonium nitrate is primarily used in fertilizers, first aid products, and regulated commercial explosives in support of the construction and mining industries. However, it has also been used as a main component in powerful explosives for attacks including the Oklahoma City bombing, the London bombings, and other acts of terrorism around the world.

At the direction of Congress and in consultation with our federal, state and local partners, and with input from members of industry and the public, DHS has proposed the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program to regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate while decreasing the burden on those who purchase or transfer ammonium nitrate for legitimate uses.

The proposed Ammonium Nitrate Security Program will increase security by working with domestic purchasers to validate legitimate use. It would also require those selling ammonium nitrate to retain records and report theft or loss of ammonium nitrate to federal authorities within 24 hours of discovery. DHS will be responsible for ensuring compliance with these proposed standards to ensure public safety and support legitimate commerce.

In order to address the complexity of the potential regulated community under the law, DHS conducted a thorough examination of the impacts on various communities—including farmers, agricultural retailers and distributors, landscaping services, construction and mining companies, and others—prior to the Department's promulgation of a final rule.

The proposed program builds on other DHS efforts already established to protect the nation from the potential misuse of ammonium nitrate. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program regulates the security of high-risk chemical facilities while the Bomb Making Awareness Program and the Voluntary Chemical Assessment Tool (VCAT) help businesses identify suspicious purchases and support owners and operators to assess their facilities' risk.

In cooperation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, DHS has also cosponsored the "America's Security Begins With You" Program, which encourages ammonium nitrate suppliers to report suspicious activity. This complements the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, which provides vendors with the means to report suspicious transactions to law enforcement.

For more information, visit www.dhs.gov.

###


Message 4
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 14:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Small Business Vendor Outreach Sessions Update

You are subscribed to Small Business Vendor Outreach Sessions for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Next Session

Regional Vendor Outreach Sessions
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Holiday Inn Capitol
Discovery Ballroom

http://www.dhs.gov/xopnbiz/smallbusiness/editorial_0524.shtm


Message 5
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 14:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Secretary Napolitano Announces Initiatives to Promote Startup Enterprises and Spur Job Creation

You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Secretary Napolitano Announces Initiatives to Promote Startup Enterprises and Spur Job Creation
08/02/2011 07:00 AM EDT

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON—Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas today outlined a series of policy, operational, and outreach efforts to fuel the nation's economy and stimulate investment by attracting foreign entrepreneurial talent of exceptional ability or who otherwise can create jobs, form startup companies, and invest capital in areas of high unemployment.

"The United States must continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world to invest their talents, skills, and ideas to grow our economy and create American jobs," said Secretary Napolitano. "Today's announcements will help our nation fully realize the potential of existing immigration laws."

"Current immigration laws support foreign talent who will invest their capital, create new jobs for American workers, and dedicate their exceptional talent to the growth of our nation's economy," said Director Mayorkas. "USCIS is dedicated to ensuring that the potential of our immigration laws is fully realized, and the initiatives we announce today are an important step forward."

These actions mark the six-month anniversary of Startup America, a White House-led initiative to reduce barriers and accelerate growth for America's job-creating entrepreneurs. They have also been one key focus of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which has recommended taking action to help ensure that America can out-innovate and out-compete the world in a global economy.

USCIS has published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document on its website clarifying that entrepreneurs may obtain an employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant visa if they satisfy the existing requirements, and also may qualify for a National Interest Waiver under the EB-2 immigrant visa category if they can demonstrate that their business endeavors will be in the interest of the United States. USCIS will complement these FAQs with internal training on the unique characteristics of entrepreneurial enterprises and startup companies and incorporate input from the upcoming stakeholder engagements detailed below.

The EB-2 visa classification includes foreign workers with advanced degrees and individuals of exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. Generally, an EB-2 visa petition requires a job offer and a Department of Labor certification. These requirements can be waived under existing law if the petitioner demonstrates that approval of the EB-2 visa petition would be in the national interest of the United States.

In response to stakeholder feedback, USCIS has also updated existing FAQs to clarify that an H-1B beneficiary who is the sole owner of the petitioning company may establish a valid employer-employee relationship for the purposes of qualifying for an H-1B nonimmigrant visa – which is used by U.S. businesses to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise in specialized fields, such as science, engineering, and computer programming.

The EB-5 immigrant investor program is also being further enhanced by transforming the intake and review process. In May, USCIS proposed fundamental enhancements to streamline the EB-5 process which include: extending the availability of premium processing for certain EB-5 applications and petitions, implementing direct lines of communication between the applicants and USCIS, and providing applicants with the opportunity for an interview before a USCIS panel of experts to resolve outstanding issues in an application. After reviewing stakeholder feedback on the proposal, USCIS is developing a phased plan to roll out these enhancements and is poised to begin implementing the first of these enhancements within 30 days.

Created by Congress in 1990, the program stimulates the U.S. economy through capital investment and resulting job creation by immigrant investors. As of June 30, 2011, it is estimated that the program has resulted in more than $1.5 billion in capital investments and created at least 34,000 jobs.

USCIS has also announced the expansion of its Premium Processing Service to immigrant petitions for multinational executives and managers (often referred to as "E13"). The Premium Processing Service allows employers to expedite processing of their petitions, absent evidentiary deficiencies, fraud or national security concerns.

Finally, USCIS is launching a new series of engagement opportunities for entrepreneurs and startup companies. These opportunities will focus on soliciting input from stakeholders on how USCIS can address the unique circumstances of entrepreneurs, new businesses and startup companies through its policies and regulations in the employment-based arena. For detailed information on USCIS's public meetings, please visit www.uscis.gov/outreach.

For more information, visit www.uscis.gov.
###


Message 6
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 16:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Executive Hiring Update

You are subscribed to Executive Hiring for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Finance
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Chief Financial Officer (CFO)


USSS


August 5, 2011

Apply Now


Director of Financial Management


ICE


August 19, 2011
Law Enforcement
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Field Office Director, San Antonio


ICE


August 4, 2011

Apply Now


Assistant Director for Field Operations (West)


NPPD


August 10, 2011

Apply Now


Associate Director, Fraud Detection and National Security


USCIS


August 25, 2011
Legal
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Deputy Associate General Counsel for General Law


DHS Headquarters


August 12, 2011

Apply Now


Director of Enforcement and Litigation


DHS Headquarters


August 22, 2011
Management
Apply Now Title Component Closing Date

Apply Now


Deputy Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum and International Operations


USCIS


August 2, 2011

Apply Now


Executive Director, Program Management Office


CBP


August 5, 2011

Apply Now


Deputy Assistant Commissioner


CBP


August 10, 2011

Apply Now


Chief of Staff


DHS Headquarters


August 10, 2011

Apply Now


Director of Financial Management


ICE


August 19, 2011

Apply Now


Deputy Director, Service Center


USCIS


August 23, 2011

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/careers/gc_1277404180639.shtm


Message 7
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Economic Recovery Act of 2009 Update

You are subscribed to Economic Recovery Act of 2009 for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Agency Plans and Reports
ARRA Weekly Updates

July 29

* Weekly Update (XLS - 92.5 KB)
* Weekly Update, 1 of 2 (CSV - 80.9 KB)
* Weekly Update, 2 of 2 (CSV - 4.52 KB)

http://www.dhs.gov/xopnbiz/recovery.shtm


Message 8
From: U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Date: Aug, Tue 2 2011 18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: U.S. Department of Homeland Security The Blog @ Homeland Security Update

You are subscribed to The Blog @ Homeland Security for U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
The Blog @ Homeland Security
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
USCIS Blog: Encouraging Entrepreneurs and High Skilled Workers to Bolster the U.S. Economy and Spur Job Growth
By Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

The United States has a long, rich history of welcoming innovative entrepreneurs and skilled workers into our country. These men and women fuel our nation’s economy by creating jobs, and promoting new technologies and ideas. Today, I joined Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and outlined a series of new policy, operational, and outreach efforts that will help fuel the nation’s economy and stimulate investment by making it easier for high-skill immigrants to start and grow companies and create jobs here in the United States

To read the full post, visit http://blog.dhs.gov/

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com.

This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

San Diego State's non-discrimination policy for student organizations is upheld by Ninth Circuit

Alpha Delta Chi v. Reed

2011 WL 3275950
C.A.9 (Cal.),2011.
August 02, 2011

OPINION
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

*1 The Supreme Court held in Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez that a public law school does not violate the Constitution when it “condition[s] its official recognition of a student group—and the attendant use of school funds and facilities—on the organization's agreement to open eligibility for membership and leadership to all students.” 130 S.Ct. 2971, 2978 (2010). The Court referred to the open membership requirement as an “all-comers policy” and concluded that such a policy was a “reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum.” Id. The Court further held that the all-comers policy did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Id. at 2995 n. 27.

The Court expressly declined to address whether these holdings would extend to a narrower nondiscrimination policy that, instead of prohibiting all membership restrictions, prohibited membership restrictions only on certain specified bases, for example, race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. See id. at 2982, 2984. The constitutionality of such a policy is the issue before us in this case. We conclude that the narrower policy is constitutional. We hold, however, that Plaintiffs have raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the narrower policy was selectively enforced in this particular case, thereby violating Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirm in part and reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are Alpha Delta Chi, a Christian sorority, and Alpha Gamma Omega, a Christian fraternity, as well as several of their officers, at San Diego State University (“San Diego State”) in California.FN1

Alpha Delta Chi, the sorority, has several religious requirements for its members, including “personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord,” “active participation in Christian service,” and “regular attendance or membership in an evangelical church.”

Alpha Gamma Omega, the fraternity, requires its members “to sincerely want to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior,” and its officers must sign a “Statement of Faith” reading:

I hearby publicly confess my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as God and only Savior and give witness to the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit in my life.

I will make it a purpose of my life to continue in fellowship with God through prayer and reading of the Holy Scriptures.

Alpha Gamma Omega officers' beliefs and practices must be “consistent with orthodox Christian beliefs.”

Plaintiffs have repeatedly submitted applications for official recognition in San Diego State's student organization program. There are approximately 115 officially recognized student organizations at San Diego State. San Diego State requires these groups to submit a signed “Student Organization On–Campus Recognition Application,” and on-campus recognition must be renewed each year. Officially recognized student organizations receive a number of benefits, such as university funding, use of San Diego State's name and logo, access to campus office space and meeting rooms, free publicity in school publications, and participation in various special university events. Officially recognized groups may set up informational tables and banners in the student union and participate in various events for recruiting new members. Further, officially recognized fraternities and sororities may be members of one of four fraternity and sorority councils, which grants them access to recruitment fairs, leadership conferences, and social activities organized by the councils.

*2 Each time Plaintiffs have applied for official recognition, they have been denied by San Diego State administrators because of Plaintiffs' requirement that their members and officers profess a specific religious belief, namely, Christianity. These membership requirements conflict with San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy, which San Diego State requires all officially recognized student organizations to include in their bylaws. The policy states:

On-campus status will not be granted to any student organization whose application is incomplete or restricts membership or eligibility to hold appointed or elected student officer positions in the campus-recognized chapter or group on the basis of race, sex, color, age, religion, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental handicap, ancestry, or medical condition, except as explicitly exempted under federal law.

This policy reflects the California State University system's Non–Discrimination Regulation, which states:

No campus shall recognize any fraternity, sorority, living group, honor society, or other student organization which discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, color, age, gender, marital status, citizenship, sexual orientation, or disability. The prohibition on membership policies that discriminate on the basis of gender does not apply to social fraternities or sororities or to other university living groups.

5 Cal.Code Regs. tit. 5, § 41500.

Because Plaintiffs were denied official recognition by San Diego State, they were denied the benefits of official recognition. They still may hand out flyers and post signs to recruit new members, but only in areas open to all groups, whether recognized or not, such as the “free speech steps” of the student union and the wall next to the university bookstore. Plaintiffs still may use university rooms for meetings and events, but not for free or at reduced prices, as officially recognized groups are able to do.

Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court challenging San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment on all counts in Defendants' favor while denying Plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir.2011). “We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and decide whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.” FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir.2009). Although in this case Plaintiffs and Defendants each contend that there are no genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate, we may still reverse a grant of summary judgment if we find that triable facts remain. See Chevron USA, Inc. v. Cayetano, 224 F.3d 1030, 1037 (9th Cir.2000).

DISCUSSION
I. Free Speech and Freedom of Expressive Association
*3 [1] Headnote Citing References Plaintiffs argue that San Diego State's requirement that they comply with the nondiscrimination policy forces them to accept non-Christian members who will “significantly impair the message [Plaintiffs] joined together to promote.” Appellants' Br. at 16. This, Plaintiffs claim, violates their First Amendment right to expressive association.FN2 Plaintiffs also argue that San Diego State has excluded them from an expressive forum on the basis of their religious viewpoint, in violation of their free speech rights.

The parties in their briefs disagree as to the proper standard of review for these claims. After the briefs were filed, however, the Supreme Court decided Christian Legal Society, which held that when a university excludes a student organization from official recognition for refusing to comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy, both freedom of speech and freedom of expressive association challenges are properly analyzed under the limited-public-forum doctrine. 130 S.Ct. at 2984–86 (“[W]e are persuaded that our limited-public-forum precedents adequately respect both [the student group's] speech and expressive-association rights, and fairly balance those rights against [the university's] interests as property owner and educational institution.”).

[2] Headnote Citing References A limited public forum is government property opened for use by “ ‘certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects.’ “ Id. at 2984 n. 11 (quoting Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1132, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009)). In a limited public forum, the government may impose restrictions that are “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” so long as the government does not “discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[3] Headnote Citing References Christian Legal Society held that a law school's student organization program is a limited public forum. 130 S.Ct. at 2984 n. 12. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish that case, contending that San Diego State's student organization program is not a limited public forum, but a designated public forum. A designated public forum is government property “open[ed] for indiscriminate public use for communicative purposes.” Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 392, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993). Speech in a designated public forum has significantly greater protection than speech in a limited public forum—restrictions on speech in a designated public forum are subject to strict scrutiny and, therefore, “ ‘must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.’ “ Christian Legal Soc'y, 130 S.Ct. at 2984 n. 11 (quoting Pleasant Grove City, 129 S.Ct. at 1132).

[4] Headnote Citing References We see no material distinction between San Diego State's student organization program and the student organization program discussed in Christian Legal Society and, therefore, conclude that San Diego State's program is also a limited public forum. Like San Diego State, the university in Christian Legal Society provided benefits to student groups within its program, such as financial assistance; access to university newsletters, bulletin boards, and meeting rooms; and the use of the university's name and logo. Id. at 2979. In exchange, the student groups agreed to abide by certain conditions, including an approval process and the school's nondiscrimination policy. Id. Thus, both the program in Christian Legal Society and San Diego State's program are not “open for indiscriminate public use,” Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. at 392, but are instead limited to certain groups—student organizations—which is the hallmark of a limited public forum, see Christian Legal Soc'y, 130 S.Ct. at 2984 n. 11. The fact that both the school in Christian Legal Society and San Diego State require student groups to obtain university approval is further indication that the student organization programs are limited public forums. See Faith Ctr. Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover, 480 F.3d 891, 909 (9th Cir.2007) (“Requiring prior permission for access to[a] forum demonstrates that a public forum has not been created by designation.”), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).

*4 Because we conclude that San Diego State's student organization program is a limited public forum, we apply the same analysis to both Plaintiffs' free speech and expressive association claims: Plaintiffs' exclusion from San Diego State's student organization program is permissible if San Diego State's requirement that student groups adhere to the nondiscrimination policy is (1) reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum; and (2) viewpoint neutral. 130 S.Ct. at 2988.

A. Reasonableness
In Truth v. Kent School District, we held that a high school's requirement that student organizations comply with a nondiscrimination policy was a reasonable restriction in light of the purpose of the school's student organization program. 542 F.3d 634, 649 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2866, 174 L.Ed.2d 577 (2009) and ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2889, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2009), overruled on other grounds by Los Angeles County v. Humphries, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 447, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010). The policy prohibited the school—and, by extension, student organizations officially approved by the school—from discriminating on various grounds such as race, gender, and religion. Id. at 639.

To determine whether this policy was reasonable in light of the purpose of the student organization program, we looked to the program's constitution. Id. at 649. The constitution listed various purposes for the program, including developing good citizenship, promoting harmonious relationships, facilitating student and faculty expression, and encouraging students to obey, honor, and sustain state and local laws and school rules. Id. We read these “broad statements of purpose” to mean that the purpose of the student organization program was to “advance the school's basic pedagogical goals.” Id. We then noted that the Supreme Court had “emphasized that part of a school's mission is to instill in students the ‘shared values of a civilized social order,’ which includes instilling the value of non-discrimination.” Id. (quoting Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 272, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988)). Thus, we concluded that the school's nondiscrimination policy aligned with the school's pedagogical goals and was a reasonable limitation in light of the purpose of the student organization program. See id.

[5] Headnote Citing References As in Truth, we look to San Diego State's Student Organizations Handbook to determine the purpose of the student organization program. The section of the handbook entitled “Principles of Community” is filled with references to diversity and nondiscrimination: “Underlying San Diego State's educational goals are basic values that include ... freedom from discrimination.... [We] affirm [our] positive commitment toward diversity.... We encourage every student organization to make a conscious effort to undertake recruitment efforts to ensure diversity within the group's membership and to take steps to reach populations currently underrepresented. ... No organization will direct recruitment ... toward any one group (i.e.racial, ethnic, gender, etc.) of potential members.... We ... challenge you to express yourself in a manner that promotes and maintains the ideals of respect, equality, diversity, and freedom from harassment.”

*5 These statements make clear that one of the intended purposes of San Diego State's student organization program is to promote diversity and nondiscrimination. These statements are far more explicit than the “broad statements of purpose” in Truth—the statements in Truth did not expressly mention nondiscrimination. See 542 F.3d at 649. Requiring student groups to adhere to a nondiscrimination policy is reasonable in light of San Diego State's intended purpose.

Also relevant to the analysis of reasonableness is whether Plaintiffs have alternative avenues of communication besides the forum from which they have been excluded. In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court found the university's nondiscrimination policy “all the more creditworthy” because the plaintiffs in that case still had many avenues for expressing their message. 130 S.Ct. at 2991. The university offered the plaintiffs access to meeting facilities, chalkboards, and generally available bulletin boards. Id. The Court noted that, although the plaintiffs were denied use of the student organization program's special means of communication, “the advent of electronic media and social-networking sites reduces the importance of those channels.” Id. The Court specifically cited references to internet message groups, email, websites, Google, and MySpace. Id. The Court deemed the availability of other means of communication “significant” to limited-public-forum analysis. Id.

As in Christian Legal Society, San Diego State allows non-recognized groups like Plaintiffs to use campus facilities for meetings, to set up tables and displays in public areas, and to distribute literature. Plaintiffs also have access to all the non-university electronic resources mentioned by the Supreme Court, as well as new resources invented since then. Thus, San Diego State's policy should be deemed as “creditworthy” as the policy in Christian Legal Society.

Therefore, San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy is reasonable in light of the student organization program's purpose of promoting diversity and nondiscrimination.FN3

B. Viewpoint Neutrality
Plaintiffs contend that San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy, as written, discriminates against Plaintiffs' viewpoint. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that, even if the nondiscrimination policy is viewpoint neutral on its face, San Diego State has applied it in a discriminatory fashion, exempting some groups from the policy while requiring other groups to comply with it. We find that the policy is viewpoint neutral as written, but that there are triable issues of fact as to whether San Diego State has selectively enforced its nondiscrimination policy.

1. The nondiscrimination policy as written
[6] Headnote Citing References[7] Headnote Citing References “ ‘Viewpoint discrimination is ... an egregious form of content discrimination,’ and occurs when ‘the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction [on speech].’ “ Truth, 542 F.3d at 649–50 (ellipsis in original) (quoting Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829). A restriction on speech is unconstitutional if it is “an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view.” Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators'Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). However, a restriction that “ ‘serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression’ “ and only incidentally burdens some speakers, messages, or viewpoints, “ ‘is deemed neutral.’ “ Christian Legal Soc'y, 130 S.Ct. at 2994 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)). “We thus look to the government's purpose as the threshold consideration.” Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 763, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994).

*6 In the context of a student organization program, the Supreme Court has made clear that an “all-comers” policy that requires all student groups to accept all members does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. Christian Legal Soc'y, 130 S.Ct. at 2993. Such a policy “ ‘is justified without reference to the content [or viewpoint] of the regulated speech.’ “ Id. at 2994 (alteration in original) (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791). The “all-comers requirement draws no distinction between groups based on their message or perspective.” Id. at 2993.

[8] Headnote Citing References Plaintiffs contend that the reasoning and holding of Christian Legal Society do not apply, however, when a school's policy prohibits only certain membership requirements, such as those based on race, gender, or religion, rather than prohibiting all membership requirements, as an all-comers policy does. The more limited nondiscrimination policy at issue in this case, Plaintiffs argue, discriminates on the basis of viewpoint because it allows secular belief-based discrimination while prohibiting religious belief-based discrimination. For example, under this more limited policy, a student Republican organization could permissibly exclude Democrats because the policy does not forbid discrimination on the basis of political belief, but a Christian group could not exclude a Muslim student because that would discriminate on the basis of religious belief.

Indeed, San Diego State stipulates that some officially recognized student groups at the university restrict membership to those who believe in the group's purpose, or “agree with the particular ideology, belief, or philosophy the group seeks to promote.” For example, the Immigrant Rights Coalition requires members to “hold the same values regarding immigrant rights as the organization.” The San Diego Socialists at San Diego State require students to be in “agreement with our purpose.” The Hispanic Business Student Association opens membership to those “who support the goals and objectives” of the organization. Plaintiffs argue that San Diego State is discriminating against their viewpoint by allowing these secular groups to discriminate on the basis of belief, while prohibiting Plaintiffs from doing so on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Plaintiffs' argument, while seemingly compelling at first glance, does not survive closer scrutiny. We accept Plaintiffs' assertion that San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy incidentally burdens groups that wish to exclude others on the basis of religion, but does not burden groups that do not exclude or exclude on bases not prohibited by the policy. But this assertion is insufficient to prove viewpoint discrimination, because Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence that San Diego State implemented its nondiscrimination policy for the purpose of suppressing Plaintiffs' viewpoint, or indeed of restricting any sort of expression at all. See Truth, 542 F.3d at 647 (upholding high school's requirement that plaintiff student group comply with nondiscrimination regulations because group “ha[d] not shown that [the school district] justifie [d] its non-discrimination policies with reference to the content of [the group's] message”).

*7 [9] Headnote Citing References San Diego State asserts that the purpose of its policy, which closely tracks the nondiscrimination policy applied to the entire California State University system, is to prevent discrimination and to ensure that the school's resources are “open to all interested students without regard to special protected classifications.” Appellees' Br. at 27. As the Supreme Court has made clear, antidiscrimination laws intended to ensure equal access to the benefits of society serve goals “unrelated to the suppression of expression” and are neutral as to both content and viewpoint. Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623–24, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984) (holding that a state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin, or sex “does not aim at the suppression of speech [and] does not distinguish between prohibited and permitted activity on the basis of viewpoint”); Hurley v. Irish–Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (stating that a public accommodations law forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and other grounds did not, “on its face, target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content, the focal point of its prohibition being rather on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds”). Like the laws challenged in Roberts and Hurley, San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy does not “target speech or discriminate on the basis of its content,” but instead serves to remove access barriers imposed against groups that have historically been excluded.

We reached a similar conclusion in Truth, a case with facts very close to those of the instant case. In Truth, we held that a high school's student organization program did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint when it denied access to a religious student group for refusing to comply with a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting exclusion on enumerated grounds. 542 F.3d at 650. Like Alpha Delta Chi and Alpha Gamma Omega, the student group in Truth required its members to be Christian, which violated the school district's nondiscrimination policy prohibiting discrimination based on “race, creed,[ FN4] color, national origin, sex, marital status, previous arrest ..., incarceration, or physical, sensory or mental disabilities.” Id. at 639, 645 (ellipsis in original). The student group in Truth challenged its exclusion from the student organization program as a violation of various constitutional and statutory provisions, including its First Amendment rights of free speech and expressive association. Id. at 637.

[10] Headnote Citing References We held that the school's nondiscrimination policy in Truth was neutral as to content and viewpoint.FN5 Id. at 647, 650. While acknowledging that the student group may have been attempting to convey a message via its discriminatory conduct, we found that the student group “ha[d] not shown that the [school district] justifie[d] its non-discrimination policies with reference to the content” of that message. Id. at 647. We concluded that the school's denying the plaintiff student group access to the student organization program was “based on [the student group's] discriminatory membership criteria, not the religious ‘content of the speech.’ “ Id. at 645. Thus, “the school [was] not denying [the religious student group] access based solely on its religious viewpoint, but rather on its refusal to comply with the [school district's] nondiscrimination policy.” FN6 Id. at 650. Truth, along with Roberts and Hurley, compels the conclusion that San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy is neutral as to content and viewpoint.

*8 [11] Headnote Citing References[12] Headnote Citing References It is true that content-neutral antidiscrimination laws can nonetheless violate the First Amendment right of expressive association when used to force a private group to accept members who materially interfere with the message the group wishes to express. See Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000); Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572–73. Plaintiffs argue that requiring them to accept non-Christians into their groups “forces them to say what they do not want to say.” Appellants' Br. at 48. Were San Diego State compelling Plaintiffs to include non-Christians, Plaintiffs might have a sound argument. But as Christian Legal Society makes clear, there is a difference “between policies that require action and those that withhold benefits.” 130 S.Ct. at 2986. The Supreme Court declined to apply the line of expressive association cases—including Dale and Hurley—in the context of a student organization program, because the university was not forcing student groups to accept unwanted members, but only conditioning certain benefits on the adoption of a nondiscrimination policy. Id. Instead, the Court analyzed the plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge under the limited-public-forum doctrine, which permits reasonable restrictions on expression so long as they are viewpoint neutral. Id. at 2984, 2986. Under this reasoning, San Diego State's reasonable and viewpoint-neutral requirement that recognized student groups comply with its nondiscrimination policy does not violate Plaintiffs' right to expressive association. Plaintiffs are free to express any message they wish, and may include or exclude members on whatever basis they like; they simply cannot oblige the university to subsidize them as they do so.

[13] Headnote Citing References Again, we do not doubt that, regardless of San Diego State's purpose in enacting its nondiscrimination policy, the policy will have the effect of burdening some groups more than others. But the fact that a “regulation has a differential impact on groups wishing to enforce exclusionary membership policies” does not render it unconstitutional. Id. at 2994 (internal quotation marks omitted). “ ‘A regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others.’ “ Id. (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 791).

Thus, we hold that San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy is viewpoint neutral as written. Constitutionally speaking, therefore, San Diego State's policy is not materially different from the content-neutral all-comers policy approved in Christian Legal Society, and must be similarly upheld against First Amendment challenge.

2. The nondiscrimination policy as applied
[14] Headnote Citing References A nondiscrimination policy that is viewpoint neutral on its face may still be unconstitutional if not applied uniformly. See Truth, 542 F.3d at 650. In Truth, we expressed concern that “at least two groups, the Men's Honor Club and the Girl[s'] Honor Club, were granted [official] recognition even though their membership is based on gender, a protected ground under the [school district's nondiscrimination] policy.” Id. at 648. “Thus, to the extent[the plaintiff student group] alleges that the [school district] provided waivers to these groups while denying them to others, and that decision was made on the basis of religion or the religious content of speech, [the plaintiffs have] raised a triable issue of fact.” Id. We reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded “for further proceedings on this limited issue.” Id. Although we were not convinced the school district had acted improperly, remand was necessary because “the record [was] devoid of any evidence as to the actual reason that the [school district] granted a non-discrimination waiver to the Men's and Girl[s'] Honor Clubs.” Id. at 648 N.2.FN7

*9 [15] Headnote Citing References In this case, Plaintiffs also offer evidence that San Diego State has granted official recognition to some religious student groups even though those groups, like Plaintiffs, restrict membership or eligibility to hold office based on religious belief. For example, the Catholic Newman Center's application for official recognition by San Diego State provides that its officers must be “members, in good standing, with the Catholic Church.” Further, some non-religious but officially recognized groups appear to discriminate on prohibited grounds, in contravention of the policy. For instance, the African Student Drama Association's constitution limits its leadership positions to students from Africa.

As in Truth, the evidence that some student groups have been granted an exemption from the nondiscrimination policy raises a triable issue of fact. See 542 F.3d at 650. We note that Plaintiffs' characterization of the evidence may not be correct. For example, it is possible that these groups were approved inadvertently because of administrative oversight, or that these groups have, despite the language in their applications, agreed to abide by the nondiscrimination policy. But as it stands now, the record does not adequately explain why some official student groups at San Diego State appear to have membership requirements that violate the school's nondiscrimination policy. We therefore reverse in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' free speech and expressive association claims. We remand for consideration of the question whether San Diego State has (1) exempted certain student groups from the nondiscrimination policy; and (2) declined to grant Plaintiffs such an exemption because of Plaintiffs' religious viewpoint.

II. Free Exercise Clause and Equal Protection
In addition to their free speech and freedom of expressive association claims, Plaintiffs argue that San Diego State is targeting them because of their religious beliefs in violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion. Plaintiffs also argue that San Diego State is treating them differently from other student groups in violation of their right to equal protection under the law. As with their free speech and expression claims, Plaintiffs raise a triable issue of fact.

[16] Headnote Citing References Under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the government may not, among other things, “impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status.” Emp't Div., Dep't of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). However, “the Free Exercise Clause does not inhibit enforcement of otherwise valid regulations of general application that incidentally burden religious conduct.” Christian Legal Soc'y, 130 S.Ct. at 2995 n. 27 (citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 878–82).

[17] Headnote Citing References[18] Headnote Citing References Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). A showing that a group “was singled out for unequal treatment on the basis of religion” may support a valid equal protection argument. Truth, 542 F.3d at 650.

*10 [19] Headnote Citing References[20] Headnote Citing References San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy, as written, is a rule of general application. It does not target religious belief or conduct, and does not “impose special disabilities” on Plaintiffs or other religious groups. Any burden on religion is incidental to the general application of the policy. Thus, as written, San Diego State's policy violates neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause. However, given the evidence that San Diego State may have granted certain groups exemptions from the policy, there remains a question whether Plaintiffs have been treated differently because of their religious status. See Truth, 542 F.3d at 650. Therefore, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' free exercise and equal protection claims. We remand for further findings as to whether San Diego State in fact exempted other student groups from the nondiscrimination policy, but refused to exempt Plaintiffs because of their religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION
San Diego State's nondiscrimination policy, as written, is viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the student organization program. Thus, the university's policy does not violate Plaintiffs' rights of free speech and expressive association. Moreover, the policy does not violate Plaintiffs' rights to free exercise of religion and equal protection under the law. But the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether San Diego State has exempted certain groups from the policy while not granting such an exemption to Plaintiffs. We therefore remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

An Update from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

A WEEKLY UPDATE

NOTES AND COMMENTS:
THE TERRORIST HYDRA: The headline of the lead story on page 1 of Friday’s Wall Street Journal: “U.S. Sees Iranian, al Qaeda Alliance.” Kudos to the U.S. government for catching up with FDD.

In particular, FDD’s Michael Ledeen and Tom Joscelyn have been pointing to strong evidence of this alliance for years.

To provide just a few examples, in this piece, back in December 2002, Ledeen cites evidence that “Iran is a major center for al Qaeda,” that there are “close working relations between Iraq and al Qaeda,” and, in addition, that there is “on-going cooperation between al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah's chief of operations…”

A piece co-authored by Ledeen and Joscelyn early this year concludes that “evidence of cooperation between al Qaeda and Iran abounds.

In a piece in 2006 Ledeen discusses how Iran helps and arms AQ to kill Americans in Iraq.

And in an interview in 2007 Ledeen argues that AQ and Iran have been “working together since 1994, and we are now up to our uvulas in evidence showing Iran’s support for al Qaeda in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission — as Tom Joscelyn has written for years — found striking evidence of the al Qaeda/Iran partnership, starting with the sensational discovery that Imad Mughniyah, the operational chief of Hezbollah, was on the plane that took some of the 9/11 terrorists out of Saudi Arabia, en route to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. …I think the Iranian domination of al Qaeda started when we destroyed al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The key leaders ran to Iran and have mostly been there ever since.” Some of these key leaders include Osama bin Laden’s son and al Qaeda operative, Saad bin Laden, and al Qaeda’s top military commander, Saif al Adel.

Also: On September 11, 2007, FDD Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn published a monograph entitled, “Iran’s Proxy War Against America.” In it, Tom argued that the U.S. government has a blind spot when it comes to Iran’s collusion with al Qaeda. Tom cited evidence accumulated by various government bodies, ranging from Clinton-era prosecutors to the 9/11 Commission report, to demonstrate that the two were working together.

In the last two years alone, Tom has cited a large number of sources pointing to the dangerous pact between Iran, al Qaeda and also the Taliban. These sources include: leaked State Department cables, declassified and leaked documents prepared at Guantanamo, U.S. court decisions, leaked intelligence reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s testimony before an inquiry in London, and General Petraeus’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, among other sources.

The point is this: It is of the utmost consequence to policy makers that the most lethal jihadi terrorist groups, Sunni and Shia alike, can not only collaborate in theory but do collaborate in practice. This means that these terrorist groups are not, after all, non-state actors. This means that terrorism cannot be addressed without addressing Iran. This means that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the door will be open not only for proliferation to other nations in the region (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt) but also to the terrorist groups with which Iran’s theocrats cooperate – AQ among them. This is an issue FDD will explore and emphasize in the months ahead.

IGNORING IRAN: Jennifer Rubin writes:

The Obama administration is consumed with the debt ceiling debate and with preventing a meltdown in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Meanwhile, the greatest threat to our national security in decades, the potential for a nuclear-armed Islamic revolutionary state in Tehran, still looms.

Certainly, the Obama team continues to mouth platitudes about the “success” of sanctions and the “isolation” of Iran. But neither is true. The sanctions have not halted or even seriously disrupted the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons. And Iran continues to gather allies and extend its reach in the region as the U.S. looks more feeble with each passing day.

I spoke to Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies yesterday about the state of the administration’s Iran policy. He was blunt:

I’d start with asking these questions:

1. Apart from sanctions, is anything else happening? What is the comprehensive strategy?

2. Who is driving Iran policy at the interagency level? Dennis Ross, Gary Samore, David Cohen, Bob Einhorn, Michele Flournoy, Tom Donilon, anyone else?

His conclusion on the first item is that nothing is happening, and we have no comprehensive approach. On the second, he says, “No one.”

More here.

Former CIA officer Fred Fleitz writes:

Mounting evidence over the last few years has convinced most experts that Iran has an active program to develop and construct nuclear weapons. Amazingly, however, these experts do not include the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community. They are unwilling to conduct a proper assessment of the Iranian nuclear issue—and so they remain at variance with the Obama White House, U.S. allies, and even the United Nations….

I read the February 2011 Iran NIE while on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee. I believe it was poorly written and little improvement over the 2007 version. However, during a pre-publication classification review of this op-ed, the CIA and the Office of the Director of Intelligence censored my criticisms of this analysis, including my serious concern that it manipulated intelligence evidence. The House Intelligence Committee is aware of my concerns and I hope it will pursue them. …

It is unacceptable that Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon while our intelligence analysts continue to deny that an Iranian nuclear weapons program exists. One can't underestimate the dangers posed to our country by a U.S. intelligence community that is unable to provide timely and objective analysis of such major threats to U.S. national security—or to make appropriate adjustments when it is proven wrong.

If U.S. intelligence agencies cannot or will not get this one right, what else are they missing?

More here.

SYRIA UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal editorializes:

Yesterday President Obama denounced Assad's use of "torture, corruption and terror" and said the dictator was "completely incapable and unwilling to respond to the legitimate grievances of the Syrian people." He's right, though we wonder how much more suffering Syrians will have to endure before the Administration explicitly calls for regime change. …

At least Congress isn't sitting still. This week Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York plan to introduce the Syria Sanctions Act of 2011, which takes aim at the country's energy industry. Though Syria is a minor player in the international energy market, its oil sales this year will account for almost a quarter-about $4 billion-of its annual income. Damascus imports much of its refined petroleum to meet its daily energy needs, since it lacks domestic refining capacity.

We favor these sanctions, and most anything else that can hasten the fall of the House of Assad.

FYI: FDD has provided essential research in regard to these sanctions. More here.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

What the regime is facing here is a tribal insurrection in the east stretching from the north in Deir al-Zor, through the middle in Albu Kamal,” Tony Badran, a research fellow with the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” told The Jerusalem Post by email.

The two eastern cities form the heart of Syria’s oil industry. Badran said that if they join the uprising launched in the flashpoint city of Deraa in the south, “and adding Hama and Homs in the middle, then potentially the country could be geographically cut in half.”…

An activist group, Avaaz, said in a report last week that Syrian security forces had killed 1,634 people since the uprising erupted in March….

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, once one of Assad’s main allies, said in May, “We do not want to see another Hama massacre,” and warned the 45-year-old president that it would be hard to contain the consequences if it were repeated.

"When Turkey and the US take a public stand on a particular locale, like Hama, and are ignored and a massacre occurs, if there is no credible response, it’s a problem," Badran said.

More here.

TERRORISM IN NORWAY: Author and psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple says of the perpetrator of the terrorist attacks in Norway:

"I assume that when he was shooting all those people, what was in his mind was the higher good that he thought he was doing. And that was more real to him than the horror that he was creating around him."

In itself, having a worldview that shapes our attention, informs even what we believe to be real, is perfectly normal. It may even be essential. "After all," Dr. Dalrymple says, "having a very consistent worldview, particularly if it gives you a transcendent purpose, answers the most difficult question: What is the purpose of life?"

Having a purpose is usually a good thing. "One of the problems of our society," Dr. Dalrymple says, "is that many people don't have a transcendent purpose. Now it can come from various things. It can come from religion of course. But religion in Europe is dead."

Dr. Dalrymple argues that the welfare state, Europe's form of civic religion, deprives its citizens even of the "struggle for existence" as a possible purpose in life. One alternative, then, is "transcendent political purpose—and that's where what [Breivik's] done comes in." Such a political purpose doesn't lead inexorably to fanaticism, violence and murder. "But my guess," Dr. Dalrymple offers, "is that this man, who was extremely ambitious, didn't have the talent" to realize his ambitions, whether in politics or other fields. "So while he's intelligent he didn't have that ability or that determination to mark himself out in a way that might be more—constructive, shall we say." …

He has another worry, "that what [Breivik's] done will be taken as a reason to close down all kinds of debate," or to delegitimize the views of anyone who, as Dr. Dalrymple puts it, "question[s] anything that the current prime minister of Norway says or believes."

"Here is a man," Dr. Dalrymple says, "behaving like this and quoting all kinds of people, some of whom I admire or agree with." But to suggest that the views of those thinkers (including himself) somehow contributed to the killing in Oslo, he argues, makes no sense. "It's like somebody saying that if you believe, for example, that bankers were irresponsible during the [2008 global financial] crisis, you are leading inexorably to the killing of three bankers in the bank in Athens," as happened during one of the recent anti-austerity protests there.

More here.

Mark Steyn writes that Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining

the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:

Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.

Any of us who write are obliged to weigh our words, and accept the consequences of them. But, when a Norwegian man is citing Locke and Burke as a prelude to gunning down dozens of Norwegian teenagers, he is lost in his own psychoses. Free societies can survive the occasional Breivik. If Norway responds to this as the Left appears to wish, by shriveling even further the bounds of public discourse, freedom will have a tougher time.

More here.

Andy McCarthy adds that

it is patently absurd that Breivik’s attitudes about Muslims have come to dominate coverage of a horrific episode that appears to have little or nothing to do with Muslims — such that those actually killed become, as Mark puts it, “mere bit players in their own murder” while the legacy media shrieks about “Islamophobia.” As Bruce Bawer pointed out in his trenchant post this weekend (at Pajamas), we are now looking at “a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has become profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”

If we are to remain free and secure, that cannot be allowed to happen. And that starts with not apologizing for the entirely rational fear that future terrorist attacks will be fueled by Islamist ideology, just as thousands of past attacks have been. Prominent Muslims are forever making the most unfounded, most offensive pronouncements, and yet they never have to apologize. Right after 9/11, MPAC’s Salam Marayati told a Los Angeles radio interviewer, “If we are going to look at suspects, we should look at groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” Before becoming a top Obama aide and envoy, Rashad Hussain excoriated the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian as a “politically motivated” “travesty of justice” that fit a “common pattern … of politically motivated prosecutions,” by which the U.S. government exaggerates the “threat to American security” — al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge. CAIR has made a career of rushing to the nearest microphone to discredit the investigation of Muslims who are later found guilty of terrorism. The list goes on and on; only the words “I’m sorry, I was wrong” are never uttered — and never demanded.

We all have a duty to exercise caution if we are going to comment before the facts are fully known. We have no duty to apologize, however, for well founded suspicions and for recognizing the threat Islamism poses to life and to Western liberalism. Our obligation is to remain vigilant.

More here.

Jamie Kirchick on attempts to smear Norway’s Progress Party:

“There are too many immigrants coming here, so we have to stop that because we have to take care of those who are already here,” Farida Amin, a Norwegian of Pakistani descent who immigrated with her family in 1975, told me. She now works for the Progress party and has been a member for eight years. Its emphasis on assimilation, and its concern for the harsh treatment that many Muslim women in Norway receive at the hands of their male relatives, is what attracted her. “Many women from non-Western countries are prevented from employment and active citizenship by their husbands, so we are working for that.”

In 2009, a representative of the sexual violence division of the Oslo police reported that, in the past 3 years, every single one of the city’s 41 reported aggravated sexual assaults had been committed by immigrants who come from countries “with a very different view of women than we have in Norway.” As to accusations that the party is “anti-Muslim,” Amin says, “No one has ever discriminated against me because of my religion.”

More here.

The Wall Street Journal opines:

Breivik's ideology reminds us that conservatives are obliged to police their own ranks and condemn those on the right who condone extremist rhetoric or political violence.

None of this justifies the attempts in some circles to claim that Breivik is somehow the logical product of a larger anti-Islamic movement or commentary. The BBC put one Lars Gule on the radio to warn that Breivik's views were "mainstream" in Norwegian society. Mr. Gule says he debated Breivik about his views online and did not get the sense that he was planning a violent attack. Mr. Gule himself was arrested in Lebanon in 1977 for possessing explosives intended for use against Israel on behalf of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

In a story linking American bloggers to Breivik yesterday, the New York Times produced a former Obama Administration antiterrorism official to opine that "Breivik emerged" from the "infrastructure" of the anti-Islamist American right.

Yet the notable but little remarked reality of post-9/11 America is how few acts of anti-Muslim violence there have been. President George W. Bush always distinguished between mainstream Islam and its radical perversion. The early speculations Friday—including our own—that the Oslo bomber may have had jihadist roots were understandable given the recent history of Islamist violence and reports that one jihadist group had claimed responsibility. …

Norway's murders shouldn't be an excuse to shut down debate over multiculturalism and the failure of many Muslims to assimilate to Europe's cultural norms. British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have broken taboos by speaking sensibly on the subject. Democracies need to address their anxieties openly, rather than push the political debate underground where the likes of an Anders Breivik can let them stew into a rationale for violence.

More here.

Columnist Bret Stephens quotes Boston University's Richard Landes:

"Like many active cataclysmic apocalypticists, [Breivis] believed that the socio-political world is in huge tension, like tectonic plates about to crack, and if he can set off a small explosion in the right place it will unleash far greater forces." In this sense, Mr. Landes adds, "the thing he resembles most is the people he hates."

He's right, and not just in regards to methods. Just as al Qaeda's primary fury has always been directed at Muslims who they view as apostates, traitors or stooges of the West, the main object of Breivik's hatred was what he called the "cultural Marxists" who dominated Norwegian politics. "If they refuse to surrender until 2020," he said of them, "there will be no turning back. We will eventually wipe out every single one of them."

Similarly, the purpose of Breivik's massacre wasn't simply to kill off the Labor party's leadership, current and future. It was to create a spectacle, and in doing so energize a cause. It's no accident that he wants media present at his trial: He has now entered what he calls the propaganda phase of his campaign, in which he imagines he will be given "a stage to the world" through which he can win over "tens of millions of European sympathizers and tens of thousands of brothers and sisters who support us fully and are willing to fight beside us." This was precisely what al Qaeda hoped to achieve (and to an extent did achieve) with 9/11.

More here.

FDD’s Michael Ledeen notes:

The Marxists embrace the myth of class struggle in a Western world that is no longer capitalist and where there is no working class. The jihadis embrace the cause of holy war (no accident, the Marxists might say, that jihadis raced to take ‘credit’ for the mayhem in the first hours) against a Western world described as Christian and Islamophobic. That, too, is an archaic remnant from a past long dead and buried, especially in Europe. The Old World is secular, and, certainly among its elites, more anti-Semitic and anti-Christian than anti-Muslim. ...

It is thoroughly understandable, then, that some have responded to the Norwegian mass murder with myths of their own, beginning with the fable that Breivik is the tip of a very large iceberg, that includes not only deranged would-be killers but also writers and politicians. Thus they conjure up yet another phantasmagorical mass movement—a vast conspiracy with countless followers, some hidden, others public. There is no such movement. Yes, there are crazy people who think they are fighters in the great cataclysmic struggle of the days of the Last Judgment (and if you want a fine survey and analysis of the enormous variety of such beliefs, and their dreadful effects over the centuries, get yourself a copy of Richard Landes’ timely study ‘Heaven on Earth’). But I doubt there are enough of them to feed more than a handful of Knights Templar, let alone a full-fledged political movement.”

More here.

ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE: Mark Steyn writes that by 2050

a majority of Austrians under 15 will be Muslim. 2050 isn’t that far away. …

A world that becomes more Muslim becomes less everything else: First it’s Jews, already fleeing Malmo in Sweden. Then it’s homosexuals, already under siege from gay-bashing in Amsterdam, “the most tolerant city in Europe”. Then it’s uncovered women, already targeted for rape in Oslo and other Continental cities. And, if you don’t any longer have any Jews or (officially) any gays or (increasingly) uncovered women, there are always just Christians in general, from Egypt to Pakistan.

More here.

Pat Condell’s very politically incorrect (and rather humorous) analysis of what’s happening in Sweden is here (Parental guidance suggested).

THE PIRATES OF SOMALIA: My column with an audio link here.

Peter Pham has more on this issue here.

AL QAEDA ON THE BRINK? FDD’s Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is dubious. More (including an audio link) here.

OPEC IS NOW A TERRORIST CARTEL: The Guardian (UK) reports

A senior commander of Iran's revolutionary guards, who is subject to comprehensive international sanctions, has been nominated as the country's oil minister, a position that currently includes the presidency of Opec.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, sent a list of four ministers, including Rostam Ghasemi, commander of the revolutionary guards' Khatam al-Anbia military and industrial base, to the parliament for approval, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

Should the parliament confirm Ghasemi's nomination next week, the commander, who is targeted by US, EU and Australian sanctions, will be automatically appointed as head of Opec, giving the revolutionary guards access to an influential international platform.

Under Iran's constitution the president is in charge of appointing cabinet ministers, who take office after the approval of parliament.

Iran took the Opec presidency in October last year, its first time at the head of the oil exporters' cartel since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Unrest in the Middle East, especially the ongoing war in Libya, has given Opec a crucial role in determining the current oil price. Iran is the second-largest crude oil exporter in Opec. …

Revolutionary guards' assets, including those personally owned by Ghasemi and dozens of his colleagues, have been blacklisted by the US Treasury and western powers.

Other officials in Ahmadinejad's cabinet have been also subject to international sanctions including the foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, the defence minister, Ahmad Vahidi, and the vice-president, Fereidoun Abbasi Davani.

If this happens, should there not be a policy response from the US, Europe and other Opec customers? More here.

George Jonas note that we can do without OPEC oil:

Internal combustion engines can, if designed, modified or sometimes just tuned for it, run on cellulosic ethanol, ethyl-alcohol, grain alcohol — in other words, on booze. They can also run on methanol or industrial alcohol. Cars and trucks can run on fuels indigenous and inexhaustible without requiring major conversion; certainly none that is beyond existing technology. …

[A]ll big car-makers can manufacture “flexi-fuel” engines that run on 90% ethanol or bio-diesel. It’s politics.

We got into the habit of behaving as if countries or regimes hostile to us had a monopoly on fossil fuels and we had no choice but subsidize them in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons with which to blow us into oblivion — and if you think I’m talking about Iran, I don’t know what gave you this idea, but you’re not wrong.

While tyrannies and theocracies have deposits of oil relatively easy to extract and refine, such resources aren’t exclusive to theocracies and tyrannies. Oil and natural gas are available on- or offshore in humane and pacific regions as well, in quantities rivalling or exceeding deposits in the badlands of the Persian Gulf.

Nor are Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela the only alternatives to the al-Qaeda supporting Saudi and Holocaust-denying Iranian leaders. If we felt electric cars were too namby-pamby and alcohol-fuelled cars too macho; if we absolutely insisted on our addiction to fossil fuels, we still wouldn’t have to buy oil from our enemies.

The ayatollahs and their ilk don’t have a monopoly. We in Canada have just about as much oil as they do. Anyone who hasn’t yet read Ezra Levant’s book Ethical Oil should rush out to buy it. The oil sands of Alberta make Canada, as Levant puts it, an energy superpower that happens to be an ethical superpower as well.

Paying blackmail to someone who has something on you is one thing; paying it to someone who has nothing on you is something else. The world’s democracies are subsidizing rogue regimes for oil. Why? OPEC doesn’t have the world’s democracies over a barrel. Yes, we may have to pay OPEC’s *price* for oil — but we don’t have pay it to OPEC.

Looking at Alberta’s oil sands, we may conclude that we should pay it to ourselves.

Hello, people, cars don’t need internal combustion engines; internal combustion engines don’t need fossil fuels, and anyway, there’s lots of fossil fuel around. Some say Israel’s newly discovered fields equal Saudi Arabia’s deposits. We can shop outside the domains of sheiks, ayatollahs, and other marauders. Buying from them is like buying booze from Al Capone: Bad enough when he’s the only game in town and when he isn’t, well — supply your own adjective. Mine isn’t polite.

More here.

IGNORING THE EMP THREAT: Bill Gertz reports:

China's military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.

Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China's so-called "assassin's mace" arsenal - weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.

EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.

The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China's EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China's military in the past made only passing references to the arms. …

Richard Fisher, a China military analyst, said EMP warheads are likely to be an option for China's new DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile for the purpose of attacking large U.S. Navy ships without inflicting immediate massive casualties.

"Less is known about the longer-term effects on personnel of this kind of radiation attack," said Mr. Fisher, who is with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. "The more powerful nuclear-propelled neutron bomb was designed specifically for killing personnel without a massive blast."

More here.

CYBERSPACE WARS: The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have delivered a stark warning to the Pentagon: its failure to address key questions surrounding how the United States military would respond to a cyberattack--and what precisely constitutes an act of war in cyberspace, for that matter--remains a "significant gap" in US national security policy.

More here.

LEBANON’S IRAN CONNECTION: Benny Avni reports:

Lebanon and Israel are trying to resolve their maritime- border dispute peacefully -- for now. But the Hezbollah terrorists who control Lebanon are itching to turn it into a crisis that'll justify war -- if and when their patrons in Iran and Syria want it.

At issue is an area of the eastern Mediterranean where Israeli companies and their US partners have spent a lot of time and money exploring for natural gas. A few years ago, Delek of Netanya and the Texas-based Noble Energy hit pay dirt -- finding a rich sea area across from Israel's northern beaches that reportedly contains vast amounts of natural gas.

That's where Lebanon, which has yet to do any of its own exploration, comes in: Beirut now says it owns the area in which Israel is exploring. …

The real conflict isn't about legal haggling. Hezbollah -- which was founded by Iran to reach military parity with Israel -- wants to demonstrate to the Lebanese people that only its bravado can defend the homeland and its natural resources against predatory Zionists (and therefore Hezbollah must illegally maintain its huge arsenal of missiles and mortars). …

Meanwhile, as the Syrian regime teeters, there are increasing reports of a new transfer of long-range missiles to Lebanon, significantly increasing its capacity to hit all of Israel's population centers. …

But State Department "realists" pretend that none of this is our business.

Why can't we "choose sides" between America's most trusted Mideast ally and terrorists allied with our worst foes? If we must pretend to be neutral, why leave the mediation of a potentially explosive dispute to the decisively one-sided United Nations?

More here.

JEWISH QUESTIONS: FDD’s Jonathan Kay on the West Bank, Israel and history here.

SLAVES OF ZIONISM: Michael Rubin sends this creative bit of Photoshopping from Iran.

--Cliff May

IN THEIR OWN WORDS
"Re-equipping the military is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making Canada a meaningful contributor in the world. We also have a purpose. And that purpose is no longer just to go along and get along with everyone else’s agenda. It is no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the United Nations. And I confess that I don’t know why past attempts to do so were ever thought to be in Canada’s national interest."
(6/10/2011) Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

"One of the problems of our society is that many people don't have a transcendent purpose. Now it can come from various things. It can come from religion of course. But religion in Europe is dead."
(7/30/2011) Psychiatrist and author Theodore Dalrymple

"I so admire the very brave Syrian protesters. Assad must go. He has killed 2,000 innocent civilians, thousands have been imprisoned. The sooner he will leave, the more his people will appreciate it. There is no chance he can defeat the people. If Syria’s ruler doesn’t realize this, he has already lost his place. I truly admire the Syrians’ stance against their ruler. It is easy to go and demonstrate, but when they are shooting at you? It is amazing. Their bravery and firm stance deserves respect. I believe that people who are interested in peace will prevail. Then it will be easier to achieve peace between Israel and Syria."
(7/26/2011) Israeli President Shimon Peres

IN THE MEDIA
US Adds American, Kenyan Shabaab Leaders to List of Designated Terrorists
07/31/2011, Bill Roggio, The Long War Journal
On July 29, the US Treasury Department targeted two senior leaders of Shabaab, the al Qaeda-linked group in Somalia, designating them as global terrorists. The designation allows the US to freeze the assets of the two leaders, prevent them from using financial institutions, and prosecute them for terrorist activities.

Al Qaeda, the Internet, and the Arab Spring
07/30/2011, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Threat Matrix, The Long War Journal
On Thursday, I was a panelist at a National Counterterrorism Center-sponsored conference on the global threat posed by al Qaeda; my panel focused on terrorist use of the Internet. This entry is adapted from my remarks, which were forward-looking in nature.

Al-Qaeda on the Brink?
07/28/2011, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, National Review Online
The idea that al-Qaeda is on the brink of collapse has taken hold. On Wednesday, the Washington Post noted that “U.S. counterterrorism officials are increasingly convinced that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the toll of seven years of CIA drone strikes have pushed al-Qaeda to the brink of collapse.”

In the Pirates' Lair
07/28/2011, Clifford D. May, Scripps Howard News Service
For years, Somali pirates have been hijacking ships off the coast of Somalia. For years, the United States and what we credulously call “the international community” have not been able to figure out what to do about it.

Treasury Targets Iran's 'Secret Deal' with al Qaeda
07/28/2011, Thomas Joscelyn, The Long War Journal
The US Treasury Department has designated six al Qaeda members who work for a terrorist headquartered in Iran. The Treasury Department explained that the six operatives are members of an al Qaeda network "headed by Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, a prominent Iran-based al Qaeda facilitator, operating under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government."

Susan Rice's Absence Did Not Go Unnoticed
07/27/2011, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Commentary
On Tuesday, the United States reaffirmed its opposition to Palestinian plans to sidestep negotiations with Israel and declare a state this fall at the United Nations. But Ambassador Susan Rice, Washington’s top representative at the UN, was apparently nowhere to be found.

Happening Now
07/27/2011, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Fox News Channel
Is al Qaeda on the verge of collapse?


Fox News.com Live
07/27/2011, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Fox News Channel
Does the situation in Norway pose a threat to U.S. national security?


News Update
08/1/2011, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, al Jazeera English
What is the extent of al Qaeda's connections with Iran?

News Update
08/1/2011, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, VOA Urdu
Is al Qaeda on the brink of collapse and what is the extent of its connections with Iran?

Webinar: IRAN - WHAT NEXT?
07/27/2011, Mark Dubowitz, Clarion Productions
Despite increased sanctions and international pressure, the Iranian regime continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and human rights abuses. How can this regime be stopped in its tracks?

The Rob Breakenridge Show
07/27/2011, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, AM 770 CHQR - Calgary
Terrorist attacks in Norway.

News Update
07/26/2011, Clifford D. May, Alhurra
The conflict in Libya.

All this and more at: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/

Or get on the mailing list by writing: info@defenddemocracy.org

The Debt Ceiling Deal: What it suggests about our fearless leaders

I guess the only inspiring part of the HOuse vote on the debt-ceiling deal was the appearance of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to cast her vote in favor. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/02/gabrielle-gifford-return-congress-vote

The deal itself will raise the ceiling by a trillion bucks, while also cutting about the same amount from the federal budget. No new taxes for anybody.

Yesterday, I finally got to the the July 11th issue of TIME. I found there a nice little essay by Fareed Zakaria, titled "It's all Greek to U.S." The peace was comforting in that Zakaria compress and contrasts Greece and America, pointing out the advantages we have, when it comes to managing our debts. He concludes, "Greece faces a set of terrible choices. In order to get more funds to pay its loans and bills, it needs to make draconian spending cuts and tax increases that surely will choke economic growth. The situation in the U.S. could not be more different. The solutions to America's deficit problems are relatively straightforward, almost simple." He then offers a couple of examples of how COngress could solve these problems, notably by following the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.

But, he adds, "The great truth facing the U.S. is not that we lack solutions to our problems but that our political system seems unable to do anything. With a deficit as large as the one we face, it should be clear that we cannot sort things out through either spending cuts alone or tax increases alone.... And yet the two parties seem stuck in adolescent fantasies, one ruling out tax increases, the other ruling out any serious cuts in entitlement spending."

Adolescent fantasies? An interesting term. And there is probably some truth in it. From Congressman Anthony Weiner distributing photos of his weener (so, okay, he was wearing his Fruits of the Loom... at least in the shots I saw) to Sarah Palin's shameless exploitation of her ill-deserved fame to Arnold having a kid with his housekeeper to (lest we forget) Bill Clinton getting a BJ from his White House intern... yes there is an air of adolescence about our so-called leaders' (and wanna-be-leaders') shenanigans, leaving one to wonder whether (a) they give a damn about the nation, and (b) do they have any time left to address its problems.

In addition to adolescence, selfishness is another attribute that seems to infuse these folks. From Wall Street warthogs, who continued to guzzle mega-bonuses through near-bankruptcy, scandal, recession, federal bail out (you just can't screw the pooch, if you are one of these Masters of the Universe)... to their GOP cronies in Congress who seem bound by blood oaths not to tax away one dime of the ill-gotten gains... to their colleagues across the aisle, who won't touch an entitlement if it means losing a single vote in 2012. Ah, yes, the rugged individuals of 21st century America... me, me, me... it's all about me.

The third attribute that stands out in my mind is ignorance. A Simpsons t-shirt I once saw said, "Underachiever and proud of it." When it comes to general knowledge, this seems to be the new motto. Palin is as famous for what she didn't know during the 2008 campaign --- and apparently doesn't know now --- as for anything else we know about her. Michele Bachmann is apparently right in there with Palin. According to the same issue of TIME, the Tax Attorney cum Congresswoman recently confused John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy. You wouldn't want to make that mistake on a date, Ladies!

Adolescence, selfishness, and ignorance... now there's a combination for great leadership. I fear that far too frequently, that's exactly what the two major political parties are offering us. The debt-ceiling deal, as Zakaria's article indicates, is emblematic of this sad state of affairs.
Why My Dad Hates Ice Cream