Via Instapundit comes a link that should get wide play . . . but will it?

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the Guantanamo detention center is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he is still going to do it.

. . . .

Holder said his visit to the site was instructive. He met with military officials and toured the facilities, including the court setting where military commissions were to be held until Obama suspended them.

He said he did not witness any rough treatment of detainees, and in fact found the military staff and leadership performing admirably.

“I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way,” he said.

Instapundit says: “Now they tell us.” True — but some of us knew this all along.

“Next time you invite me, I will tell you about the time then Mayor Dianne Feinstein sidled up to me and asked, ‘Carol, will you tell me what a glory hole is?’”

(H/t: ninjapirate420 via Allahpundit.)

A venture capitalist before Obama’s speech last night: “Every time the guy speaks, the Dow starts falling.”

And whaddya know. Early in the day, Reuters reported:

U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday on disappointment U.S. President Barack Obama provided few new clues about how his administration would shore up the economy in a major speech before Congress.

The market briefly bounced back late in the day, and before the close of trading, was up 32 points. ennuipundit wryly observed:

President Obama today (as of 3:20) has created or saved an add’l 32 stock points

Heh.

And that prediction remained correct! True, at the close of trading the Dow was down 80 points. But if it hadn’t been for the 32 points Obama created or saved, it would have been 112.

So, you know, thank God for that speech.

You can’t make this stuff up:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has ordered a review of a raid earlier this week at a Bellingham, Wash., manufacturing plant that ended with the arrests of 28 illegal immigrants.

Napolitano told lawmakers during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that she did not know about the raid before it happened and was briefed on it early Wednesday morning. She has asked U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducted the raid, for answers.

“I want to get to the bottom of this as well,” she said. She said work-site enforcement needs to be focused on the employers.

So, now it’s wrong for ICE to arrest illegal immigrants?

Make no mistake: comments like that ensure that raids like that aren’t going to happen again. If a top federal official says she’s conducting a review of a raid because illegals were arrested instead of employers, lower-level bureaucrats will get the message loud and clear.

Look. I’ve repeatedly argued on this site that the federal government should prioritize deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes after they enter the country. Had Napolitano said she wanted to see fewer workplace raids in order to divert resources to deport criminals, I’d be all for it.

But she didn’t say that. Instead, she made it sound like it’s wrong to arrest illegals. And it isn’t. They’re violating the law.

If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with arresting the employers (as long as we deport the criminals first). But proving such violations can be a very tall order because illegals (including the ones described in the story) often use fake documentation.

If ICE agents can’t amass enough evidence to charge the employers, why on God’s Green Earth would it be wrong for them to arrest the illegals they find? And why would the head of Homeland Security be sending a message to ICE agents that arresting illegals is wrong??

Thanks to Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Slightly rewrote a sentence in the next-to-last paragraph for clarity (“that” replaced with “arresting the employers” and link added).

Yes, says Variety. And The New York Times. And your little dog, too!

[D]oes Murdoch want to follow News Corp.’s $5 billion buyout of Dow Jones by gobbling up the struggling New York Times Co.?

The answer appears to be yes, as impossible as present economic conditions make it for most deals of any kind to get done.

What’s more, incredulous News Corp. insiders say Murdoch’s love of print media is so fervent that he’s also been talking about a play for the Los Angeles Times, which could make easier prey for several reasons.

All hail Rupert Murdoch’s love for print media!

Allahpundit calls it too good to check, and indeed, a staunch conservative could pass hours daydreaming about snarky responses to liberals upset about the L.A. Times‘s conservative bias. “Stop whining.” “Why can’t liberals produce a paper that sells?” All the unfair and stupid arguments they have made for years, thrown back in their faces!

All I ever really wanted was a paper that was fair, and reported the facts — straight down the middle, without distortions and misrepresentations.

But if I can’t have that, a Los Angeles Times owned by Rupert Murdoch would be an improvement over what we have now.

P.S. If you followed my Twitter feed, you would have known about this at lunchtime.

Pretty good fact-check of the speech here. A sample:

President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

. . . .

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus.

This business about creating “or saving” jobs is particularly annoying. As Matt Welch said: “Is there anyone listening to that that doesn’t see the B.S. in it?”

But in the whole speech, probably the most aggravating statement was this: “I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks . . .” Now, if there weren’t technically “earmarks” in it then it’s not technically “false.” But the implication that there is no pork in the stimulus — an implication that Obama repeats constantly — is the biggest lie imaginable.

But hey. The Big Lie is the one that’s easiest to miss.

My sister’s new blog is a mixture of personal stuff and her views on politics. There are lots of pictures of my nephew, which I love — as well as his stirring rendition of America the Beautiful. I especially love the decisive gesture at “above the fruited plain.”

Her blog takes after mine in this sense: like mine, her blog name is derived from a nickname given by our dad.

Via Instapundit, who asks if this image was the scariest moment of the night.

Answer to the question: no. The scariest moment was the whole thing. (OK, I didn’t watch it, but it’s Obama. I know what he’s trying to do.)

But yeah, this is bad.

It seemed completely stupid and pointless at first, but I just needed the right software to implement it properly. What it is, is basically a giant chat room. Which is neat, if you like that kind of thing.

Now, on my computer screen, there is a chat window, and I choose who I want to listen to. When Michelle Malkin or Allahpundit or Jim Treacher says something, their message pops up with a sound alert (which can be turned off) and I can reply to it if I wish. People following me can send me messages and I reply to them. It all happens in real time. I may grow to dislike it, but for now it seems pretty cool. Distracting, but cool.

It was especially neat last night, during the speech, because everyone was on talking about the same thing. When it works, it’s a lot like doing one of those “Cover It Live” chats that I sometimes do here late in the evening. Only it’s on all the time. (If I want it to be.)

So if you enjoy those chats, you really should sign up. It’s a continuous live chat at your fingertips. It’s better than the live chats with me, because you can interact with people who are funnier and more interesting than I am — people like Jim Treacher and Allahpundit and Michelle Malkin . . . the list goes on.

If this interests you, I’ll explain what you need to do. Sign up for a Twitter account here. Download the twhirl client here. You will also need Adobe AIR to run the twhirl client.

That’s it. Do that, and you’re good to go.

If you sign up, make sure to check out my Twitter feed and “follow” me. You can see the people I’m following and decide whether you’d like to follow their posts as well. Sign on and chat away.

P.S. Everyone is welcome, but I especially need some West Coasters on it, because this sucker quiets down at night when everyone on the East Coast is asleep. Night owls on Central and Mountain Time are coveted as well.

P.P.S. Thanks to @ennuipundit for explaining this to me.