February 26th, 2014

The lawless lawyer of the Obama administration

Attorney General Eric Holder to state AGs: disregard your oaths of office. I did!:

Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.”

That last sentence is Holder’s idea of an Orwellian joke.

To clarify what the law should be: a state attorney general is sworn to uphold and defend his/her state’s laws. If he/she can’t do that, resign. Better yet, stay and uphold one’s oath by defending the law competently in an appeal. That way the issue will have its day in a higher court with a proper defense, so that the higher court can decide the law’s constitutionality and determine how that particular case stands in terms of a “core constitutional issue” such as equal protection.

An AG is not a judge. If an AG wants to become an appeals court judge and decide such questions, he/she is free to attempt to do so. AGs have some discretion, of course, in the cases they choose to prosecute in their own state. But they should not have discretion in choosing whether or not to defend a duly-passed and never-declared-unconstitutional law of their own state. And the AG of the US should not be encouraging them to choose not to defend such laws, either.

Eric Holder knows that. And the fact that he is ignoring it, and dictating otherwise to state AGs (a highly unusual action for a US Attorney General, as even the NY Times admits), is in fact “political and based on policy objections.”

Disgraceful. And yet so typical of this administration.

41 Responses to “The lawless lawyer of the Obama administration”

  1. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    When morality is determined by ideology, anything that advances the agenda of that ideology is a morally permissible action.

    That advocates of the view that “the end justifies the means” never examine their need to cheat, lie, steal, engage in hypocrisy, etc., etc. in order to advance their ideological agenda is prima facie evidence of their willful denial of the moral bankruptcy of the ideology they advocate.

    Holder is a man who rationalizes and justifies his unethical actions and because his motivations are ideological, there is nothing such a man will not contemplate.

    I’ve reached the conclusion that he’s a closeted fanatic and “A fanatic is a man who does, what he knows God would do . . . if only God had all the facts of the matter” Finley Peter Dunne

  2. Lizzy Says:

    Trickle-down tyranny.

    If Obama can ignore, re-interpret of re-write laws to his liking, why not Holder and the state attorneys general? The fish rots from the head down.

  3. parker Says:

    When those who have sworn an oath to faithfully enforce the laws of a nation (or a state) decide to pick and choose in this manner there is no rule of law and the government is no longer worthy of respect and can expect disobedience to spread.

  4. DonS Says:

    Now we are watching our country become a banana republic in real time.

  5. neo-neocon Says:


    Double time, I’d say.

    Although this was foreshadowed even before the 2008 election.

  6. kaba Says:

    How soon will we see defense attorneys using the “Holder Defense”? Because it would appear that it is perfectly OK to ignore laws we find morally objectionable.

  7. Mike Says:

    Civilization has two choices: Law or Chaos and Destruction.

    Holder and Obama represent the spirit of primordial chaos let loose on the world.

    That is what they are. They are not going to change.

    OUR choice is different. Are we Men and Women or boys and girls. Are we the protectors and guarantors of civilization or are we peasants underfoot.

    That’s all. It’s pretty simple. We know what they are. WE are the only question remaining.

    The rest is crapunza as they say.

  8. Steve Says:

    We have the Justin Bieber Smoking Gun arrest video posted now on CC:


  9. JuliB Says:

    I felt the same reaction when they failed to defend Prop whatever in CA some time back. The government must abide by the laws made by the people. It speaks to the insanity of the age that all are not in open revolt.

  10. expat Says:

    Maybe the state legislatures should include a provision in their laws that failure to enforce them will result in automatic impeachment of the AG.

  11. Kyndyll Says:

    Regardless of how I feel about a given law, I agree – as a nation of laws, we respect our laws by enforcing them. If it’s a bad law, or a law that no longer meets the needs of its constituents, there are avenues to redress that. Disregarding laws is one step closer to becoming a complete banana republic.

  12. neo-neocon Says:


    Prop 187. Killing it was Gray Davis’ legacy.

    I have a draft for a post on that, but haven’t gotten around to writing the whole post. Here’s the relevant history, though.

  13. Charles Says:

    I saw this the other day; shook my head saying to myself that it is just another sign that we, as a nation, have passed the point of no return.

    There will be no returning the US to what it was before Obama took office.

  14. Ymarsakar Says:

    Of this Regime, yea. Typical of this regime.

  15. Kyndyll Says:

    This is classic leftism. Because the existing system of laws and law enforcement sometimes has things go wrong, the entire system is broken and must be ignored or replaced. (Leftists typically hate cops and law enforcement, despite the fact that no one would be less able to handle the real-life outcome of no law enforcement than the average gun-hating, “can’t we all just get along if we respect each other’s diversity” urban leftist.) Moreover, actual enforcement of laws equally is inherently unfair to the left’s pet victim groups, so the left insists on reserving the right enforce laws when, if and as it sees fit in its infinite wisdom.

  16. Edie Says:

    I am enjoying your ‘changling’ story.
    I am a changling, too — an artist in Seattle!
    An odd duck indeed. I drew a series of
    cartoons about my predicament before the
    last election so I will link it for you if you feel
    like some amusement. It kinda makes me
    seem like a RINO but I’m a work in progress.
    Link to: Edie Everette — The Secret Life of the Only Republican Artist in Fiercely Liberal Seattle

  17. Cornhead Says:

    Every day I wonder what George Orwell would think about what is happening today.

    I had no idea that “Animal Farm” and “1984″ would be so important when it was assigned reading at my Jesuit high school in the 70s.

  18. Oblio Says:

    It is the end of the rule of Law and so the end of the Republic.

    After Marius, then Sulla.

  19. Lurch Says:

    Why should I obey laws when our rulers disregard them? This is a serious question that I struggle with.

  20. parker Says:

    “Why should I obey laws when our rulers disregard them? This is a serious question that I struggle with.”

    ;-) no need to struggle. I obey laws that I see as legitimate and in keeping with the Constitution. I’m a 9th & 10th guy. Don’t tread on me and everything else that that implies. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” – H. L. Mencken

    When the law is disregarded by the elite and only applies to the hoi polloi you are no longer living under the rule of law, but instead the arbitrary rule of the elite minority. F&^% them.

  21. Mac Says:

    Funny stuff, Edie.

  22. Beverly Says:

    I like your toons, Edie! I really got a chuckle out of the one about Limbaugh.

    When my liberal birdbrain brother in law taunted me with being a “ditto-head,” I had no idea what he meant, then indignantly refuted the charge of listening to “that man!!!” My paleo-conservative brother said, “Well, he’s on from noon to three on this radio station in your area” (new york city, amazing).

    A week later, I put on my Headphones so my neighbors wouldn’t hear, and, feeling like I was in a Soviet basement listening to Radio Free Europe, I tuned him in. Braced for him to be the prince of darkness, the satanic womanhater they said he was.

    After three hours, I took off the headphones, and I had the weirdest feeling: “So. They lied about this, too. Well, that’s everything, then.” Because I agreed with everything he said that day, thought he sounded like a rather genial, almost garden-variety Republican of the old school: not a monster at all. In fact, on a couple of issues, I was to the right of him!

    But the anti-Limbaugh animus was the last bastion of my former Democrat beliefs to fall: I started voting for them many years ago on account of conservation (not eco-Nazism) and women’s rights: in the 1970s and 1980s.

    I happened to be listening to RL on the day he said all that about professional agent provocateuse Sandra Fluke. That’s when I saw how it was done: Rush said that the woman was a) 30 years old, not a dewy-eyed coed of 18; b) had enrolled in a Catholic university after stating to her confreres that she was doing it with the express purpose of attacking the Catholic Church; c) that she had claimed in the Congressional hearing that it cost her (IIRC) $9000/year to pay for contraceptives.

    So Rush mischievously did the math on how many condoms you can buy with $9000, and what sort of woman would need that many (a slut), and the rest is history.

    The Leftists twisted this into “Rush Limbaugh says that any woman who wants contraception is a slut!” When, of course, he said nothing of the kind. He DID ask why she was getting the red carpet treatment in Congress, and why no one was looking into her career of being an agent provocateuse, and why the Catholics should be forced to pay for contraception when they were opposed to birth control. Overall, he asked what had become of religious freedom.

    All that was drowned out in a positive gale of leftwing shrieking that the infamous misogynist had called all sexually active women sluts.

    Mind you, I’m not saying I think he’s perfectly evolved on women’s issues, but hey. The guy had some pretty good points there.

    The moral of this story is, They lie about Everything. And I mean Everything. Been listening to Rush for a couple of years now. ;-)

  23. Ymarsakar Says:

    99% of the time, you can invert what Leftist propaganda claims to be true, and it’ll be the real truth.

    For example, they called Bush a war criminal, a Hitler wannabe, some fascist with his Patriot Act, and waging a war for ulterior benefits.

    If you invert this, the Left were the ones hoping for their war criminal, their Hitler wannabe, their fascist with the bills. Bush’s problem was that he was doing things that the Left found disturbing, as he wasn’t loyal to the Leftist alliance.

    If you invert their accusations of homosexual phobia and misogyny, it’s much more accurate. Thus 99% of the time, what they accuse people of, is only ever true of the Left.

  24. M J R Says:

    Lurch, 11:22 pm — “Why should I obey laws when our rulers disregard them? This is a serious question that I struggle with.”

    In a vaguely similar vein, if our rulers print up paper money with the printing presses in overdrive, with no genuine regard for the value of the buck . . . why should I bother to pay federal income taxes? They’ll print up the money whether I kick in my share or not, and that’s true in principle, not because I’m just a retired middle-income 99-percenter. The principle holds whether I’m a struggling laborer or whether I’m a Koch Brother. They’ll just print it up anyway.

    (By the way, I pay my taxes diligently, because despite my question above, I’m chicken. Hear me cluck.)

  25. Frank Dineen Says:

    May I second Mac in applauding Edie Everette’s disarming satire. A plucky young lady, uncowed by the prevailing zeitgeist of our flaccid (to borrow Edie’s usage) republic’s far left corner. Heartening.

  26. Ymarsakar Says:

    M J R, the IRS seems to be the soft glove so far. Compared to the SWAT police union trained death squads who have been killing people by the dozens and getting away with it, I would be more worried about that. The worst the IRS can do is bankrupt you, your family, and put you in jail.

    The worst the Left’s goons can do is put you in the ground, and get suspended, paid vacation.

  27. Matt_SE Says:

    If the Senate goes Republican in 2014, it would probably still be too dangerous to go after Obama. But Holder is another matter entirely.
    He’s announced that he might retire. This is one of those trial balloons floated for just such an eventuality.

  28. Matt_SE Says:

    And BTW, if Holder is gotten rid of somehow, his replacement won’t be much better.
    The newly-Republican Senate would never confirm another rabid partisan, so Obama won’t nominate one (at least, not one he seriously expects to get through the process).
    The deputy AG will take over and continue in that job until the Obama administration ends. Whoever is in the deputy’s job now MUST be about as partisan as Holder.

    Then, we’ll get treated to several months of “the benefit of the doubt” until this person PROVES they’re an asshat.

  29. FOAF Says:

    Good stuff, Edie! For me, the money quote is “this inability to even discuss politics in Seattle got me so spittin’ mad that I tipped to the right”. Beyond all the serious issues we discuss from Benghazi to Obamacare is the stark fact that the left is about control and under Obama they have advanced this agenda to a frightening degree.

  30. ErisGuy Says:

    Once laws are excessive, pettifogging, and moralizing, ignoring them is the only solution short of revolution.

    It’s not as if the people have any right to live in a manner not found to be moral by their rulers.

  31. ErisGuy Says:

    You wrote disgraceful, but transformational applies as well, and more accurately, since vast numbers of voters agree with Obama.

    The people voted to be transformed into a better people by the Lightworker Obama. Holder furthers his master’s goals.

    The people will be stripped of their silly ideas about Law (its true purpose is to justify the actions of ruling class as it preys on the body politic); the government will regulate every action by the ruler’s morality (no dissent allowed and no tolerance offered), and, since this is apparently Israel Apartheid Week, our new polity (they are the people they have been waiting for) will strive to end the Zionist entity.

    If you don’t want these things, don’t vote for them. I didn’t. Didn’t work.

  32. Ymarsakar Says:

    Far from freeing us from fundamentalism or religious dogma, The Left will create unto Earth an entirely new Theocracy. Better than Iran.

  33. gpc31 Says:

    Holder has always been a lawless thug. He began his long march at Columbia:

  34. Oldflyer Says:

    I used to wonder how reasonably sophisticated societies degenerated into tyranny.

    I think we are witnessing a demonstration. One unchallenged step after another, until it is too late.

  35. artfldgr Says:

    Disgraceful. And yet so typical of this administration.

    typical of a Soviet Administration
    you know, like the new one in the Ukraine as soviets stormed and put their russian flag up… (not to mention the war ship that they docked at cuba, and the troops they amassed at the border, like georgia).

    one cant make a good comparisson as to what is normal in other governments if one does not know how they work.

    i read over and over and underneath the flow of things i see that people are discussing something they know collectivly, but that collective view is like mistaking Phil Robertson for Marylin Monroe

    and funnier, they wont stop arguing that that is marylin… the problem once you start discussing a fantasy or a false argument, you then are stuck with it. you HAVE to ignore anything that corrects anything, as that would cause such to expand out, like the bursting of a ballon on a pin.

    so many are so proud of their theories, they would rather ignore a fact, just so they can keep talkign as to their ideas and fallacies as if they are real.

    dont let reality get i the way of a good idea
    and will say that about the others, while doing it themselves.

    New NSA Docs Confirm Long-Held Blogger Fears: There Are Government Trolls Among Us

    On his The Intercept blog this week, Greenwald provides documents from Snowden’s NSA cache which provide a look at some of the tactics employed by the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a spy agency that has been shown to have a close working relationship with the American spy agency.

    so basically, you have governments roaming around the internet injecting false information, that you guys waste time discussing!!!!!!!!

    failure to constantly correct for the errors is like a ship never correcting for windage and expecting to get to its destination…

    it never does.
    facts are course corrections for thinking

    so ignoring them, is like ignoring the directions on how to get someplace. and expecting to not only arrive, but to arrive early.

    take a step back and listen to yourselves.

    so close to the tree, you only see trunk, and are discussing minutea, and completely missing the tree, the forest, the county, the continent, the state, and the world..
    [edited for length by n-n]

  36. neo-neocon Says:


    Everyone here is well aware that this is typical of Soviets and the left in general.

    Why harangue everyone as though they are unaware?

    People do not spell out the obvious every time they observe something. Omissions do not imply ignorance, although sometimes they do.

  37. artfldgr Says:

    The Manifesto produced by the Eighty-one-Party Congress (November 1960) and Khrushchev’s speech of January 6, 1961



    These two basic documents have continued to determine the course of communist policy to the present day.

    They explain in detail how the triumph of communism throughout the world is to be achieved through the consolidation of the economic, political, and military might of the communist world and the undermining of the unity and strength of the noncommunist world.

    The use by communist parties of a variety of violent and nonviolent tactics is specifically authorized.

    Peaceful coexistence is explicitly defined as “an intense form of class struggle between socialism and capitalism.”

    The exploitation by world communism of economic, political, racial, and historical antagonisms between noncommunist countries is recommended.

    Support for “national liberation” movements throughout the Third World is reemphasized.

    Agreement between the communist leaders on a new Leninist program for world revolution was only half the battle.

    A strategy was needed for putting such a program into effect at a time when the subject populations in the communist bloc were seriously alienated from their communist regimes and when the militarily superior Western powers were determined to resist the further spread of communism.

    Some aspects of the strategy, such as united fronts with socialists in the advanced capitalist countries and support for national liberation movements in the Third World, were openly proclaimed.

    But the decision to use systematic, strategic disinformation as an essential component of the strategy clearly had to be carefully concealed.

    The communist strategists appreciated that the major disadvantage of the pursuit by all the parties of the bloc of a uniform and openly aggressive policy was that a combination of ideological zeal with monolithic unity would alarm the noncommunist world and force it into greater cohesion and possibly into a vigorous and coordinated response to the communist threat.

    This would lead at best to a continuation of the East-West status quo, and at worst to heavier pressure on the communist world from a West equipped with a superior nuclear arsenal.

    so the idea was to split up..
    break up and liberalize the state and the left would believe they gave up the great game
    we would remove our anti communist laws
    we would not evne care about communists in our state or legal area

    you know..
    like the perosn your talking about

    but you dont get.
    as soon as you get rid of holder, another will pick up a rifle and the vanguard will take up the line and continue.. until they win, or there are no more people to put up…

    it ratified the use of varying tactics by individual communist
    parties within the framework of the long-range policy and, in place of
    a controlling center, called for the coordination and synchronization of
    policy and tactics between bloc and nonbloc parties.

    Thus, while coordination was in fact improved, the decision not to create a new,
    overt central body, the emphasis on “polycentrism,”
    and the use of a
    variety of different tactics by communist parties

    ie. the public will look for a leader of the conspiracies and army
    but that is back in russia, and no one has access to that (or china)

    so here, they evolved, like a virus… to hide themselves.
    if you look for leaders of conspiracies and such
    then dissolve the comminterm, dissolve and negate the cpusa
    and convert the whole of the structure, to non structure

    then when looking for it, they wont find the smoking gun

    and the fools wont even get how this work
    so confused they wont listen to experiene, or knowlege
    they will instead, fall back to comfortable falsehoods and lies
    rather than uncomfortable truths… which also reflect themselves

    you all been taken in by Vanguardism…
    In the context of the theory of revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, known as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies.

    you know.. like racial groups, feminism, and taking over things like boy scouts, girl scouts, etc.. the democrats, etc… its all like a net. with each group making a net to gather the group under it, and then vote its power (even if that group doesnt want what they are doing, like destryction of marraige and family for women).

    go ahead.
    look back
    been trying to inform you on all this soviet stuff for a decade
    falls on deaf ears and the incurious
    [edited for length by n-n]

  38. neo-neocon Says:


    See my comment above. Most people here are quite aware—not of every detail of Soviet history—but of the influence of Soviets and the left in people such as Obama, Holder, and the US left in general. Why do you keep positing ignorance?

  39. artfldgr Says:

    Attorney General Eric Holder to state AGs: disregard your oaths of office. I did!

    so now you find out why the soviets dont want oaths of office!!! it becomes a test of their selves, and one they would fail!!!!!!!!!!!

    or dont you guys remember the loyalty oath?

    The oaths were repeatedly challenged on grounds that they violated the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of association. The United States Supreme Court avoided addressing these problems during the McCarthy Era. During the 1960s, it began striking down such oaths on the basis of vagueness and undue breadth.

    and so the blocks to communizing the children were removed, and now the children of the children of the children are the ones crapping on police cars believing they are oppressed and will finally be free in totaliarian utopia

    and sadly HOLDER is not violating the oaths of office and such as they have no more weight. what he is doing is using a soviet political thing… (always)

    our form of government does not allow for the delegation of powers, as powers not owned by the one given to, cant be given to another..

    bad wording, but basically, if you give me power to drive your car, that does not give me the power to loan the car out again to other people.

    the soviet system is different…

    a soviet state delegates power not only for control but as a reward for followers… it does so to negate the publics control…

    the public cries. wheres my car that i loaned you.. the person its loaned to says, i cant get it back, lots of people are using it…

    and so the owner of the power loses it this way!!!
    easy to stop, but not if your ignorant of it

    It’s a system where the very constitution has never been carried out for one single day; where all the decisions mature in secrecy, high up in a small irresponsible group and then are released on us and on you like a bolt of lightning. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn / Words of Warning to the Western World

    so we are stuck in a system where these people make stuff up, then lie to us to get us to do what they need for the short while… (after that, your disposable, or not needed, and then who cares other than you?)

    these things hit like a bolt of lightning… equality… social justice… etc.

    none of this is from the people below, its all being casted down from above, and the games and tactics and such are 100 years old and more.

    in soviet russia, Holder would be the prosecutor general.

    The Prosecutor General remains the most powerful component of the Russian judicial system

    why not see what THAT job is like compared to the one we THINK Holder has?

    The Office of the Prosecutor General is entrusted with:

    prosecution in court on behalf of the State;
    representation of the interests of a citizen or of the State in court in cases determined by law;
    supervision of the observance of laws by bodies that conduct detective and search activity, inquiry and pre-trial investigation;
    supervision of the observance of laws in the execution of judicial decisions in criminal cases, and also in the application of other measures of coercion related to the restraint of personal liberty of citizens.

    The Prosecutor General and his office are independent from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of power.

    so THATs what he is…
    given that this entity is independent, it can choose whether to use a law or not… as long as its in the furtherance of the larger goals…

    here is his job description
    (the one he follows)

    the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation shall carry out the following:

    supervision over the execution of laws by federal ministries, state committees, services and other federal executive authorities, representative (legislative) and executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies, military administration bodies, supervisory bodies and officials thereof, governing bodies and heads of commercial and non-commercial organisations, and also supervision to ensure that any legal instruments issued by them are in conformity with the law;

    supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms by federal ministries, state committees, services and other federal executive authorities, representative (legislative) and executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies, military administration bodies, supervisory bodies and officials thereof, and by governing bodies and heads of commercial and non-commercial organisations;

    see? in the soviet union, the FDA, EPA, and so on get to make laws… and holders job in the new soviet is to make sure that those new laws from these delegated places are follwoed…

    he gets to pick and choose as he is the protector of the thing… (here in the US we the people USED to do that as we told them what the rules were, now they tell us)

  40. Matt_SE Says:

    Yeah. We got it, Art.
    We don’t need to know every nitpicky detail of Soviet thought in order to get to the gist of it.
    Just like we don’t need to be mechanical engineers in order to drive a car.

  41. Ymarsakar Says:

    Art’s prophet status isn’t as effective as he thinks, because a prophet promises salvation by worshiping a deity or doing something commanded by a higher power.

    What does Art think is a higher power than the Leftist alliance in the 21st century? Himself?

    Obviously there’s some kind of continuity problem there if you wish to go the way of the Prophet.

    There’s really only two choices. War or slavery. Kill or not.

    Which ones is Art going to do with? Because jaw jawing isn’t enough by itself.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge