They seem to be quite selective about what they find “offensive”:

…while ads for the anti-Clinton book — which featured images of the book’s cover and pictures of the former first couple — were deemed offensive, the company continues to run ads for overtly liberal advertisers with headlines such as “Hate Bush? So Do We,” and “George W. Bush f@rt doll.”

I’m sure it has nothing to do with this, though:

…98 percent of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats.

CEO Eric Schmidt gave the maximum legal limit of donations to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry and to primary candidate Howard Dean.

Schmidt also contributed the maximum amount to Sen. Clinton, whose role in helping her husband intimidate his female accusers is addressed in the new book.

I think I may switch to Teoma.

Federal Air Marshals are suing to have their gag order removed:

The lawsuit alleges that the Federal Air Marshal Service rules are an attempt to smother and prevent the disclosure of information by federal air marshals of agency mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse. In addition, the lawsuit challenges the Federal Air Marshal Service actions in investigating the Federal Air Marshal Association in an attempt to identify FAMA members, its Board of Directors and other private information about the organization…

…FAMA legal counsel Stephen G. DeNigris called the agency regulations at issue unconstitutional both on their face and in their application. He asserted the regulations were

We may have passed the High Water Mark of federalism as I predicted back in April. In Gonzales vs. Raich, the Supreme Court is basically showing that it is a political body just like Congress, the Executive and the Federal Reserve. There may be a longer time between turnover on the Court, but the Justices appear to be responding to conscience and not just the rationality of arguments on their face.

What this means for federalism is that as interests evolve to reflect the growing Republican demographic of a richer, but not too rich society. As more and more are better able to provide for themselves, they see that they give more to the government than they take out. Even as Republican Congresses and Administrations provide huge new benefits, they are still perceived as the party of less government. Nice image if you can get it.

Even if it is just poor execution by Democrats and a overevolved sense of fairness, we are likely on a long-term era of Republican Congress and Presidencies. If only for the reason that there is a whip effect of Republicans winning state houses, then redistricting, there will likely be a 20 year hangover in Congress even if imperial overstretch and an abundance of power splits the Republican party.

What this implies for federalism is that the proponents of the debate will flip. National legislation will be championed by the Republicans while state diversity will be championed by the Democrats.

It has become Democrats like Cuomo arguing that an elitist Senate (with small-state overrepresentation and a super-majority requirement) deserves more power than a populist president when it comes to selecting and approving judges. We will see strange coalitions of conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court denying federalism on legacy issues. The conservatives to lay the groundwork for a future with much narrower states’ rights and the liberals to be true to principles and to salvage short term political victories (or at least hold the line) on individual cases having to do with the vestiges of challenges to Democrat-approved national legislation.

I predict that there will be a litmus test for new judges not to support federalism. If not by this administration, perhaps the next will get it. So those Justices like Thomas and O’Connor that support federalism on the merits will increasingly be joined by fair-weather federalists from the Left and opposed by the new appointees that will be expected to spread national Republican law throughout the land.

Joe Katzman has an excellent post on why we cannot expect, or (sadly) even hope for, the “international community” to prevent genocide, and why there must be a universal right to bear arms.

From a long, but interesting scholarly paper by Kopel et al:

…civilian armament has historically been very effective at preventing genocide. Indeed, genocide scholars have found that genocides are carried out almost exclusively against populations which have first been systematically disarmed. Because genocidal regimes consider prior disarmament the sine qua non for beginning a genocide, it seems indisputable that civilian armament deters genocide in most cases. Part IV considers the practical possibilities of arming the Darfur genocide victims…

…we carefully analyze the international law implications of arming genocide victims. Genocide victims who acquired arms, and persons who supplied arms to genocide victims, would almost certainly be in violation of the gun control laws in the country where the genocide was taking place. In addition, the arms acquisition might violate international treaties against bringing arms into a nation without the consent of the national government. Under international law, could the genocide victims and their arms suppliers claim that their actions were nevertheless legal? We answer

Andrew Sullivan yesterday:

Yes, I preferred him to Bush last November. I’ve never believed that low Ivy grades are somehow an impediment to high office. But then you find out that Kerry’s refusal to release his military records prevented him from disseminating lots of glowing tributes from the Swift Boat maniacs. Dumb and dumber.

Emphasis mine.

I couldn’t let this pass. Andrew simply has a huge blind spot when it comes to the credibility of the Swift Boat vets, because and (as far as I can tell) only because he doesn’t want to believe them. I’m confident that he hasn’t read the book, or he couldn’t possibly write this sort of nonsense.

When it comes to “maniacs,” let me present exhibit A: Lawrence O’Donnell, face red, veins bulging out of his neck, in a complete on-air meltdown, repeatedly screaming “Liar”” and “Creep!” at a calm, collected John O’Neill on Scarborough Country late last October. And Andrew calls the Swift Boat vets maniacs?

[Update at noon eastern]

Thomas Lipscomb asks whether Kerry really released the records. If I were a betting man, I know where my money would be…

Andrew Sullivan yesterday:

Yes, I preferred him to Bush last November. I’ve never believed that low Ivy grades are somehow an impediment to high office. But then you find out that Kerry’s refusal to release his military records prevented him from disseminating lots of glowing tributes from the Swift Boat maniacs. Dumb and dumber.

Emphasis mine.

I couldn’t let this pass. Andrew simply has a huge blind spot when it comes to the credibility of the Swift Boat vets, because and (as far as I can tell) only because he doesn’t want to believe them. I’m confident that he hasn’t read the book, or he couldn’t possibly write this sort of nonsense.

When it comes to “maniacs,” let me present exhibit A: Lawrence O’Donnell, face red, veins bulging out of his neck, in a complete on-air meltdown, repeatedly screaming “Liar”” and “Creep!” at a calm, collected John O’Neill on Scarborough Country late last October. And Andrew calls the Swift Boat vets maniacs?

[Update at noon eastern]

Thomas Lipscomb asks whether Kerry really released the records. If I were a betting man, I know where my money would be…

Andrew Sullivan yesterday:

Yes, I preferred him to Bush last November. I’ve never believed that low Ivy grades are somehow an impediment to high office. But then you find out that Kerry’s refusal to release his military records prevented him from disseminating lots of glowing tributes from the Swift Boat maniacs. Dumb and dumber.

Emphasis mine.

I couldn’t let this pass. Andrew simply has a huge blind spot when it comes to the credibility of the Swift Boat vets, because and (as far as I can tell) only because he doesn’t want to believe them. I’m confident that he hasn’t read the book, or he couldn’t possibly write this sort of nonsense.

When it comes to “maniacs,” let me present exhibit A: Lawrence O’Donnell, face red, veins bulging out of his neck, in a complete on-air meltdown, repeatedly screaming “Liar”” and “Creep!” at a calm, collected John O’Neill on Scarborough Country late last October. And Andrew calls the Swift Boat vets maniacs?

[Update at noon eastern]

Thomas Lipscomb asks whether Kerry really released the records. If I were a betting man, I know where my money would be…

New French PM de Villepin says that France can be restored through “Gallic genius.

Hate to break it to you, Dominique, but “Gallic genius” is exactly what got you into the mess you’re in in the first place…

John O’Neill says that the latest modified, limited hangout from Kerry doesn’t answer the mail:

We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry’s Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry’s Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.

As Hugh Hewitt points out:

Imagine if in response to the TANG controversy of last year, the president had authorized the Texas National Guard to provide his records to the Dallas Morning News and only the News. Would the furor over their release have subsided?

Of course not, and that’s why the Kerry SF 180 lies have been so interesting to follow in the media –a sort of perfect example of MSM bias in real time. The bias continues, of course, as is evident in the handling of the story today.

[Update a few minutes later]

I’ve always been stupefied at the notion that Kerry was so brilliant, as his campaign attempted to portray him. He always seemed to me to be a subpar intellect, with speechifying that would only appeal to people who mistook ponderous bellowing that never quite gets to the point with oratory “nuance.” In a post appropriately titled “Not Too Swift,” Roger Simon agrees:

Kerry was clearly not the brightest bulb, but we knew that. One of the more interesting obfuscations (deliberate and otherwise) that went on… and continues to go on to some extent… about the last presidential campaign is that Bush was the dumb one. In actuality, I always thought one of the reasons for Kerry’s famous flip-flopping, possibly the key reason, was that the Senator didn’t really understand the issues. I know this sounds rash and almost vicious, but he seemed to have some kind of cognitive disorder. There may be a lot of that in politics. After all, rational discourse is not often rewarded. Talking endlessly around a subject is.

I continue to be amazed that he got as many votes as he did (many more than I expected him to, last summer). It can only be attributable to irrational Bush hatred.